Break the cycle: Strategies for reducing crime rates through effective rehabilitation and desistance

The criminal justice system (CJS) principle involves ‘punishing offenders, protecting the public and reducing re-offending’[1]. However, the current inordinate rate of re-offending demonstrates the failure to break the cycle of crime and re-offending. Therefore, restorative justice (RJ) should be incorporated within the CJS and used as an alternative to sentencing for short-term offences; maintaining the current sentencing system for adult offenders and utilise reinforced RJ for youth offenders regarding long-term offences. Focus may be shifted to improve desistance from crime through balancing punishment, and rehabilitation.

Firstly, legislated unified system within the CJS is preferrable, integrating RJ principles into prison framework. Secondly, RJ’s provision of rehabilitation addresses underlying issues in the society causing offenders to re-offend. Thirdly, victims’ involvement in RJ assists offenders in developing a ‘new identity’ through discussion and understanding the impact of the offence, further reduces frequency in re-offending. Lastly, RJ helps offenders to overcome ‘structural obstacles’ through addressing stigmatisation and exclusion, reintegrating them into society. Hence, all functions of RJ have proven beneficial in improving desistance; serving as an alternative within the CJS renders to be the most effective.

Legislated Unified System

Although public voiced sentencing practices are most important in ‘protecting the public from further harm’[2] as a recognised punishment, it is proven insufficient to prevent offenders from re-offending;[3] unified system should therefore be utilised having RJ working alongside imprisonment, as a voluntary alternative. The ‘voluntariness’ of offenders and victims reflects their willingness to participate in RJ conferences. As there is a significant correlation between the conference experienced by offenders and decreased subsequent reconviction[4], indicating the more willing parties are to participate, the less likely offenders will re-offend. Although RJ doesn’t increase voluntariness and plays a larger role in maintaining desistance, it may sometimes trigger initial impulse, demonstrated through Woolf Within[5]. Nevertheless, flexibility of engagement enables RJ to facilitate offenders in tackling problems relating to their offending and increase motivation to desist. Therefore, the unified system renders further satisfaction of the outcome of desistance.

Nevertheless, RJ incorporated in the unified system should accentuate on short-term sentencing offences, as around half of adult offenders released from prison are reconvicted within a year[6], and the figure for offenders serving short-term sentences is 65% higher[7]. Short-term sentencing offences typically involve offenders who present low risks to public safety but passed the threshold for custodial punishment, where most re-offending stems from and could be prevented. The utilisation of RJ on short-term sentences, alleviates issues of offenders: leaving prisons with no improvement to their quality of life, or remaining substance issues that may leave the public in the same position as before the sentencing.[8] Thus, public would benefit from RJ because the provision of rehabilitation would render offenders to produce less threat to the community in the long run, by emphasising on desistance.[9] As the Ministry of Justice suggested punitive elements such as ‘a fine or restriction of liberty in some form’ being appendant to community orders, Monkhouse argues RJ could be that punitive element. However, some would fear RJ to be too ‘soft’, but ‘offenders to accept and own up to their behaviour is one thing, to do this in front of the victim whose life they have affected is another thing and is not easy.’[10], RJ may therefore be demonstrated as a ‘recognisable sanction’.

Establishing RJ’s positive impacts on short-term sentencing offences in reducing re-offending; punitive measures and corporeal punishments are indispensable for long-term sentencing offences, as they pose substantial threat to the public. Bandura’s social learning theory highlights the concept of criminals being influenced by their surrounding environment and others’ behaviour, signifying serious crimes should be punished rather than reinforced. It was confirmed in Bandura’s ‘Bobo Doll experiment’[11], insinuating children observed aggressive models engaged in aggressive behaviour with Bobo doll, yet children observed subdued models ignored the Bobo doll. Simultaneously, people are less likely to engage in criminal behaviour if observed participating in such acts will lead them being punished. However, according to Freudian’s Theory, individuals may have innate tendencies to offend, suggesting punitive measures during childhood may lead to resentment or psychological issues later in life,[12] which may not benefit regarding desistance. Thus, as the essence of punitive element is coercion, for youth offenders, RJ should be reinforced against them as an involuntary option, as punishment.

It aligns with Foucault’s insight to improve punishment in a more effective and humane way, instead of abolishing punishment.[13] Reinforced RJ’s may render more suitable on youth offenders, rather than punitive measures like imprisonment even for serious crimes, to improve desistance in the long run. Nonetheless, corporeal punishments such as imprisonment is required for serious offences, to physically deprive adult offenders of their freedom and liberty enjoyed by the rest of the society, acting as a deterrent to ensure public safety. Nonetheless, imprisonment may be the best punishment for serious crimes, it was observed that prisoners pass their time in prison ‘in a state of enforced idleness, with little or no constructive activity’[14]. Whilst RJ focuses on rehabilitating short-term offenders on fundamental issues, improving desistance as they will be released shortly; ‘left-over’ resources on selective RJ programs may also be beneficial, implementing ‘constructiveness’ to long-term prisoners for a gradual and indirect impact on improving desistance, offering offenders an opportunity to reflect and be accountable for their crimes; ready for a law-abiding life upon release.

Nevertheless, England and Wales’s RJ currently operate alongside the traditional judiciary process as an ‘alternative justice paradigm’[15], with no legislation outlining the use of RJ, it is not fully embedded into the CJS in response to crime. As magistrates view RJ to be ‘outside our remit and the courts did not get involved’[16], the apparent lack of structured framework and formal regulation, constitutes to a failure in collaborating with courts and coordination within the CJS. Such failure may also lead to unequal access to RJ, which hinders offenders’ opportunities in rehabilitation and reintegration that RJ offers; inhibits desistance. Hence, assenting Monkhouse’s suggestion ‘the first change that is needed is to bring RJ within the ambit of magistrates’ sentencing powers throughout England and Wales[17].’, ‘whether as part of a community order for adults or a referral order for young offenders’ as it is ‘a good method of getting offenders to understand what their actions have led to and reducing their need to re-offend’.[18]

Distinctively, New Zealand (NZ) incorporated RJ into its CJS through legislation[19], which England and Wales should adopt. NZ’s Sentencing Amendment Act 2014 proposed: judges must adjourn trial proceedings before sentencing allowing RJ options for eligible cases,[20] as a completely voluntary process.[21] However, NZ’s RJ is heavily ‘community based’[22], Karp identified that RJ panels operated by community volunteers hold considerable decision-making authority, leading to a shift of control from the CJS to community members.[23] In relation to Braithwaite’s ‘reintegrative shaming theory’, the discussion of consequences of crime structures shame into conferences[24]; ‘community involvement’ rather than solely ‘parties’ involvement’, may shift from shaming the offence to shaming the offender, as bringing in the broader community may remove the focus on the impacted parties’ feelings. Nonetheless, community volunteers are often linked to support services, and offenders need to consent to participants involving in RJ conferences, which render citizen involvement being a provision of ‘significant opportunities for offenders to rebuild a community’s trust’,[25] instead of endorsing ‘shame’. Hence, RJ in England and Wales may benefit being legislated as an alternative to imprisonment, applicable to short-term sentencing in improving desistance and significantly reduce re-offending.

Rehabilitation

Exploring RJ’s main function in facilitating rehabilitation through understanding and tackling underlaying issues of crime before reintegrating offenders back into society, it deemed to be effective to deduce desistance.[26] As 66% of offenders sentenced to prison re-offended, reduction of reconviction is ‘the best proxy measure’, through ‘solving problems which lay behind re-offending’[27]. Despite the increasing emphasis on re-offending within the CJS, current allocation of resources doesn’t enable proper programmes such as education, drug, and mental-health treatment for individuals requiring them.[28]Therefore, rehabilitation services confronting underlaying issues through discussions should be provided as an alternative before sentencing, enabling offenders to reintegrate into society later, living a crime-free life.

Considering positivists’ ‘sickness’ analogy, with offending relating largely to working-class street crime and violence[29], alongside left-realism surveys addressing the link between inequalities and criminal activities[30]; RJ’s rehabilitation deemed to be suitable in providing a platform for offenders to share their perspectives and experiences with victims or community volunteers. As opposing to Lombroso’s notion of offenders being ‘born criminal’ and not resulting from society’s failure[31], Jeffery’s theory of ‘differential reinforcement’ prevails, as criminal behaviour of individuals is reinforced, resulting through social and cultural environments[32], promoting a shift of focus towards situational and social-target-hardening. RJ’s rehabilitation may provide offenders with the ability to make meaningful changes through the assistance of support services such as, substance abuse treatment, peer group, housing support, skill training and employment assistance.

At least £11billion is spent annually to accommodate re-convicted offenders, highlighting the failure to capitalise opportunities prisons provide[33], in improving desistance. As study suggests nearly 70% of offenders didn’t look for jobs or training on release[34], problems stemming low motivation or poor self-organisation should be addressed. Hence, rather than going through imprisonment, which may amplify their inclination to crime due to the isolated and harsh environment, rehabilitation through RJ as an alternative may guide offenders through trauma, abuse, understanding personal psychology, whilst developing skills like emotional regulation or anger and stress management, render offenders accountable and reconnect with community in a healthier way.[35]

According to 2004 national study[36], young offenders are considerably more likely to re-offend[37].Therefore, the importance of education and welfare support highlighted through high re-offending rate in youth, illustrated RJ being essential in tackling the issue at the heart: the lack of education. RCTC[38] suggested, 87% missed significant periods of education, and nearly half had literacy and numeracy levels below an average 11-year-old[39]. Yet, 58% had no education or training a month after released from prison[40], signifying imprisonment fails to address major risk for juvenile offending, whilst youth crime rates have direct correlation to its ‘out-of-school’ population[41]. Also, survey found, 16-20-year-olds offenders, over 50% reported dependence on drugs, 50%-66% had hazardous drinking habit prior entering custody[42]; low socio-economic status during childhood contributes to limited educational opportunities,[43] which further incorporates Merton’s ‘strain theory’. As educational systems emphasise on conventional goals, subsequent criminal and substance misuse behaviour therefore arises through the failure to attain them, causing the demonstration of ‘negatively values stimuli’.[44]Therefore, RJ as an alternative enables youth offenders to signal the need of assistance, addressing underlying problems through rehabilitation programmes, such as ‘mentors in violence prevention’ and ‘constructive resettlement’ offering psychosocial support and assist young offenders’ in shifting from pro-criminal to pro-social identity[45]. RJ provides ‘individualised-personal-support’ and ‘individualised-structural-support’ in providing suitable practical support in personal resettlement[46]. The combined effort of ‘top-down’ prescriptions of rehabilitation programmes and ‘bottom-up’ perspective of desistance[47], induces change and amends their ‘broken bond’ with society[48], encourages the break of cycle of re-offending.

Victim Involvement

After establishing the substantial benefits of RJ’s rehabilitation functions, it elucidates the importance of victim involvement in RJ processes in fostering desistance. As Duff suggested, ‘moral communication must be secured, and moral demands satisfied before moral rehabilitation can be recognised’[49]; RJ allows the offender to communicate with the victim, in reaching an agreement in settling the ‘debt’, explaining how offenders’ past contributes to a coherent, pro-social ‘new identity’.[50] Offenders’ ‘agency’ was found being key in the desistance process[51], but attaining such outcome may pose a challenge. Therefore, victim involvement in RJ may serve as an effective instrument in ‘inducing guilt and eliciting remorse on the part of the offender’[52], the RJ process through the interaction between offenders and victims reinforces shift of attitude and cognitive approach from what had facilitated criminal behaviour to ‘focusing on the future’[53], ultimately improving desistance and reduces re-offending.

As supported through research, RJ facilitates the reduction in the frequency of re-offending by 14%[54]; 98% of offenders stated the process directly increased their personal understanding on impacts and harm caused by their criminal behaviours, 96% stated the process directly increased their motivation to not re-offend[55], 85% of victims were satisfied with the process. Therefore, a direct correlation between the use of RJ and the increase of motivation to desist is presented.

Exploring the views of 18^th-century classical school scholars Beccaria and Bentham, they have delineated principles in weighing potential benefits and consequences of human behaviour, in which individuals aim to maximise ‘pleasure’ and minimise ‘pain’ in relation to criminal behaviour.[56] Therefore, their work endeavoured to reduce the cruelty and harshness of punishment, until mid-20^th-century scholar Skinner suggested theory in correspondence, proposing punishment is to deter individuals from engaging in criminal acts. Nonetheless, scholars for centuries solely explore the punishment of criminal acts but ultimately overlook alternatives in addressing the societal impact of offenders’ actions in the long run, such as RJ in allowing offenders to understand their actions and victims to move forward. Although Jones argued harm is caused due to offenders’ ‘exercising of free will and rationality of thought whilst committing a crime.’[57]; punishment like traditional sentencing endorses the ‘harm principle’, restricting offenders’ freedom to prevent harm. Nonetheless, criminal law is not inherently intuitive, presenting difficulties for offenders to comprehend the implications of their prohibited actions, and ramifications impacting the safety and well-being of the society and others surrounding. As supported by the overall result of the three RJ schemes over-time, offenders participated in RJ committed statistically fewer reconvictions in the subsequent two years than offenders in the control group[58]. Thus, RJ would be more effective than imprisonment in achieving the utilitarian principle, in reducing re-offending rate in the society and improving desistance.

Nevertheless, discussion through RJ doesn’t only reduce crime, but it interconnects offenders with progress in reparation, reintegration, and desistance from crime.[59] These connections enable offenders and victims to further engage in a future-orientated approach[60], discussing and finding solutions to move on from the past, shifting from solely focusing on reparation on the harm caused to reintegration and desistance. Supported by the case of Jo Nodding[61], Jo regarded RJ as ‘victim empathy work’, emphasising no others could understand or explain to offenders what victims went through mentally and physically, and how they felt during the offence. Jo stated, through facing the offender, she became a survivor rather than a victim, and hope for both parties to look into the future as past events cannot be changed. Thus, RJ gives offenders opportunities to understand the impact of crime, and developing empathy through realising the causes and consequences of their criminal behaviour which doesn’t only impact victims, but also their spouses, children, parents, and communities.[62] Victim involvement in RJ is therefore essential in fostering desistance.

There is a demonstrated shift towards left-realism approach on victim-focused rights and services[63] since the 1970s, endorsing victims’ engagement within the CJS. The occurrence in promoting public cooperation to enhance victim support services, allows protection towards victims from intimidation or retaliation[64], further encouraging victims to participate in RJ processes, helping offenders and the society to understand how crimes affect victims. Therefore, the increasing access to psychological support and legal assistance for victims, further encourages victims to speak up, whilst RJ would be the most suitable platform for victims to face offenders and make-understand the harm caused. Upon the improvement of desistance, it may further alleviate the public fear of offenders’ reintegration into the society, creating a safer community.

Reintegration

Whilst RJ offers ‘the best available model for dialogue rehabilitation requires’[65], with victim and community involvement, a duty of reintegration to the offender is still owed. As McNeill and Maruna argued, collateral consequences like stigmatisation and exclusion of offenders should be addressed; essential to the success of rehabilitation on conviction of crime.[66] One of the most significant challenges poses to the offender would be ingrained ‘structural obstacles’ faced after release. These ‘structural obstacles’ includes: the difficulties in securing employment, managing debt, obtaining accommodation, and meeting formal job and educational criteria; due to prevailing political trends in Western countries, amplifying the obstacles for offenders to desist.[67] As desistance is not only a matter of choice, but in the context of social situation of offenders and structural elements.[68] Therefore, whilst desistance equates to the inter-relatedness of forms of rehabilitation: personal, legal, moral, and social; both offenders’ agency and contextual changes of structural features of modern society are important in fostering desistance.[69] Although it may be difficult in changing the political environment where ‘structural obstacles’ stems from, community volunteers and support services involved in RJ processes may provide suitable assistance to offenders in overcoming these obstacles. Through RJ discussions, social capital is utilised, and opportunities known about by supporters or professionals are presented. Thus, upon these practices, new connections may be created, and offenders may build up his own human and social capital in communities where they will be reintegrated.[70] Furthermore as established, relevant programmes are delivered, countering with offenders’ offending-related problems which address the roots of criminality, in areas such as ‘drug and alcohol addiction, mental illness and skills shortages’[71], along with the assistance of supporters to accomplish elements of the outcome agreement between the victim and the offender.[72] Therefore, successful reintegration results offenders to be ‘taxpayers instead of a drain on the state’, tackling the problem of high cost of re-offending, in which returning to the desires of the public from the CJS: ‘punishment, protection, and a renewed focus on breaking the cycle of crime and re-offending.’.[73] Nonetheless, RJ’s role is to help to ‘fumble towards justice, integration, and solidarity together and help to reduce re-offending.’[74].

In conclusion, RJ links-up rehabilitation, reintegration, and desistance, providing ‘an overarching normative framework, and correctional programmes’ in fostering desistance processes.[75] Hence, RJ should serve as an alternative within the CJS for short-term sentencing offences and youth offenders; all RJ functions render such an approach most beneficial.

Article by Karli Choy

[1] Breaking the Cycle: Government Response, creating a safe, just and democratic society, Presented to Parliament by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice by Command of Her Majesty, p.1 (June 2011).

[2] House of Commons Justice Committee, Public opinion and understanding of sentencing, Tenth Report of Session 2022-23, p.37.

[3] Breaking the Cycle: Government Response, creating a safe, just and democratic society, Presented to Parliament by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice by Command of Her Majesty, p.6 (June 2011).

[4] Joanna Shapland, Anne Atkinson, Helen Atkinson, James Dignan, Lucy Edwards, Jeremy Hibbert, Marie Howes, Jennifer Johnstone, Gwen Robinson and Angela Sorsby, Does restorative justice affect reconviction? The fourth report from the evaluation of three schemes, Ministry of Justice Research Series 10/08, p.22, p.78, (June 2008).

[5] Woolf, P., The damage done. London: Bantam Press, (2009). See also ‘The Woolf within’, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1s6wKeGLQk.

[6] Adult reconvictions: results from the 2009 cohort (MoJ, March 2011). www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/adults.htm

[7]Georgina Eaton and Aidan Mews, Ministry of Justice, The impact of short custodial sentences, community orders and suspended sentence orders on reoffending, Ministry of Justice Analytical Series 2019.

[8] Prisons reform speech: The Justice Secretary delivers his first major speech on prison reform at the Royal Society of Arts in London. Ministry of Justice and The Rt Hon David Gauke. Published 6 March 2018.

[9] Breaking the Cycle: Government Response, creating a safe, just and democratic society, Presented to Parliament by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice by Command of Her Majesty, (June 2011).

[10] Restorative justice and the judiciary Information pack October 2015, Restorative justice in the magistrates’ court, Richard Monkhouse, the chairman of the Magistrates’ Association, shares his experience of restorative justice in the magistrates’ court, p.12.

[11] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIjor9txWJw&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pr0OTCVtHbU

[12] Jessica Traylor, Laura Overstreet, and Diana Lang, Psychodynamic Theory: Freud, Iowa State University digital press.

[13] Garland, D., Punishment and Modern Society: A Study in Social Theory, (1990).

[14] Breaking the Cycle: Government Response, creating a safe, just and democratic society, Presented to Parliament by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice by Command of Her Majesty, p.1, (June 2011).

[15] Zehr, H., Changing Lenses: A new Focus for Crime and Justice, Herald Press: Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Waterloo Ontario, p.181, (1990).

[16] Restorative justice and the judiciary Information pack October 2015, Restorative justice in the magistrates’ court, Richard Monkhouse, the chairman of the Magistrates’ Association, shares his experience of restorative justice in the magistrates’ court, p.12.

[17] Restorative justice and the judiciary Information pack October 2015, Restorative justice in the magistrates’ court, Richard Monkhouse, the chairman of the Magistrates’ Association, shares his experience of restorative justice in the magistrates’ court, p.12.

[18] Restorative justice and the judiciary Information pack October 2015, Restorative justice in the magistrates’ court, Richard Monkhouse, the chairman of the Magistrates’ Association, shares his experience of restorative justice in the magistrates’ court, p.12.

[19] New Zealand’s the Sentencing Act 2002, the Victims’ Rights Act 2002, the Parole Act 2002, and the Corrections Act 2004.

[20] Sarah Mikva Pfander, Evaluating New Zealand’s restorative promise: the impact of legislative design on the practice of restorative justice, p.176.

[21] New Zealand Government, Ministry of Justice, How Restorative Justice works, (19 December 2022), https://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/criminal/charged-with-a-crime/how-restorative-justice-works/

[22] Such as, Project Turnaround in Timaru and Te Whanua Awhina on the Hoani Waititi Marae in West Auckland; Maxwell G, Anderson T.1999. Community panel adult pre-trial diversion: supplementary evaluation. Wellington: Crime Prevention Unit, Department of Prime Minister, and Cabinet.

[23] Karp, D.R., Sprayregen, M., Drakulich, K.M., Vermont reparative probation year 2000 outcome evaluation final report, (2002); Sarah Mikva Pfander, Evaluating New Zealand’s restorative promise: the impact of legislative design on the practice of restorative justice, p.180.

[24] Braithwaite, J., Crime, shame, and reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, (1989); Braithwaite, J., Shame and modernity. British Journal of Criminology, 33(1), 1–18, (1993).

[25] Sarah Mikya Pfander, Evaluating New Zealand’s restorative promise: the impact of legislative design on the practice of restorative justice, (2019); Karp, D.R., Bazemore, G., Chesire, J.D., (2004). The role and attitudes of restorative board members: a case study of volunteers in community justice. Crime and Delinquency, 50(4):487–515.

[26]Bart Claes and Joanna Shapland, Desistance from crime and restorative justice; Post-Doctoral Fellow, School of Law, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK; Edward Bramley, Professor of Criminal Justice, School of Law, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

[27] Joanna Shapland, Anne Atkinson, Helen Atkinson, James Dignan, Lucy Edwards, Jeremy Hibbert, Marie Howes, Jennifer Johnstone, Gwen Robinson and Angela Sorsby, Does restorative justice affect reconviction? The fourth report from the evaluation of three schemes, Ministry of Justice Research Series 10/08, p.22, p.78, (June 2008).

[28] Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners, Report by the Social Exclusion Unit, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, (July 2002).

[29] Jones, Criminology, 7^th Edition, p.88.

[30] Lea and Young, What is to be Done About Law and Order? Harmondsworth: Penguin, (1984).

[31] Lombroso C, 1876, ‘Criminal Man’, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, (2006).

[32] Hollin, Psychology and Crime: an introduction to criminological psychology, (1989).

[33] Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners, Report by the Social Exclusion Unit, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, (July 2002).

[34] Home Office, Resettlement Survey 2001 (forthcoming publication).

[35] Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners, Report by the Social Exclusion Unit, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, (July 2002).

[36] 2004 national study of offenders sentenced or released from prison.

[37] Joanna Shapland, Anne Atkinson, Helen Atkinson, James Dignan, Lucy Edwards, Jenny Hibbert, Marie Howes, Jennifer Johnstone, Gwen Robinson and Angela Sorsby, Does restorative justice affect reconviction? The fourth report from the evaluation of three schemes, Ministry of Justice Research Series 10/08 (June 2008); Cunliffe, J., and Shepherd, A., Re-offending of adults: results from the 2004 cohort. Home Office Statistical Bulletin 06/07. London: Home Office, p.46, (2007).

[38] Rainsbrook Secure Training Centre.

[39] ECOTEC, An Audit of Education Provision within the Juvenile Secure Estate, (2001).

[40] ECOTEC, Review of the Pre- and Post-Custodial Education Experiences of Young People, (2001).

[41] ECOTEC, Review of the relationship between youth offending and non-attendance at school, unpublished, (2001).

[42] Lader, D., Singleton, N., and Meltzer, H., Psychiatric Morbidity among Young Offenders in England and Wales, ONS, (2000).

[43]Marmot, M., Goldblatt, P., Allen, J., Fair Society Healthy Lives (The Marmot Review) – Institute of Health Equity, (2010); Allen, M., Donkin, A., The impact of adverse experiences in the home on the health of children and young people, and inequalities in prevalence and effects, UCL Institute of Health Equity, 28 (2015).

[44] Agnew, R., Foundation for a General Strain Theory of Crime and Delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47-88, (1992).

[45] Piquero, A.R., Jennings, W.G., Diamond, B., Farrington, D.P., Tremblay, R.E., Welsh, B.C., et al. A meta-analysis update on the effects of early family/parent training programs on antisocial behaviour and delinquency. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 12(2):229-48, p.97, (2016).

[46] Piquero, A.R., Jennings, W.G., Diamond, B., Farrington, D.P., Tremblay, R.E., Welsh, B.C., et al. A meta-analysis update on the effects of early family/parent training programs on antisocial behaviour and delinquency. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 12(2):229-48, p.45-51, (2016).

[47] Sampson, R. & Laub, J., Crime in the making. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, p.305, (1993).

[48] Sampson, R. & Laub, J., Crime in the making. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, (1993).

[49] Duff, A., Punishment, Communication and Community. Oxford University Press, (2001).

[50] ‘Making good’ Maruna (2001:7-8).

[51] Claes, B., and Shapland, J.M., Desistance from crime and restorative justice. Restorative Justice, 4(3), p.302-322. ISSN 2050-473X, (2017).

[52] ‘Making good’ Maruna (2001:7-8).

[53] ‘Making good’ Maruna (2001:7-8).

[54]Evidence supporting the use of restorative justice, Restorative Justice Council, https://restorativejustice.org.uk/resources/evidence-supporting-use-restorative-justice

[55] Restorative Justice APPG Inquiry into Restorative Practices in 2021/2022 Report on the Inquiry into Restorative Practices in 2021/2022.

[56] Beccaria, C., 1789, On Crimes and Punishments. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, (1764); Bentham, J., An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. New York: Hafner, (1948).

[57]Jones, Criminology, 7^th Edition.

[58] Joanna Shapland, Anne Atkinson, Helen Atkinson, James Dignan, Lucy Edwards, Jeremy Hibbert, Marie Howes, Jennifer Johnstone, Gwen Robinson and Angela Sorsby, Does restorative justice affect reconviction? The fourth report from the evaluation of three schemes, Ministry of Justice Research Series 10/08, (June 2008).

[59]Claes, B., and Shapland, J.M., Desistance from crime and restorative justice. Restorative Justice, 4(3), p.302-322. ISSN 2050-473X, (2017).

[60] ‘Making good’ Maruna (2001:7-8).

[61] Case of Jo Nodding, http://vimeo.com/27590008

[62] Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners, Report by the Social Exclusion Unit, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, (July 2002).

[63] Victims Code of Practice 2015, Domestic Abuse Bill 2019, Victims’ Right to Review Scheme and Victim Personal Statement (The Criminal Justice Act 2003)

[64] The EU Directive 2012 – EU directive (Brussels, 18.5.2011, COM (2011) 275 final, 2011/0129 (COD) and DIRECTIVE 2012/29/ EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 25 October 2012: establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime.).

[65] Rossner, M., Just Emotions: Rituals of Restorative Justice. Oxford University Press, (2013).

[66] McNeill, F. and Maruna, S., ‘Giving Up and Giving Back: Desistance, Generativity and Social Work with Offenders” p. 224-239, in Mclvor, G. and Raynor, P. (ed.) Developments in Social Work with Offenders. Research Highlights in Social Work 48. Jessica Kingsley, (2007).

[67] Farrall, S., Bottoms, A.E. & Shapland, J., Social structures, and desistance from crime, European Journal of Criminology, 7(6), 306, (2010).

[68] Farrall, S., Bottoms, A.E. & Shapland, J., Social structures, and desistance from crime, European Journal of Criminology, 7(6), 306, (2010); Farrall, S., Hunter, B., Sharpe, G. & Calverley, A., Criminal careers in transition. The social context of desistance from crime. Oxford: Oxford University Press, (2014).

[69] Bottoms, A. & Shapland, J., Steps towards desistance among male young adult recidivists. In S. Farrall, M. Hough, S. Maruna & R. Sparks eds., Escape routes p. 43–80. London: Routledge, (2011).

[70] Farrall, S., Hunter, B., Sharpe, G. & Calverley, A., Criminal careers in transition. The social context of desistance from crime. Oxford: Oxford University Press, (2014).

[71] Breaking the Cycle: Government Response, creating a safe, just, and democratic society, Presented to Parliament by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice by Command of Her Majesty, (June 2011).

[72] Shapland, J., Robinson, G. & Sorsby, A., Restorative justice in practice. London: Routledge, (2011).

[73] Breaking the Cycle: Government Response, creating a safe, just, and democratic society, Presented to Parliament by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice by Command of Her Majesty, (June 2011).

[74] Rossner, M., Just Emotions: Rituals of Restorative Justice. Oxford University Press, (2013).

[75] Ward, T., Fox, K.J. & Garber, M., Restorative Justice, offender rehabilitation and desistance, Restorative Justice: An International Journal, 2(1), 24-42, (2014).