Restorative_Justice

Neil Harvey LLB (Hons) – T1853127 IS RESTORATIVE JUSTICE A NEW WAY FORWARD FOR THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN THE 21ST CENTURY' Submitted for the Degree of MA Social Policy and Criminology. Date of Submission: March 2009 ABSTRACT Restorative Justice (also referred to as RJ) is a process for dealing with conflict between people and is often used to deal with crime. This repairs harm and allows the victim and offender to move forward. The project asks the question, “Is Restorative Justice a New Way Forward for the Criminal Justice System in the Twenty First Century'” The research of the subject using Ethnography has been carried out using professionals working within the Criminal Justice System (CJS). The participants were interviewed in depth, allowing a real life view of the subject. This led to some clear examples and evidence of the use of Restorative Justice within the Criminal Justice system context. The participants show how successful the conferences have been. The research shows Restorative Justice has been used in most European countries over the last 20 Years. It also highlights how the process of Restorative Justice has been focused primarily on working with young people and their offending .The observation of the process outlines how it is used with a young person who is receiving a final warning and the method of trying to get the offender to understand the damage that is caused by their offending. The main conclusion of the project is that the use of Restorative Justice is not seen as sanction detection in relation to the Police performance culture. This is the case regardless of the clear evidence that it has a positive effect on the offender and victim, and helps to prevent re offending. The project clearly adds to the knowledge surrounding the subject and also identifies that the use of Restorative Justice needs to receive positive publicity to help rebuild public confidence in the Criminal Justice System. AUTHORSHIP STATEMENT I hereby testify that this dissertation and the work it reports are entirely my own. When it has been necessary to draw from the work of others, published or unpublished, I have acknowledged such work in accordance with accepted scholarly and editorial principles. Furthermore, I have not previously published any work relevant to this dissertation and no parts of the current research have been submitted for a degree or other qualification of the Open University or any other university institution. I give this testimony freely, out of respect for the scholarship of other professionals in the field and in the hope that my own work, presented here, will earn similar respect. Neil Harvey. List of Contents | Page | Abstract | 2 | Authorship Statement | 3 | List of Contents | 4 | Chapter 1. Introduction | 5 | Chapter 2. The History and Working of Both the English Legal System and Restorative Justice | 8 | Chapter 3. Literature Review | 20 | Chapter 4. Methodology | 36 | Chapter 5. Analysis of the Data | 45 | Chapter 6. Overview of Research Dissertation | 54 | Appendix A; Interview Questions | 56 | Appendix B; Interview 5 | 59 | Appendix C; Notes of Observation | 64 | Appendix D; Information Sheet | 67 | Bibliography | 68 | Chapter 1. Introduction. The research question for this project relates to the social construction of Restorative Justice and how it works on repairing the harm between offenders and victims of crime within the Criminal Justice System. The research question asks whether “Restorative Justice is a new way forward for the Criminal Justice System in Twenty first century”. The question has been asked because as a practitioner working within the Criminal Justice System, there appears to be a drive towards performance set by government rather than working towards outcomes that work for both the victim and offender. The research has been carried out with professionals working within the CJS. This has led to a perception that justice is rarely achieved and this is expressed in the media and covers the spectrum of political ideology. Examples are the argument that the police drive for hitting government targets for crime detections have helped criminalise young people for behaviours that are part of growing up. Headlines in papers where families who have had “loved ones ” killed in road traffic collisions upset by what are described as lenient sentences by courts. Another example is where people have involved themselves in interfering with crimes or bad behaviour and have then been taken to court for minor assaults for trying to be a good citizen. This allows people to believe that “political correctness” has taken over. These are examples that have made the public lose confidence in the System of Criminal Justice. Justice is a human concept and a social construction, it has been explored as such through religion, philosophy and legally. It is described in the Oxford English Dictionary as, “The principle of moral rightness, equity”. It also states, “The quality of being just, fairness and conformity to moral rightness and the quality of being just, fairness In Plato’s Republic “Socrates’ ideas on Justice were explained as,” To render to each his dues” ”Socrates’ further states that Justice relates to goodness and cannot produce harm which he states leads to injustice. Ethnography has been used for this project because it is flexible in approach and it is about looking at people, this is done by using a two sided view, in other words getting all the views of those involved. May describes this method of research, stating that, “Ethnographers gather data by their active participation in a social world, they enter a social universe in which people are already busy interpreting and understanding their environments it does not follow that researchers comprehend the situation as though it were uncontaminated by their social presence . On the contrary, the aim of understanding is actually enhanced by considering how they are affected by the social scene, what goes on within it and how people including themselves, act and interpret within their social situations hence the term participant.”(May 1997 p 138-9) The use of Ethnography will allow the project researcher to see the use of RJ from the practitioner’s view set in the real world. It also allows the researcher to be reflective in the data and in how it is collected and what it means in relation to the research question. In Chapter 2, the history and working of both the English Legal System and Restorative Justice will be outlined and discussed. Chapter 3 will be a full literature review of Restorative Justice Research. Chapter 4 will be the Methodology of the research which will include the framework of the research, data collection and analysis. The Chapter will also include the role of the researcher and ethical discussions. Chapter 5 will be the analysis of the data and outline the conclusions Chapter 6 this will be a complete overview of the project and conclusion and will examine the research question The reason for the use of ethnography in the research project is because it allows professionals within the CJS to actually explain how RJ is used and if it benefits the victim/offender and if it also prevents re-offending .The research also tries to establish if it builds confidence in the system of Justice. Whilst the project has been in the making there have been some changes with the use of RJ. These have included the Police using a Youth Restorative Disposal as a way of detecting a crime. This prevents the early criminalisation of young people and allows for reparation for the actions and behaviour. Police will also be concentrating on outcomes using Restorative Justice instead of relying solely on formal punishments from the Criminal Justice System; this will mean the further use of RJ. The project has used in depth interviews ,and the observation of a RJ outcome at a Police station whilst a young person was receiving a final warning for an offence of aggravated vehicle taking. The use of these methods of research has allowed an in depth look at the subject .There has been limited research into the subject using ethnography and it is hoped that this dissertation will add to the body of knowledge on the subject by utilising the views of those working within the system .This will be discussed in greater depth in further chapters. One of the questions throughout the project is whether Restorative Justice prevents offending and helps victims with the over arching view does it build confidence in Justice' If all or part of these questions can be answered in a positive way then RJ may well be the new Justice for this century. Chapter 2. The History and Working of both the English Legal System and Restorative justice. The following chapter will outline the concept of RJ and how it is used followed by a brief look at the English CJS. 2.1 Restorative justice. Restorative Justice is a term that refers to a social construction that is used in Criminal Justice and other social systems such as school disciplinary systems. The emphasis is the restoring the victim, offender and community, instead of punishment of the offender. One definition is that, “Restorative justice works to resolve conflict and repair harm. It encourages those who have caused harm to acknowledge the impact of what they have done and gives them an opportunity to make reparation .It offers those who have suffered harm the opportunity to have their harm or loss acknowledged and amends made.”(Liebmann 2007 p12 ) Advocates of RJ suggest that once the full facts of a crime or wrong doing have been established that the priority is not to punish the offender but to make sure the following is achieved. To meet the victim’s needs and to ensure that the offender is fully aware of the damage they have caused to the people and their liability to repair the damage. A further definition which explains the ideology of RJ states, “Restorative Justice aims to restore the well being of victims, offenders and communities damaged by crime, and to prevent further offending”. (Liebmann 2007 p16 ) There are many further definitions of Restorative Justice , Helen Reeves (2003) the Chief Executive of Victim Support (a charity that helps victims), whilst writing an article for the Restorative Justice Consortium , suggests that any approach that is deemed to be restorative must have included attempts to put things right for the actual victim of crime. The main principles of RJ are as follows: 1. The support of the victim and healing are a priority. The main concept of the CJS is to deal with the offender however the victim is often overlooked. There have been many initiatives within the CJS to facilitate the importance of the offender but still the offender is the centre of the system. For RJ to work the principle of the victim being a priority has to remain the central point. 2. Offenders take responsibility for what they have done. Offenders have been punished and, are aware of this part of the system. The current construction of the Criminal Justice System often leads offenders to believe that when they have been punished that this will be the end of the matter. In RJ the offender has to be in a position to say, “Yes, I did it and I take responsibility for the harm I caused “. This is the starting point to RJ. 3. There is dialogue to achieve understanding. Victims are full of questions about the offence and why they were the victim. Examples are, “Why me' Why my house'” There will only be one person who can answer that question. Offenders often do not understand how they have harmed the victim. They do not realise how much upset they have caused the victim and this can have a large effect on the offender and how they view future offending . This dialogue is not available through the formal court system. 4. There is an attempt to put right the harm done. The next part of the process is having taken responsibility for the harm the offender has to do something to put right, the harm caused. An apology can be a start and in some cases this maybe all that can be achieved, however sometimes practical measures have to be carried out such as the mending of a fence or similar. There are times when the community as a whole has been harmed an example of this could be where an offender has drawn graffiti in a public place. In this case RJ could be the offender removing graffiti from a wall. Often an offender does not have the skills to carry out the reparation and help from the community to complete this may be required. 5. Offenders look at how to avoid any future offending. If offenders have realised the harm and damage caused then they do not like to repeat those behaviours. This can prevent them from re-offending. There are other factors that cause offending such as drug addiction or homelessness. They may also need help with these issues and RJ needs to go hand in hand with other “offender centred programmes”. The strong point of RJ is the meeting with the victim as this gives motivation to the offender to stop the offending. The victims will often show an interest in the offender and want them to stop offending. 6. The community help to reintegrate the victim and the offender. It is very important that the offender needs to be reintegrated back into the community, they will require somewhere to live and the ability to form positive relationships to help them contribute to the community but to do this they need to be part of the community itself. The victim also needs to reintegrate into the community as they often feel alienated and subsequently cut off from others. They therefore need the community to help them during this period. An example of this help is victims support. These are the main elements that are required for RJ to take place and be successful for the victim, offender and the community. The following are the different processes which use the principles of RJ: Mediation, this is a process that brings two parties together who have a disagreement .An example here maybe a neighbour dispute. The mediator brings the two parties together in a non blameworthy way. The mediators will facilitate the ability of both parties to be heard. This will allow both parties to get to an agreement using the principles outlined. Reparation, this is action taken by the offender to put right the harm that has been done. This can be to the community or an individual. It allows the offender to pay compensation or repair any damage. It also allows for community service orders. Victim offender conferencing bring the victim and offender together with supporters in order to repair the damage caused. This process often requires a facilitator to help bring about a RJ outcome. Diversion both within the community and schools, this process allows communities or schools to treat an incident as a dispute, rather than a crime. The process allows the offender to take responsibility for the crime and for reparation. Diversion on arrest prevents an offender going to court. This allows for the police to deal with a youth offender by way of a reprimand or final warning, there has now been the addition of a Youth Restorative Disposal, this deals with the offence without court intervention. There are also cautions or conditional cautions for adults. Offenders are asked to reflect on the harm that they have caused and consider ways to put things right. Family group conference, this is where the victim and offender come together and the victims family decide on reparations. Victim awareness work, this is work carried out with offenders in order to help them understand the effect that their actions or crimes have had on the victim. This can be carried out just to make the offender aware of these issues or to prepare the offender to meet the victim. Restorative Justice can be used as a process instead of punishment or other CJS approaches, an example being where a young person has been involved in a minor crime and RJ is used to put right the harm caused. This can also be the same for adults where an apology and reparation can be used instead of criminalisation. The use of RJ can also be applied after the formal use of the CJS system; this can be ordered by a court or voluntarily. A good example of this is a book titled, The Damage done (2008) by Peter Woolf. This book is written by an ex offender who whilst in prison met with the victim of a burglary that he had committed. As a result of the meeting he realised for the first time the harm that his offending had been causing others. As a result he came out of prison and met again with the victim and they worked together to write the book about his life and how RJ changed his life. The following is a description of a RJ conference; the circumstances are that three young people had been involved in the burglary of a school in which damage was mainly caused to the classroom. The offenders had been to the Youth Court where they received orders to work with the Youth Offending Team (YOT). The YOT worker had spoken to the boys and their parents and it was agreed that RJ may be able to repair some of the harm caused both to the community and the school. The school is the centre of a community on a large housing estate. The offenders lived in the area and had actually attended the school. They also had younger siblings attending the school. The YOT worker also spoke to the head teacher of the school who agreed to take part in the conference which would be facilitated by YOT. The school also requested that the Caretaker who discovered the damage and had to repair it also was allowed to attend. The local Police Sergeant was also requested to attend to outline the crime and problems that this had caused. The school had also collected some letters from pupils outlining how the crime had affected them. The RJ conference was held at the local school and the young people were accompanied by a parent. The details of what had happened were outlined by the YOT worker and then the caretaker was asked to explain what happened from his point of view. The group sat in a large circle .The Caretaker outlined what he had found and the problems that he faced in making repairs .He explained how he felt and how upset he was. The head teacher then outlined how she felt which included the cost to the school and how upset she was to find that they had been past pupils. She also read some of the letters from the pupils about the damage caused to their work. The police officer outlined how much time the investigation had taken the police, and how this time could have been spent helping other people .He also explained how this crime had caused such negative feelings within the community, including people fearing crime because of such incidents. The parents then outlined how they felt. The parents explained how embarrassed they had been by the actions of their children, this included a parent who had to take a younger child to the school each day and how she felt upset by doing this. It was also stated how upset they were by how their children had been the ones who had upset the whole community and they felt ashamed. Feelings were also expressed as to how they felt failures as parents. This had an emotional affect on those present. The young people were asked in turn to explain what they had done, it was explained to those present that they had climbed onto the roof of the school and found a sky light open. They then explained what they had done and why they had done it. When challenged they stated that they felt upset having heard the harm they had caused to the school and the community. They also stated that they were upset by the parents’ reaction and the harm that had been caused to people who loved them. The young people were asked how they should make reparation for the damage that they had caused, this was to try and put things right. They agreed between them to write a letter of apology and help repair some damage. They all apologised to those present for their actions and promised they would not be involved in crime. This was also expressed as being very important to the head teacher who stated that it was really important to her as she wanted all her pupils to achieve all that they could. All those present agreed that this was the most important thing that they wanted to come out of the conference. The facilitator thanked all those present for attending; this included a special thank you to the young people for being involved and making an apology and reparation. The meeting was concluded by all those present breaking away from the formal conference and having some refreshment. The news of the conference was also passed to the community in a very positive way, allowing the young people to be reintegrated to the community that they live in; this is an example of a form of RJ which is a conference. The history of RJ goes back far in time both in the United Kingdom and throughout the world. The ideology of punishment for wrong doing has a short history in comparison to the RJ principles of putting right the wrong that has been done. In the United Kingdom during the Anglo Saxon period the use of RJ was the method used for dealing with disputes which would often be seen in recent times as crimes. This changed during Norman times when such acts were seen as a disruption of the, “King`s Peace ”. These acts were dealt with by the King`s Court. The view was that the act was against everybody and not just the individual. The recent history of RJ in the UK can be found within the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; this brought together partnership working between agencies. This included the use of mediation and restorative conferences and reparation in dealing with young people who had offended. The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 brought in referral orders into the CJS which included the use of RJ in dealing with the crime. The order from the court was not about punishment but about working with young people to prevent offending, this includes RJ. In relation to adult offending the use of RJ is used as outlined in the case of Woolf and in an ad hoc way. This will often be done through mediation or just bringing people together to discuss issues. The Criminal Justice Act 2003, allowed for the use of Conditional cautions. This allows for reparation to be carried out, and a caution to be given by the Police rather than attending court. The roots of RJ can be found in New Zealand in Maori culture, the main area being in family conferences .This is where disputes within families were resolved using RJ. The use and of RJ can be found in the history and traditions of Aboriginal people and Native Americans. There is also evidence of its use in Africa, particularly in Zulu philosophy. The principles of RJ can also be found in the religions of Buddhism, Christianity, Islam and Hinduism amongst other religions. The recent history of RJ around the world is outlined as follows. Canada and USA Canada was the first country to use RJ in the Western hemisphere, this occurred in May 1974, where a probation officer used a form of RJ to deal with a crime. This was in the form of an apology to a householder for damage that was caused. The role of RJ is now used throughout the two countries with around 800 projects in the USA and 200 in Canada. In Norway during 1977 a Norwegian criminologist Nils Christie wrote a paper which argued that crime was being treated more like property and being taken over by professionals such as social workers , lawyers and judges. He argued that services should be given back to the participants to resolve conflicts. Furthermore these participants should be helped by services that can help resolve conflict. New Zealand and Australia. In these countries there was a great deal of dissatisfaction with the Justice System especially from the Maoris who were disproportionately involved. Legislation was passed by the government to allow local communities to be involved in solving the conflict. This led to the use of RJ conferencing for the first time in 1991. This was carried out by uniformed police officers and the process was outlined earlier. The same process of conferencing was brought to the UK for the first time in 1995, when it was used by Thames Valley Police. Europe. Europe started using victim offender mediation at the end of the 1980s. The process is for both young people and adults. Most of the Justice Systems now have a form of RJ diverting offenders from Court. A European framework decision in 2001 stated that victim mediation should be available in all Member States by 2006. Consequently mediation is now available in all the EU states. Africa and Asia. Africa and Asia have a long tradition of using RJ, based on custom. In some of the countries this had be taken over with colonial justice , the use of RJ had now been put back into the Justice System and worked alongside more formal Justice Systems. In Northern Ireland RJ has been used since 1985 , when a voluntary organisation was set up to deal with disputes in neighbourhoods .This developed into the 1990’s and became part of a statutory framework and was used by the Police , Youth Justice and Probation. It further developed after the Good Friday agreement to help deal with some of the political problems and mediation has been used in the peace process. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission was set up in South Africa in the late 1990s to deal with the crimes caused by the apartheid. The promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act No 34 1995, was set up by the government to deal with this issue. The Commission was set up to hear about crimes that had been committed during that period. It allowed for both victims and offenders to appear before the Commission and tell their stories. These often related to human rights abuses specifically crimes against humanity, but there was an amnesty to prosecution to those involved. The Commission did not want to show support to the either side , it had been set up by the South African government and the African National Congress that had fought for liberation against apartheid, all offending parties appeared and admitted to what wrongs that they had done. The Commission was set up to create reconciliation and used forms of RJ and mediation to help keep a peace and to allow victims and offenders to move forward in a new and free South African democracy. The process has had many critics which included the family of Steve Beko who was killed by Police during the apartheid. They argued that they had been denied justice for his murder. 2.2 English Criminal Justice system. In the book Unlocking Criminal Law by Jacqueline Martin and Tony Storey (2004), it is stated that the purpose of Criminal law has not been written down by Parliament, and it has been allowed to develop over hundreds of years, but there is agreement with those working within the system that the aims are: 1. To protect the individual and their property from harm. 2. To preserve order and the, “Queen’s peace”. 3. Punish those who deserve punishment. The classification of a crime is described as, “Conduct that is forbidden by the state and is punishable”. The crimes are defined by Acts of Parliament or Common Law. The system has developed over several hundred years and those who committed crimes went to court and still do go to court. The court system has changed and offenders now go to Magistrates Courts and Crown Courts .The English System of Justice allows a person to be tried by jury but the punishment is decided by a judge as opposed to the jury. In more recent times the punishment is prescribed by Parliament and the Executive of Government . The bases of crimes are offences that relate to the individual, property or public order. The system is not aimed at the victim but about the state taking a case and delivering justice. This has changed in the last 20 years with the court at times taking the victim into account. There is a further system of Justice, which is Civil Law which allows the individual to take action for what are wrongs also known as torts, this system looks to right a wrong that has occurred. The actual CJS in the UK is about bringing offenders to court for them to be punished; this has developed over the last few hundred years. It can be seen that the CJS is mainly about the punishment of offenders. In comparison RJ is about the victim and offender being able to repair the harm that a behaviour or criminal act has caused. The use of RJ is now joining with the CJS to focus and look at the victim and how they have been affected by an offenders behaviour. The argument of this project is that it will become main stream in dealing with crimes and disagreements in the new century. Chapter 3. Literature Review. 3.1 The Literature review that I carried out on research in relation to Restorative Justice was very limited and narrow in approach to the methodology of ethnography. The interviews of the participants were very much formed around the premise of does it or does it not work. The research was carried out with the aim of supporting or formulating government policy in relation to the subject. Therefore the presentations of the results were in the form of percentages in order to support a position on their use. My own research using interviews was more exploratory, looking deeper than just does it work to support policy. The other reviews show the historical position of RJ and the position it takes up both politically and within the context of Criminology. 3.2 The first review will look at Ethnography. Experimental Ethnography .The Marriage of Qualitative and Quantitative research by Lawrence Sherman and Heather Strange (2004). This article starts by outlining that everybody likes a good story, however it comes with a warning; do not believe stories that are not based on evidence. They are also sceptical of just numbers and statistics that represent findings in research. An example given was that it is hard to believe that arresting husbands for assaults on their wives would increase assaults on women. It argues that the best results for research can be found by adding ethnography and numbers together. The article explains that the combination of both would lead to “experimental ethnography”. The article explains that the two camps of research have been on different sides for a long period of time. Ethnography is seen as storytelling and interviewing and giving a social view on research. The article goes onto explain the differences that are seen in medicine and how numerical research was used to support medical research. It gives an example of the statistics relating to the polio vaccine. The chapter goes onto state that the use of storytelling and numbers would help with understanding medical research. This article then goes onto explain how the two methods of research can be used in the field of RJ. The chapter continues to outline how RJ is seen as repairing the harm caused by conflict. An example given relates to a robbery of a nurse .She is invited to meet the offender in prison for a conference. It was also agreed that a researcher would be allowed to observe the conference. The chapter describes the process and examines how the victim is more likely to recover statistically if they are involved in such a conference. It explains that ethnography does not give such opinions but looks at the people individually and tells a story of how it affects the person in different ways. The article details how such research does allow for comparisons and is able to formulate a hypothesis that can not be rigorously tested. It outlines the use of grounded theory to produce results in relation to interviews and observation. It states that this type of investigation does not allow for a large number of people to be involved in the research. The article argues that if it puts ethnography and experimental research together that the results from such a meeting would improve overall research quality. It further argues that the marriage would prove a success .It ends by stating that this would be a good story. This article outlines the use and problems of ethnography which will be shown throughout the research part of the project .It also outlines the use of grounded theory and how this will show a result but not one that can be subjected to or withstand rigorous testing. This will be shown in the analysis chapter of this project. 3.3 The first Restorative Justice review, “Proceed with caution” An evaluation of the implementation and effectiveness of an initiative in restorative cautioning, by Carolyn Hoyle, Richard Young and Roderick Hill (2002). This is an evaluation of the Thames Valley Police initiative into Restorative cautioning. Published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation; the methods used for the research were observations and interviews. A summary of one of the observed cases in which a burglary of a house occurred. Two offenders that entered the house had been charged but a third who played a lesser role received a Restorative caution. The paper outlines a process in which it explains how the householders were invited to attend the conference run by a facilitator (a police officer). The offender had agreed to attend with his father. The observations go through the whole 25 minute process. The conference took place at the local police station. It started with an explanation by the facilitator that there was a script to follow and an explanation of how the process would take place. All the participants were sat in a circle next to their supporter if one was present. The offender was asked to explain what happened; the main part of the explanation was aimed at trying to find out if he understood the harm he has caused. The victim in turn explained how they felt and the harm that had been caused. Each victim took turns in doing this, using plain language which at times was mixed with emotion. The offender then apologised to the victims and the victims accepted his apology. The offender was then asked how he could put the harm right. He was unable to think of anything. At this stage the victims helped by saying that he had apologised and that all they wanted was assurance that he would not offend again. That was the end of the conference. The researcher then interviewed the offender a short time after the process using a set list of questions. The researchers observed 23 cases as above in order to see if they were restorative and whether the script process was followed. Restorative meaning, that the aims of the conference are to restore the well being of the victims and offenders damaged by crime and to try and prevent any further offending. The results are shown in table form. One of the areas highlighted was whether offenders had agreed to a Restorative Caution, it concluded that 40% said they had no choice. Some of the explanations given at interview were expressed in the table. The report looked at the success of the conferences. Sixty six percent of the offenders and victims felt that it had been a success. The researchers also looked at Restorative Cautioning in the Criminal Justice System and again the same participants were used, 64% felt that the offender had been punished. It was concluded that participants felt that the process was fair. One important issue raised by the research was that the process was being used with offenders despite a clear denial of guilt. It also concluded that the case for RJ in the Criminal Justice System had not yet been determined. It was also shown that a scripted Restorative Conference produced better results than those which had not been scripted. The questions asked at the interview stage were not that open. The total number of questions was 33; which was felt to be too many. It failed to show if the use of RJ had any impact on re-offending. The questions asked did not allow the participants to reflect fully on the process and were aimed at getting to an outcome for the research. The questions were fixed and not flowing. In conclusion the research methods used are realist in approach and take the form of interviews and observations. The research method used was more survey based than ethnographic in order gain outcomes that can be expressed in percentages to support policy in favour of RJ. 3.4 The next literature review “Restorative Justice; the views of Victims and Offenders. The third report from the evaluation of three schemes.’ Ministry of Justice, London 2007. This is the third report commissioned by the Home Office in relation to RJ. It researches the views of both the victims and offenders. The report outlines the different processes of RJ. It focuses on three test sites in London, Sheffield and Northumbria. The research methodology used interviews with victims and offenders who were involved with RJ; the interviews were conducted 8-10 months after the RJ conference. The questions that were asked are outlined in the research paper. The first area of research related to the preparation and participation of victims and offenders in the use of RJ; it showed the following: * It was shown that both the victim and offenders were pleased with the preparation * One of the key elements to be identified was the opportunity for each party to communicate with each other * Offenders tended to be keen to make reparations, but this was not seen as important to the victim. The victims mainly wanted an apology and for re offending to be prevented. * The second section of the paper looked at the types of conferences that were held; examples being instead of going to court or whilst the offender was in prison. In follow-up interviews related to this, 93% of London participants and 85% of Northumbrian participants thought that the conference went very well. These are some of the comments that were made. “It was really quite amazing it couldn’t have been better” * “I felt like it went well, but the proof will be afterwards” * “It was a difficult situation, the offender was extremely upset during the conference; it was touching. But if I were to express my true resentment it would have been a touch cruel. I wanted to see an offender who could take my anger. I felt like I was kicking him whist he was down. I liked him; he was a good person who had done bad things. He intended to repair the damage done. I will feel satisfied if these things are undertaken” * “It went surprisingly well to be honest; I did not think that it would actually be like this. Actually he (the victim), was pretty ok with me considering what I did” The research showed 90% of victims and 92% of offenders were positive about using RJ. The final interviews related to communication at conferences. Victims and offenders were asked the same questions. Eighty percent of participants stated that they were satisfied that they were allowed to comment during the conference. The report explored what is meant by an apology and explained how this had a different meaning in the Criminal Justice System. The apology in RJ was seen as a start to the healing process. Eighty percent of victims and offenders remembered having an outcome to the conference. Small numbers of both victims and offenders were not satisfied with the process; the explanations given were mainly around outcomes. The results of the questions are displayed in tables throughout the report. In relation to re-offending, both victims and offenders were asked if the process would have any effect on re-offending. Seventy nine percent of offenders felt that it would help detract from re-offending. This was after a period of 10 months following the conference. This may suggest that it does have a positive effect on re-offending. The question as to whether the conference had brought closure to the matter showed 50% agreed that it had and a further 20% stated that it had partly. The conclusion of the research showed that overall both victims and offenders were happy how the scheme worked and of their experience of RJ. It also showed 34% showed some dissatisfaction with the process. Overall the research was very positive towards RJ. The research methods used were interviews which were more survey in design and used as a process to get an outcome. The design of the project was to get an outcome and to be used to influence social policy. The research was presented in number and statistical form which related to performance. The other forms of evidence were not presented in any convincing way. There is no evidence in the research to show any form of random selection of participants, a suspicion maybe that only those with a positive view have been selected. The report is produced for government and is clearly looking at how victims and offenders view the use of RJ in the three different pilot schemes. The method used was interviews with victims and offenders; the interviews being carried out some 10 months after the conference. This appears to have assisted looking at re-offending , in that 10 months had passed since the use of RJ and a large percentage of offenders did not think they would re-offend. It had also allowed for the participants to have moved on and been able to reflect. The research at times allows the reader to look into the interview in some depth where extracts of the interview are placed in the report. This allows the reader to see the emotion of the process. The research only looked at victims and offenders and so was limited in approach. It was also limited because it only looked at three areas, which were the pilots and therefore well controlled. One of the key strengths of the study was that it explored both serious and not so serious criminal offences. The evidence was well presented in the tables. The full list of the questions used was not available in the research document and it would have been helpful to have seen them. The reports position is a realist approach to research, but it was being produced by government and it could be seen as ethnography being used to support government policy. I am concerned that the paper was always going to show RJ in a positive way; this may be supported by the method used as the questions could well have helped to get the right answers. It is limited in dealing with re-offending as the only area explored was the question, “Are they likely to re-offend'” it is not surprising what answer was given. The report has been used by government and pressure groups to promote RJ, again showing the position of the research. This type of research is used to support RJ and is aimed more at social policy and process then pure academic rigour. 3.5 The next review is from a paper published, in the Australian Institute of Criminology titled; “Restoring Victims an International View” (1999). The introduction to the research outlines an Australian newspaper in which the editorial has stated crimes are an offence against society. The paper then goes on to argue that modern criminal law now looks more towards justice for the victim. The paper states that this view on Criminal Justice now spreads across the world and that victims are not satisfied with the old Criminal Justice processes. The report explains how RJ can be used to restore the victim, offender and the community back to the position it was in before the crime was committed. It explains that crime is in reality a conflict between individuals. The conflict can be dealt with by a process that heals the conflict and puts the parties back to a position with no conflict. It also shows that RJ has a long history but has been in modern use since the 1970s in Canada. It further explains the new uses of RJ in New Zealand. The report then asks questions about RJ; the first question, exploring what RJ does for victims of crime. The research provided comes from a study in Camberra known as the ‘Re-integrative shaming experiment’. The author does not carry out the research but uses other researchers’ findings. In the research victims are interviewed after cases were dealt with; some cases went to court, others used RJ conferences. The research showed: * Victims want a less formal process where they can participate and where their views count * Victims want more information about the processing and outcomes of their cases – only 19% of victims whose cases went to court knew the result * Victims wanted to be treated respectfully and fairly * Victims wanted an apology The research asked the question “Do we know that conferencing can deliver what victims want, better than what a court can deliver'” The evidence from the interviews showed that victims had better outcomes from RJ than from court. The report concludes that victims feel they are dealt with poorly by the Criminal Justice System and it argues that RJ goes towards providing what victims want. This research is carried out was by way of survey questions and does not ask fully in depth questions that would make it more academic. It is being used to support policy in relation to RJ and is presented in numeric form to support a positivist position. This is a short study using other people’s research to put forward an argument in favour of RJ. The researcher does not add any new research to the arguments about RJ. The research which is produced to support the arguments is using ethnography in the form of interviewing victims. This methodology is a realist approach and is able to open the door on the subject. There is very little explanation of the research or how it was carried out shown in this paper so it is difficult to be objective in reaching conclusions. The report only deals with the victims and does not give any consideration to the offender or re-offending. It is clearly written for a particular audience, which in this case is the Institute of Criminology. It would not be that persuasive to a wider audience. There are limited details of the questions asked or the responses given. The report does add to the academic arguments regarding RJ but it is very limited as the research referred to is not new, it is just presented differently. It is written in a style that is easy to follow and understand. The paper uses limited interviews to show support for RJ. 3.6 Restorative Justice and Social Justice , this is a reader published by John Braithwaite in the Saskatchewan Law review. It points out that RJ is a global social movement which wants to transform the Criminal Justice System. He outlines how in Canada that RJ stems from the Indigenous people, where justice involved the community. The paper outlines that RJ is about healing. The paper explores three hypotheses about the relationship of RJ and social justice. The first one being, “Restorative Justice is unimportant to struggles for social justice” In this theory it is not Restorative Justice that is required but reform of the economy and better rights. In essence a more equal society. The second is that “Restorative justice risks the worsening of social justice” it is argued that the western culture of justice consumes other cultures and places them into the system making it fit. It then no longer allows the originating culture to carry on in the same way. It is also argued that in Countries like China when RJ is used in the community that the system is biased as those officials using it are political as they are party members. The third theory that is argued is that:”Restorative justice can be an important strategy for advancing social justice” It is argued that RJ empowers local communities and this can be achieved by taking it out of the hands of the powerful judges and putting it into the community by use of experts to make sure a fair system is used. It is further argued from a feminist position that RJ empowers a woman’s voice as they are often eloquent speakers at RJ conferences. The system is seen as stopping the criminalisation of young people by not using the Western Justice System. Braithwaite concludes the article with the possibility that RJ could impact either way but because it had only made some inroads into the Justice system it was difficult to see the full impact. His view is that RJ could influence social justice in relation to school expulsion or imprisonment or other areas where both offenders and victims can be empowered, where they were powerless before. He emphasises how the use of RJ could break the cycle of retributive values where the offender wants to hurt the victim and the victim wants to hurt the offender in return. The reader portrays an academic view of how RJ can influence social justice for the less powerful in a global context. It shows how RJ has a cultural meaning. The author is able to see the positive use of RJ. It is clear from how the article was presented that the use of ethnography to research the cultural basis of RJ would allow the research to carry out the fieldwork unravelling where RJ stands in western culture. 3.7 Harm and Repair . Observing Restorative Justice in Vermont, by David Karp [2001] an article published in the Justice Quarterly, looks at the decision making process at Community Reparative board meetings in Vermont. It outlines that RJ is a concept and a practice which in the last decade has developed both in academia and in practice throughout the world. It outlines that RJ rejects the use of retributive Western Justice. It is seen as a response to victims of crime, which originates from many cultures which include tribal justice and religion. The article argues that it attracts support from different political and ideological sides, but states there is no real definition of what RJ is. The common reference point is that it is seen as doing justice by repairing harm. The article also adds that it is more than just repairing harm but adds to communities by restoring the positions before the offence and creating social support to the Justice System which allows people to feel they are part of a democratic process. The article studies the Restorative Justice programme for adult probationers, which began in 1996 and has dealt with over 5000 cases. The method used to carry out the research was to use observation of cases that were videotaped. The process works with offenders who have committed such offences as drink driving or burglary. The board meets with the offender and victim and other interested parties with a view to agreeing on how the offender can repair the harm .The meetings last for 35-40 minutes for an agreement to be made. The meetings are described as being informal which begin with introductions. The meetings then move onto a review of the incident and then an agreement as to what actions need to be taken. The study examines the hypothesis that it is restorative and what is restored. The research collected a total of 52 video tapes over a 13 month period. The samples were not random but cases were categorised into samples to capture a wide range. The samples included both male and female offenders. The research began by watching the board meetings and taking notes with an open mind. From this the researchers formed a hypothesis and then set about the systematic analysis. The research included the help of graduate students who coded areas such as harms outlined by the victim. The results showed that 44 cases presented evidence of Restorative Justice. The report is backed up showing tables of information regarding the observations of victims and offenders and the coding of the information. An example shown is in relation to where the offender was driving in excess of 135 mph when racing , the paper shows the dialogue .The Board members ask the offender questions and get an agreement that the offender should apologise to the police and appear as a speaker at a schools driver programme re the danger that was caused. There are several other examples outlined in the paper of this type of observation. The conclusion is complicated but one area of interest relates to the worry that citizens involved in such a process with loose guidelines would treat offenders differently, the research evidence shows that this is the case. The researcher goes on to point out this was not because of discrimination but because each case was dealt with as individual with a view of repairing the harm. The author states that RJ is an evolving process and that this project was pioneering. This research article uses ethnographic observations to examine the use of community RJ, to see how restorative the process is .The research appears to have been conducted for a long period; the recording of the boards were for a 13 month period. The research was theory driven rather than fieldwork. 3.8 Moving into the New Millennium. Towards a Feminist View of Justice, by Kay Harris [2003]. This article looks at the current system of Criminal Justice and any improvements that fall within the present socio economic and political system. The system focuses on trying to intervene with individuals and finding means to strengthen the current CJS. The other system that is used addresses crime through the use of social policy relating to neighbourhoods, schools or other institutions .The author argues that the first system is about criminalising people and the other tends to be short term and fails to deal with the real issues. The author argues that the current system does not work and that because of the problems that society faces globally over the next 25 years that we should look further afield than the current criminological and political thinking. Therefore we should look for an alternative vision of Justice. It is argued that Feminist beliefs offer a way of looking at the world which can relate to a new form of Criminal Justice System. These values are that all people have equal value as human beings, that harmony and felicity are more important than power and possession, also that the personal is the political. The current system is seen as being power and control over people. It is argued that Criminal Sanctions are punishing acts that cause harm and are carried out by the state. The article also states that crime is seen as conflict no different than the conflict in war. The article argues that individuals, societies and groups need to accept greater responsibility for crime. It argues further that we must change our thinking, that the system must produce punishment. The author agrees that that people should be held to account but this could be done through human contact. The system should not increase division, alienation or despair and should work towards a real social justice. The article is academic from a feminist view point and is purely theory; there is no research to support the view point. The article supports the use of RJ as a means of bringing about the feminist ideology. 3.9 Restorative Justice the Real Story, by Kathleen Daly [2002]. The article starts by stating there are many empirical records of RJ and that this report would present the real story of the process. The author states that she moved to Australia to work in the field of RJ at the Australian National University. The research involved the observation of 60 conferences since 1995.Interviews were also conducted with 170 offenders. The researcher identified the differences between what the advocates and critics views were on RJ and what she had observed from the conferences .She describes the position of the two parties as myth and goes on to suggest the definition to be partial truths. The article goes onto explain the different uses of RJ, some of the examples given are decisions from Courts , family conferences , through to the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission .The research was based on youth conferencing in New Zealand. The article goes onto discuss the meaning of RJ to find a definition for the research. She outlines the myths about RJ as follows: 1. RJ focuses on repairing the harm caused by crime where as Retributive Justice focuses on punishing for the offence. 2. RJ is characterized by dialogue and negotiation among the parties whereas Retributive Justice is characterized by adversarial relations among parties. 3. RJ assumes that community members or organisations take a more active role whereas for Retributive Justice the community is represented by the state. The assumption was that RJ was good and retributive was bad. The article concludes through the research that although empirical evidence shows that the participants state that the process is seen to be fair the research shows that it is relatively difficult for the victim and offender to find some common ground. There are also limits to repairing the harm. The author on looking at the evidence states that face to face RJ was a practice worth maintaining but that the process would not always bring repair. She finishes by stating that the cycle of optimism and pessimism regarding new ideas could be avoided by telling the real story of RJ. This research uses observation of the process of RJ which questions the beliefs around the subject and comes up with a view rather than being outcome based. The research questions go beyond that of a survey and looks at the subject in depth. This report is ethnography looking at RJ. 3.10 The review of the articles above show that there has been a large amount of research into the subject of RJ , some of it in the form ethnography .This project adds to the body of knowledge looking at how professionals view the use of RJ within the UK in this new century. The reviews are a cross section of research carried out by government, universities and charities. The reviews cover such areas as feminism and social justice and shows how both political and complicated the subject is, this is also shown during my own research into the subject which is outlined in the next chapters. Chapter 4 Methodology. The following chapter will outline how the research was conducted and the methods that were used to carry out the research. This will also include the area of ethics. 4.1 This chapter will outline the methodology used and how this was conducted throughout the research part of the dissertation. The research is the main reason for the project and it will gather the evidence to try and answer the question that the project raises. There will be specific areas covered which will be the research framework , data collection, data analysis and ethical considerations .The chapter will also review the role of the researcher working with the topic . There is a large amount of research and literature in relation to the subject of RJ , but there is limited qualitative research. This is one of the reasons that ethnography was the method of research used for the project in an attempt to get a better understanding of the view of professionals working within the CJS. The use of ethnography for this project allows the observer to look at how the use of RJ works in the real world. The interviewing of the participants gives them the opportunity to describe in depth how they use RJ and how it fits in with the role that they play in the CJS. The literature review demonstrated how the use of interviews were utilised to examine the use of RJ to get the views of victims and offenders , this was used to show outcomes showing how well the use of RJ was shown to work .The funding for these projects came from government or other organisations with a view or stance on RJ. This project used interviews on 10 participants, the interviews being in depth, looking deeper at the issues. The research looked to see if RJ was a new justice and looked for evidence to support this. The observation of a Restorative Justice conference will add to the knowledge of RJ and will show how this process takes place and how these have an effect on the participants. The interviews will be analysed to try and find some themes that can be identified. 4.2 Data Collection. Sampling. The projects aim is to examine the use of RJ and see if it is a new way to deal with justice in the new century. The participants were to be professionals within the CJS. The reason for this selection was mainly because access would be easy from my position within the Police service .I was able to gain access to police officers working within the CJS and Youth Offending Team (YOT) workers. The participants worked mainly with youth offenders and used RJ during the process, either as an alternative to bringing a case to court or after the offence had been dealt with by the court and as part of a supervision order from the courts. There were no interviews of offenders or victims to gain the full 360 degree of what the process had given to them. The participants to the interview all worked within the CJS in the city of Exeter or the county of Devon. The sample of 10 people were not in any way representative of the population within this area, or for that matter the CJS, most worked with young people and “neighbourhood policing teams”. The main selection of the respondents was because they worked within the Criminal Justice System and had used RJ to resolve issues both for criminal offences, anti social behaviour or other conflict mainly within the community or schools. The observation of Restorative Justice was not random and it was agreed by all parties that it could be observed for the purpose of the research and, was part of a Final warning process carried out at Exeter Police station. 4.3 Data Collection Method. Data collection was carried out by using in depth interviews of the participants .The questions were considered during the design stage of the project .The questions were open questions in order to get a full view of how the participants viewed RJ. The questions were tested on 2 respondents before the research began in order to make sure that they were suitable for in depth interviewing and for the project. The interviews were conducted between October 2008 and January 2009 .There were 10 interviews carried out over this period. Examples of the questions were as follows. 1. Can you give me some examples of the use of RJ in your role' 2. Do you think RJ works' 3. How effective is it in relation to the victim' 4. How effective is it in relation to the offender A full list of the questions can be found in Appendix A. The questions are a guide as to what is asked by the interviewer and have been designed to get a conversation started with the person who is being interviewed .They also act as a guide to make sure that the specific areas are covered by the interviewer on each participant . The questions are just the framework to the interviews. Whilst carrying out the research interviews they started the talking between the researcher and the respondent. The interviews were recorded on a digital recorder and then transferred onto a computer for storage and easy access. The interviews were transcribed and a copy of one of the interviews can be located in Appendix B. All the transcripts have been forwarded to the Open University and are available to readers. All the interviews are available and were used during the analysis of the research question. The interviews go far deeper then any surveys carried out in many of the research projects that were outlined in the literature review. They enabled the interviewer to get a further understanding of RJ and how practitioners saw it working. It allowed the participants to give longer answers and give clear examples of the working of RJ both with victims and offenders. It also allowed the participants the chance to reflect on the subject and see how the practice could be improved, to most this would have been the first time that they had been spoken to about the subject since they had been trained. The observation of a RJ process was carried out at Exeter Police station where Police and the Youth Offending Team and the full notes of the observation are contained in Appendix C. The young person and his mother attend the Police station for a final warning, this was in relation to an aggravated vehicle taking offence where he was involved with two others in taking a car and being involved in an accident .There was only damage to the car, nobody had been hurt. At the time of the accident the weather conditions were snowing. I had received the consent of the youth and his mother to be an observer of the process. The Sergeant went through the initial process of custody and the admission of the offence by the young person was agreed by signing of a form .The officer then asks the young person about the offence. He is asked questions regarding whether he realised the problems caused and the cost incurred to the person whose car it was. The youth understands the questions and he is keen to apologise to the owner of the car and try and pay back some money. The questions then turn to the effect he has had on his family. His mother then states how upset she was about what her son had done. There is then a discussion of how this could have been so much worse than what it was and given the weather conditions it was lucky nobody was hurt. It is then explained to the young person what could have happened if someone had been badly hurt or killed. Not only would he have to live with the harm he had caused , but he would have be sentenced to youth custody and this would have ruined his life and his parents life. He clearly understood this and as a result the Youth Offending Team worker will work with the young person to make the apology and work with the victim. It is obvious that his mother is fully supportive of the young person and wants to work with the agencies to prevent any future offending. The YOT worker then speaks to the young person explaining the final warning and making arrangements for a further meeting. The whole process is conducted in a RJ way, the questions and the trying to get the young person to understand the wider consequences of his offending. The process is aimed at preventing re offending and getting an outcome for the victim. The young person then leaves the police station. 4.4 Data Analysis. The data was subjected to analysis using grounded theory which has been promoted by Glaser and Strauss and published in the book; “The Discovery of Grounded Theory” (1967) .This system of analysis is aimed at looking for theories from the qualitative data which has been obtained using in depth interviews. The use of this type of data helps the researcher to create a picture of the social world. The book, “Basics of Quantitative Research Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory ” by Strauss and Corbin (1990), explains how this works; 1. The use of “Grounded theory “allows an approach for making new theories in relation to social sciences by analysing Quantitative data which can be used to test and verify theories. 2. The theory should be driven by the data and should come from the data .The theory should be further developed by referring back to the data and the process should be continued to support the theory that is being developed. 3. The use of the theory uses a systematic approach to analyse the data in a non mathematical form. 4. The theory proposes that the analysis of the data should not be separate from the data collection and that they fit into each other and into the theory. When using this method of analysis the following steps are taken, the data has to be closely analysed, it is described as a microscopic look at the data .This is a wide look at the data. The data in relation to the interview is gone through line by line the researcher looking for meanings to what is being read. The concepts that are identified from the data are labelled. The aim at this stage is to find as many ideas as possible. This is the coding of the data. The next stage is to look at the labelling and then look for the connection between them and place them into groupings to see what categories are developing from the data. This allows the data to be organised from concepts to categories. It has to be realised at this stage that there is no right or wrong answer from the data, researchers will find different interpretations from the same data. There is a danger that the researcher may be influenced by their own beliefs. The next stage is to look at the categories and narrow them down to a smaller number of categories .This is completed by looking at the categories and looking for connections. Strauss and Corbin state that, “Usually, microscopic coding of 10 good interviews or observations can provide the skeleton of a theoretical structure “(1998). The final stage is to look at the data and the categories and check them against the ideas that were formulated around the research question, at this stage it should be possible to make a claim or description about the data. The data that was collected for this project was from interviews, these were recorded and then transcribed, all the speech was placed into the transcripts .It should be noted that the transcripts do not contain all the stops in the conversation or emphasis on the points. It helps that the person who does the analysis was the person who conducted the interviews. The next chapter outlines the analysis of the interviews that were conducted using the grounded theory as outlined. The analysis does make claim to certain areas highlighted by the data 4.5 Ethics. The main ethical considerations for the research were getting consent from the participants in order to carry out the interviews. It was important that the interviews did not allow the identification of anybody involved in the conferences etc. This was to make sure that no offenders were identified. The participants were all adults working in the CJS so consent would be informed. The participants were fully informed about the project and how the information would be used. The participants were handed a letter with details of the project and how to contact the researcher and the tutor. This can be found at Appendix D. I was aware that my position within the Police service helped with access and gate keeping. My position may have influenced the balance of power between myself and the participants. I was also well aware that my views on the use of RJ may influence my research and also have a direct or indirect affect on those who were interviewed. My views on RJ are positive and I have used the process on several occasions to deal with crime and anti social behaviour. This may also influence the way in which the data is viewed by the researcher and how it is presented. I will not be getting written consent from the respondents as this will be covered before the interview. All respondents were more than happy to be interviewed; they wanted to tell their story on the subject of RJ. The identity of the participants will not be revealed they will be given a number. The interviews are numbered and copies of the transcripts have been sent to the Open University .The interviews are contained on my computer which is password protected. I do not see the research causing any injury or harm to anybody involved. The interviews were carried out on police property or YOT premises, so there no security issues. There will also be conflicts in relation to the participants who work within the CJS and their views on RJ. Those that were interviewed will be allowed to read a copy of the dissertation when it is concluded. My responsibility to the participants were fully followed, these were: 1. Participants have the right to be informed of the aims and purpose of the dissertation and where it is to be submitted. 2. Care will be taken when interviewing any vulnerable person. 3. Honesty and openness will characterise the relationship between all parties. 4. Participants will have the right to withdraw from the project at anytime. The research will be shown to be mindful of cultural and religious and gendered differences .The project took into consideration the Data Protection Act .It also followed guidelines published by the British Education Association and the British Sociological Association of Ethical Practice. The project did not require the permission of any ethics committee and received approval from the university. A copy of the ethics form can be found at the beginning of the project. In relation to my own safety, I was aware throughout the project of the stress that the project would place on me. All through the project I reviewed what was going on and checked that all the work remained ethical. Chapter 5. Analysis of the Data. The following chapter will analyse the data and identify key themes that are supported by the evidence contained within the transcripts. At the end of the chapter there will be a conclusion of the analysis. The analysis uses “grounded theory” as outlined in Chapter 4. 5.1 Analysis. The following are examples of the questions and answers from the interviews that were conducted for the research and forms part of the data. Q. “ How effective is it in relation to the offender”' R. “Again for many of them it works. Particularly as they get to the RJ stage as they want to change. Sometimes it works on some of the harder nuts, it often brings them to tears, they have never been confronted with what they have done but when sat down with the families everyone gets the opportunity to speak and they have to hear it maybe for the first time. They hear their mums and dads are worried and what they have done to other people; it gives them a chance to look at what they have done. Sometimes it has to be done several times before they are able to see the bigger picture. I have used it on one person once and it worked and then others I have used it 3 times before it works and stops the offending”. Q. “ How effective is it in relation to the offender”' R. “It is very good for the offender, three of them were very upset and one admitted having a niece at the nursery. It hit home to them during the conference of the harm the damage had caused to other families and friends. Some had even used the play ground when they were younger and this had an effect when it was pointed out. At the conference which lasted for half an hour you could see the change, when they turned up they were cocky well confident, well you saw the change, when they saw what they had done to the community”. These examples show the scope of the interviews that were conducted. The ten interviews that were conducted and the transcriptions have been subjected to microscopic analysis as per the first stage of the labelling and conceptualising of the data using grounded theory. The following were labelled from the data: “Problem solving”. “Getting people together to understand what they have done wrong”. “Half a day’s training”. “Sends out a good message to the community. It can certainly work in the community rather than the CJS”. “ I think it will take management a long time to get the message across”. “ Very happy with this outcome”. “It is good if it is used on the right person”. “I don’t think it has been promoted enough. It needs to be promoted wider using the press and media and the force”. “It then gives the offender the chance to reply and apologise. My one observation is all the statistics show that RJ is successful”. “It helps them to see how their offending affects other people”. “In the Police there is a struggle, primarily because it is not formally recognised as a sanction that the Police use which is recognised by the government”. “What they did not see or know was the effect and the upset that this was having on the adults when they went home”. “But if it is advertised the publicity of the victim of how it helped them and also the offender and how it helped to see the bigger picture then it would if it got the right publicity”. “It works by identifying the impact that it has on victims .It shows them what they have done”. “Yes I think it can be improved by a massive publicity push and for it to be a statutory detection”. “In the school I was able to use RJ for all offences if the headmaster agreed with it. The Criminal Justice System can often be just the wag of a finger not this emotion that shows what you have really done to somebody”. “I would like it to become a formal disposal for the police. The pilot I described in other forces might help achieve this. I think then public satisfaction would improve, I am not too sure how it will grow but it will help with satisfaction”. “It gets people thinking about what they have done and it allows the victim to have contact with the offender and tell them what they have done and it also helps prevent criminalising young people”. “But as a sanctioned outcome as a result of the results of the trial in Cheshire, and the results they got there, we need to use it”. “The court system does not do this, a young person just sits there and says yes or no, never confronting what they have really done”. “It is now coming to the rest of the force and it is an agreed disposal for performance and I think we should try it”. “But it is the promotion of RJ and giving people facts that will change that”. The above are the concepts taken from the interviews, the next stage is to review the above and place the data into categories. This is to be compared across the whole of the data. The categories that I have identified are. 1. Detection /sanctioned outcome. 2. Publicity. To support this further I will produce evidence from the data in context, this is taken straight from the text of the interviews. In relation to Detection outcomes the following are a few examples; “I think that now it may become detection that the lads might realise that it is a good outcome to the problem. Not only can we use it, but everyone can. If the victim and offender find it positive all agencies involved will be happy, I can see that happening”. “I am not really sure about that. I think it needs to be used throughout the system right up to murder, along side punishment for the most serious crimes. My own personal view is that our society in England it seems that not many understand the process and how it can be used and there might not be an appetite for it for adults. It is very useful at the youth stage. I would like it to become a formal disposal for the police. The pilot I described in other forces might help achieve this. I think then public satisfaction would improve, I am not too sure how it will grow but it will help with satisfaction”. In relation to publicity the following answers support this category, and have been taken straight from the interview transcripts of the interviews. “I think the public on the whole support RJ when they are told what it is all about and the RJ principles. But if they are told by the Daily Mail and other red top papers that RJ is an easy option , people getting away with it .So I think they support , but the papers do not help, the public do support education of offenders”. “I think most papers and the media would see it as a soft touch. The media do not always represent things in an even handed way. I do think there would be some scepticism and misunderstanding if it were not explained or used properly. They will say it is just another way for offenders to be let off without paying back for their crime. But when you consider most people will not be the victim of crime it is the fear of crime driven by the press. Keep it away from the media and get the majority of people to view how it works and see how the harm is repaired, but that is a big mountain to climb”. The data from the interviews also show that RJ works in relation to the offenders and victims. Examples in relation to the use with the offender are as follows. “It is very good for the offender, three of them were very upset and one admitted having a niece at the nursery. It hit home to them during the conference of the harm the damage had caused to other families and friends. Some had even used the play ground when they were younger and this had an effect when it was pointed out. At the conference which lasted for half an hour you could see the change when they turned up they were cocky well confident well you saw the change, when they saw what they had done to the community”. . “ It can be really good, it can be recognition of their offending, and it can be very real for the offender. If they are going to burgle or shoplift they do, but the use of RJ makes it personal about what they have done , it is not just about taking something it shows the ripple effect of that crime on others such as family . I think it gets through to a lot of them not all it can be hard to get through for some offenders it often takes a lot to get through to some people”. . Examples in relation to how effective the use of RJ is in relation to the victim are outlined as follows. “ Yes, the best time that I used it was with 2 old ladies, they lived next door to each other and their husbands had died, they had got on well with each other. Then one of the sons came down and there was a gate at the back between the 2 houses that they both used. He locked the gate not realising this. It was done to make sure his mum was secure, the other lady wanted to clip the hedge and found the gate locked. As a result they fell out and they caused each other a lot of problems. The Police became involved, in the end I sat them down and they talked about it and found out that the son had closed it, the other lady didn’t realise this. It immediately solved the problem and it had caused such a problem in the neighbourhood and by the time they had walked out they were best friends again as if nothing had happened. It had such a massive effect on their lives, even the local kids had become involved” . “For some people no matter what we do for them we want our pound of flesh. Most people are satisfied and feel they have got something out of RJ and they get nothing out of the court process, they certainly get nothing out of the offender, so most people get something out of RJ. With my work with YOT, most of the victims come out satisfied after RJ has been used. I can clearly say that it works” . The evidence contained within the data in relation to re offending is also positive an example of this from the transcripts from the interview is as follows. “Again statistically it has been shown to have an impact on offending but I go back to my original warning that the offenders that take part want to change, they volunteer to take part so they are in that mind set. But it does have a positive effect on preventing offending. Internationally there is enormous evidence to how it helps prevent re offending” . The analysis in relation to the research has now been concluded. 5.2 Conclusion of the analysis. The analysis of the data shows the following in relation to how the ten professional who work within the CJS view the use of RJ. 1. The interviews identified that officers had concerns regarding the use of RJ as it was not seen as a sanctioned detection .The Police performance culture is about process and detections and it was shown that the detection aspect of a crime plays a part in how RJ is viewed. There is a new process which is called a Youth Restorative Disposal which was identified, some participants felt this would have a positive effect on using RJ. 2. All the participants felt that the use of RJ worked with offenders, although most agreed that it did not work or was guaranteed to work with all offenders. 3. All the participants during their interviews felt that the use of RJ had a positive effect with most of the victims and the community. 4. It was agreed by the participants that the use of RJ did help to prevent re offending, again this was not on every occasion. The interviews support the above conclusions with a great deal of the evidence giving examples to support this. Chapter 6. Overview of the Research Dissertation. This chapter carries out an overview of the dissertation; this will include a review and look at how the research question has been answered. The use of ethnography as the research tool for this project was because it would allow for the researcher and those who read the project to see the subject in a real world setting. Having used this I am happy that the use of ethnography has shown how the ten practitioners view RJ how they also use it .The evidence in the interviews have allowed the researcher to draw some conclusions about RJ and to give an answer to the question that was being asked at the beginning of the project which began as an idea in January 2008. The main issue raised during the research was the lack of literature on the subject where ethnography had been used. There has been a great deal of research carried out by the government and universities on the subject of RJ but most of it in questionnaire form. This project will add to the academic debate on the subject in what is a different format of research. The literature reviews have mainly shown that RJ works as a method of dealing with conflict and this is one of the projects conclusions. The research that was carried out in the form of interviews and the observation went mainly according to how it was planned .The limitations with the project are the small numbers of participants and the narrow view, only people working in the CJS were interviewed .That said this has allowed for the research to draw some conclusions and to answer the research question. The research question was, “Is Restorative Justice a new way forward for Criminal Justice System in the Twenty-first century “. The evidence that has been gathered and presented in the project suggests that the use of RJ goes back hundreds of years .It also shows that most countries use RJ and have been doing so since the 1990s, with some success. The interviews show some really good examples where RJ has been used and positive ways in which it has influenced offenders and victims. The other question that it has answered is the positive ways it can help communities and build confidence. I would argue that this will help restore the confidence in our CJS and help reduce the high levels of the fear of crime that exist. The answer to the question is that RJ was already being used with success. The use of Grounded Theory identified the following from the data of the interviews. The participants identified that the use of RJ needed to be explained to the public through better publicity .This would clearly help with highlighting the good work that was being carried in relation to offenders and victims. It would also help build confidence in the Criminal Justice System. The identification that the use of RJ was not recorded as a sanctioned detection and how this was preventing officers using the process was highlighted. This is an important conclusion because in my view the drive for performance by the Police service over the last decade has been criminalising young people at an alarming rate. This will prevent offenders from certain opportunities in life. The use of RJ at times can prevent this criminalisation; this was outlined in the evidence. There are some forces using The Youth Restorative Disposal to prevent this and this project will add to the evidence supporting this. The project has been a success and I would like to take the research further by interviewing offenders and victims in order to add to the body of research on the subject. I was unable to carry this out because of the limitations to the project. Appendix A Interview Questions Q .What work do you carry out in the CJS' R. Q. How long have you been in your current role and what other roles have you had in the police' R. Q .Do you use RJ in your role' R. If yes please explain: Q. Have you used it in a past role' R. Please can you give examples' Q. So obviously you have been using RJ, how long have you been using it for' R. Q. What training have you had and what training is there for RJ' R. Q. How successful do you think RJ is' R. Q. How does it work in relation to other areas of the CJS, how does this fit in' R. Q. Do you think that it is effective in relation to the offender' R. Q. Do you think it is effective in relation to the victim' R. Q. How do you see the use of RJ in relation to re offending' R. Q. How do you see RJ being used in the future' R. Q .Support for the CJS by the public is said to be low , do you think the use of RJ will have an effect on this. R. Q. How do you think the public view RJ' R. Q. What do you think are the levels of understanding of RJ with those working within the CJS.' R. Q. Can the use of RJ be improved within the CJS' R. Q. Do you wish to add anything in relation to the subject' R. Appendix B Interview 5 Q. What work do you carry out in the CJS' R.I am a Police Officer working in Devon and Cornwall police and I volunteered to work with the youth services in Youth Offending Team , in Exeter. I am part of the team and work as a YOT officer , it’s very interesting . Q. How long have you been working in your current role' R. Yes, restorative interventions and approaches we try to use at every level where youth offending team get involved and at the final warning stage and key to this is to encourage the custody sgt to use a restorative approaches so it starts even at that level. We get involved in every court appearance in interviewing of people we use restorative language and our ultimate goal is to get a young person to apologise to an individual or company for their offending , we always try for a RJ conference . It can also be used in referral orders and youth panels, whatever the dealings we always try and use restorative languages and approaches. Q. How long have you been using it' R .My previous work was as an NBM at Tiverton high school , I attended a course in RJ training , I was not sure about the use because of the feelings part of it and the process , it did not seem right to me .But then I put it into practice in the school and I saw how it worked. Only ever arrested 2 people at the school and one of those was somebody trespassing , the other was a pupil , there were only 2 crimes , but I used it for disputes. Q. Can you give me some examples of where you have used it in your role' R. One biggest ones I am proud of no not proud but pleased about was in the school , it was like a kidnap but 4 year 11s hid a year 7 , to them they were having a laugh but it scared the life out of the young man . The parents became involved and I negotiated with them and the school and we managed to put together a RJ conference. This included 13 people , the outcome of the conference was that the 4 boys were able to sit down and look the young man in the face and explain why they did it and make an apology for what they had done. They also carried out some work around the school. The young victim as a result was able to walk around the school without worry or fear of it happening again. There was no final warning for the lads . RJ is always used after a final warning . In the school I was able to use RJ for all offences if the headmaster agreed with it , this prevents the matter being put into the CJS , it can be used for serious offences . There is a place for RJ and it prevents young people getting a record and being criminalised . But it is no good just cautioning and cautioning a young person , they think that they have got away with it . With the victim being involved it allows them to show their real feelings and for them to be seen by the offender , this even chips away at some of the harder ones .I am afraid that the system will take a way RJ but it has been around for 6 years , it just does not seem to advance quick enough. Q. Can you give me an example where you have used it in your current role' R. Recently I was dealing with a 12 year old who had been involved in a bit of bullying just really pushing and shoving , the young person went through the CJS and was given a final warning at the police station .I attended his home and spoke to him and his mum . It was clear that this young man was remorseful and wanted to apologise to the other lad. The other lad had some learning disabilities and he was apprehensive about meeting with the offender, as a result I used arbitration which resulted in the young man writing a letter of apology. At the final warning stage it is about getting the resolution completed quickly. The main conferences are used foe referral order stage. I was recently in a panel meeting where a young person had damaged some car wing mirrors whilst in drink .The victims attended and some of the questions were answered , like why them , had they done something or will it happen again. These are the sort of questions that are answered in a face to face meeting. The face to face meetings are mainly done at the referral stage. Q. What training have you had' R. Five years ago through the police I attended a 3 day restorative interventions package , this allowed me to carry out low level RJ interventions in schools and in neighbourhoods. Coming here I have done a 5 day course paid for by the youth justice service . Q. How do you think RJ works' R .In my limited experience it asks about the offence , you are now sat down with a young person who has committed the offence you can see he is just normal a 14 year old. What is most powerful sitting there the emotions of what they have done , not the heat of the moment feelings when the offence was committed but feelings of what they have done to others. It gets closure for the victim .In our modern society they play computer game when someone gets killed there are no feelings it is just a game , this is for real as are the emotions it allows them to understand. The criminal justice system can often be just the wag of a finger not this emotion that shows what you have really done to somebody. Q, How does it work in relation to other areas of CJS' R. For me it is the only process in the CJS that makes the offender accountable , even being sent to prison someone does everything for you , paying a fine does not make you feel the emotion of what you have done . RJ is the only process where you feel the emotion. Q. Do you think it is effective in relation to the victim' R. For some people no matter what we do for them we want our pound of flesh. Most people are satisfied and feel they have got something out of RJ and they get nothing out of the court process, they certainly get nothing out of the offender, so most people get something out of RJ. With my work with YOT, most of the victims come out satisfied after RJ has been used. I can clearly say that it works. Q. Do you think it is effective in relation to the offender' R. Yes I have already explained how it works well it allows the offender to understand the emotions and understand the harm that they have caused. Some of the examples I have given shows this; it clearly works well with offenders and they have to face up to what they have done and do something to put that right. Q. Does it prevent re offending' R. It has to be used at the earliest opportunity. There is a project at the moment up country where police officers depending on the circumstances can give the young person, depending where they are in the system, the opportunity for a RJ solution at the time and that is where I would like it to be, less formal. The earlier we start the understanding of the RJ process, the easier it is for the young person to understand. It is not just about telling someone off but helping them understand what they have done. A formal process to be used in the earlier stages and divert the offender away from the criminal justice system is brilliant. There is no doubt from my experience that it does prevent re-offending but not straight away with everyone. Q. How do you see it being used in the future' R. I am not really sure about that. I think it needs to be used throughout the system right up to murder, along side punishment for the most serious crimes. My own personal view is that our society in England it seems that not many understand the process and how it can be used and there might not be an appetite for it for adults. It is very useful at the youth stage. I would like it to become a formal disposal for the police. The pilot I described in other forces might help achieve this. I think then public satisfaction would improve, I am not too sure how it will grow but it will help with satisfaction. Q. Support for CJS by the public is said to be low, do you think the use of RJ will affect this' R. I don’t think it will. I think the CJS process takes little regard or account of the victim; this is sad for me; my opinion the system is created to keep itself running. Everything is arranged for that process just to keep it running. The authority of the court, it is not about the victim or victim satisfaction, is about the process. Q. How do the public view RJ' R. I think most papers and the media would see it as a soft touch. The media do not always represent things in an even handed way. I do think there would be some scepticism and misunderstanding if it were not explained or used properly. They will say it is just another way for offenders to be let off without paying back for their crime. But when you consider most people will not be the victim of crime it is the fear of crime driven by the press. Keep it away from the media and get the majority of people to view how it works and see how the harm is repaired, but that is a big mountain to climb. Appendix C Observation of a RJ meeting between a Young Offender , Police and YOT Worker at Exeter Police Station in March 2009. The meeting was taking place at 5.30pm , where a young person was attending the police station to have a final warning for an offence of Aggravated Vehicle Taking . Also present was his mother and a police sergeant and YOT officer. The process is to prevent young people attending court and will be at a stage where a young person has previously received a reprimand or the offence was serious that it was felt by the police that a final warning was the appropriate way to dispose of the matter. The actual Final warning stage is a use of Restorative Justice .The purpose of this meeting is to speak to the young person in a restorative way. This can find out what the offender has learnt and what reparation could be appropriate. This will then be followed by a visit by a police officer or YOT worker in order that the RJ maybe implemented .This may include a face to face meeting with the victim or letter of apology, also included at this stage would be arrangements for any other interventions they would help prevent further offending. The young person was aged 16 years and had been involved in the taking of a car with others in snowy conditions. The car was involved in an accident which caused damage to the car , nobody had been hurt. The other youths had already been dealt with by the police. This youth had previously been arrested and was attending the police station for the warning. The main aim of the final warning is to finalise the offence and divert from court, but the words final warning is exactly what is meant. The aim of the warning is to prevent further offending and the use of RJ plays a vital part in the process, if only through reflection as a minimum. The case is then passed onto the local police neighbourhood teams to help carry out any further work working wit YOT. The young person was asked by the sergeant why he is here today. The young person informed the officer that it was to receive a final warning. The sergeant is stood in front of the young person in a relaxed way. Both are making good eye contact. His mother and the YOT officer are stood next to him. The sergeant then asks the young person to tell him what he did. The young person explains to the officer that he met his friends and he was informed that they had stolen a car; they had found the keys in the ignition. He then gets into the car and they drive around the area that they live. He stated that the others who drove were going far to fast for the conditions. As a result the young person takes over the driving of the car. He states that he was driving the car when it slid on the ice and crashed. He states that he was arrested and taken to the police station where he fully admitted his part. He is then asked by the sergeant what he has learnt from incident. He explains that he realises what he has done is stupid and that he will not do it again. From my observation of how this is said, it gives the impression that this may be the case and it is not just being said. The sergeant then asks what he thinks about the problems that this has caused the person who owns the car. He states that he must be very upset and now has no car or has had to get a new one. He is then asked if he thought about this when he took the car, he states that he did not. He is then asked about how he can put this right. At this stage his Mum is still next to him and he is clearly thinking about the question. He says that he would like to apologise to the owner of the car and help with repairs or payment of some kind. His mother clearly agrees that this is a good idea. He is then asked how this has affected his Mum. He looks towards her and then back at the sergeant. He slowly says that she is upset and he feels that he is the cause of this and is sorry. The sergeant then asks his Mum how she feels. She states that she is very upset and wants to help the person whose car was damaged. She says that she feels let down and embarrassed by being in the police station. She also says that she is worried that he will carry on with these types of behaviours. At this stage Mum is fighting back her emotions. The sergeant looks at the offender and says you can see how much your Mum cares for you and what your behaviour is doing to her. The boy at this stage is fighting back his emotions and has a quick look at his mum. He agrees and again says that he is sorry and assures her that this will not happen again. His Mum mentions that he is lucky to be alive as are the others because of the conditions of snow and ice when they were in the car. He again agrees. The sergeant agrees with this and says that it is the sort of tragedy that you read about and how lucky they were. The officer also says that if somebody had died or was badly hurt how he would live with that. He goes further and that he would have also gone to prison for a long time. The boy agrees and again says that he will not do anything like it again and that he was lucky. The officer then asks the offender if he can see the hurt that he is causing, he says that he can. The officer thanks the boy for being honest and for understanding the hurt he is causing. The officer then goes through the formal process of the final warning, which is signing a form and an explanation of what the warning is. The sergeant then says that he does not want to see the offender in the station again and that he needs to take responsibility for his actions and think about others particularly his family. The offender again says that he will not get into trouble again. The YOT officer then speaks to the offender and his mother explaining what will happen if he re offends and offers help with helping divert him from offending and making sure that he is able to apologise to the victim . The pair agrees to the YOT involvement and an appointment is arranged. They are then shown from the station by the officer and he shakes the mother and offenders hands, he again reminds the offender that he does not want to see him again in the station. The whole process is not one of punishment but about learning about the harm that has been caused and finding ways to put this right. It is also about working with the young person and family to stop any further offending. The manner in which the meeting is carried out is partly informal with the parents playing a major part in the process. Appendix D Information sheet Thank you for consenting to take part in this interview in relation to Restorative Justice. The interview is part of an academic research study for a master’s course in Criminology at the Open University. The research will be presented in the form of a dissertation. The information given by you will be used for the dissertation but will not include any personal details. The dissertation may be part of a publication and a copy will be available to you. If you wish to speak to me further regarding any issues from the interview I can be contacted on: Telephone: 01392 421931. If you have any complaints regarding the research, please contact Dr Ruth Pinder at the Open University, Milton Keynes. Thank you again for your support with this project. Neil Harvey. BIBLIOGRAPHY/ REFERENCES. Braithwaite, J (2003) “Restorative Justice and Social Justice” in Mclaughlin,E and Fergusson,R. (eds) Restorative Justice Critical Issues. Sage. London. British Educational Research Association (2004). Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research , Southwell, Notts. British Educational Research Association. British Sociological Association (2002). Statement of Ethical Practice for the British Sociological Association. Durham. British Sociological Association. Christie, N (1977) “ Conflicts as Property” ,The British Journal of Criminolgy, vol17, PP 1-15. European Framework Decision, “The Standing of the Victim in Criminal Proceedings” (2001). Reported in the Official Journal of European Communities. (22/03/2001).L82/L. Europa Publishing. Brussels. Crime and Disorder Act 1998. (c.71) London, HMSO. Criminal Justice Act 2003. (c.4.6) London, HMSO. Daly, K (2003) “Restorative Justice .The real story” in Mclaughlin,E and Fergusson,R. (eds) Restorative Justice .Critical issues. Sage .London. Glaser .B and Strauss. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Aldine. Chicago. Harris. K (2003) “Moving into the New Millennium”. “Toward a feminist vision of Justice” in Mclaughlin.E, and Fergusson,R (eds) .Restorative Justice Critical issues . Sage. London. Hoyle ,C,Young,R and Hill,R .(2002). “Proceed with Caution. An Evaluation of The Thames Valley Police Initiative in Restorative Cautioning” Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York. Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2002). An Evaluation of the Implementation and Effectiveness of an Initiative in Restorative Cautioning. Birmingham , Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Karp ,D, (2001) “ Harm and Repair Observing Restorative Justice in Vermon”. Justice Quarterly. Vol 18, Issue 4, pp 727-757. Liebmann. M (2007) Restorative Justice .How it works. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. London. Martin.J ,Storey,T .and Turner.C.(2007) Unlocking Criminal Law , London, Hodder Education. May.T (1997) Social Research issues .Methods and process. Open University press.Buckingham Ministry of Justice (2007) Restorative Justice , the view of the victim and offender . London. Ministry of Justice. Oxford English Dictionary (1989) Vol 5, 2nd ed. Oxford. Claredon. Plato. (350) The Republic. Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act . NO 34. 1995. Reeves, H (2003) . Restorative Justice Consortium. http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/past .eventsRJCconference.2003.Dame.Helen.Reeves Storey .T (2004). Unlocking Criminal Law. Hodder and Stoughton . London. Strang, H and Sherman ,L (2004) “Experimental Ethnography the marriage of Qualitative and Quantitative Research. The American Academy of Political and Social Science. Vol 595 issue1 pp.204-222. Strang, H(1999) “ Restoring Victims an International View .A paper presented to The Restoration of Victims Crime Conference.” Australian Institute of Criminology. Melbourne. Strauss, A and Corbin.J . Basic Quantitative Research Techniques and Procedures of Developing Grounded Theory. London, Sage . Taylor,T , (2002) Ethnographic Research .London, Sage. The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. (c.1) London, HMSO. Woolf. P. (2008). The Damage done. Banthan press . London.