We would like to thank every one for attending the

presentation today.

Before we begin I would just like to high light some house

rules:

Please can you either turn your phone off or place it on

silent.

If a toilet break is needed, they are down the corridor to

your right

A fire drill has not been arranged today but in the event of

a fire, please vacate the room to your left and go down the

stairs following signs to safety point outside in the car

park.

House keeping

The aim of this presentation is to give an understanding of what and how Restorative Justice works. To do this there are 8 key Questions 1. Define – what it is2. How does it work3. What’s the thinking behind RJ4. What theories support its application5. What are the claims made about its capacity to reduce re offending? 6. What are the skills required to successfully achieve victim-offender mediation?7. What are the challenges and dilemmas involved in delivering victim mediation and RJ work?8. Your own observations

Aims and Objectives

What is Restorative Justice?

O Restorative justice is where the parties with a

stake in a particular offence come together to

resolve collectively how to deal with the

aftermath of the offence and its implications for

the future (Marshall, 1996, pg37)

Restorative Justice Continued

O The aim of which is to discuss the crime and the

harm caused as well as how this might be put

right.

O It involves bringing together a victim and his or

her offender at a meeting facilitated by a

mediator.

The Principles of Restorative Jusice

O 1. Justice requires that we work to restore those

who have been injured.

O 2.Those most directly involved and affected by

the crime should have the opportunity to

participate fully in the response if they wish.

O 3.Government’s role is to preserve a just public

order, and the community's is to build and

maintain a just peace.

The Key Values of Restorative Justice

O They are four key values

O Encounter-To create opportunities for victims, offenders

and community members who want to meet to discuss

the crime and its aftermath.

O Amends-To expect offenders to take steps to repair the

harm they have caused.

O Reintegration-To restore victims and offenders to a whole,

contributing members of society.

O Inclusion-To provide opportunities for the parties with a

stake in a specific crime to participate in its resolution.

Programmes identified with Restorative Justice

O Victim-Offender mediation

O Conferencing

O Circles

O Victim Assistance

O Ex-offender Assistance

O Restitution

O Community Service

Aims of the Programmes

O Identifying and taking steps to repair harm.

O Involving all stakeholders.

O Transforming the traditional relationship

between communities and their governments

in responding to crime.

Victim Offender Mediation

O Victim Offender Mediation concerns mediating between victims of crime and or

their families and the offenders who committed the crime against the victim, such

cases have involved issues relating to theft, manslaughter, assault, murder,

robbery, affray, public order offences, death by dangerous driving, threats to kill,

deception, fraud, burglary, indecent assault and rape.

O Victim / Offender Mediation is a recognised safe and effective way for victims and

their offenders to make contact through a Mediator. This contact may take various

forms, from giving and receiving of information, to an actual face - to - face

meeting.

O Independent : The mediator is locally based and provides Victim/Offender

mediation completely independent of the courts, the police or any other agency.

O Confidential: Any discussions involving mediation will be conducted in private with

total confidentiality. (CMS, Online, 2013)

Restorative Conferencing

A restorative conference is a structured

meeting between offenders, victims

and both parties’ family and friends, in

which they deal with the consequences

of the crime or wrongdoing and decide

how best to repair the harm. Neither a

counselling nor a mediation process,

conferencing is a victim-sensitive,

straightforward problem-solving

method that demonstrates how citizens

can resolve their own problems when

provided with a constructive forum to

do so (O’Connell, Wachtel, & Wachtel,

1999).

Restorative Conferences Continued

O Conferences provide victims and others with an opportunity to

confront the offender, express their feelings, ask questions and

have a say in the outcome. Offenders hear first hand how their

behaviour has affected people. Offenders may choose to

participate in a conference and begin to repair the harm they have

caused by apologizing, making amends and agreeing to financial

restitution or personal or community service work. Conferences

hold offenders accountable while providing them with an

opportunity to discard the “offender” label and be reintegrated into

their community, school or workplace (Morris & Maxwell, 2001).

Restorative Conferences Continued

O Participation in conferences is voluntary. After it is

determined that a conference is appropriate and

offenders and victims have agreed to attend, the

conference facilitator invites others affected by the

incident—the family and friends of victims and offenders

(O’Connell, Wachtel, & Wachtel, 1999).

O A restorative conference can be used in lieu of

traditional disciplinary or justice processes, or where

that is not appropriate, as a supplement to those

processes (O’Connell, Wachtel, & Wachtel, 1999).

Restorative Circles

O A Restorative Circle is a community process for supporting those in

conflict. It brings together the three parties to a conflict – those who have

acted, those directly impacted and the wider community – within an

intentional systemic context, to dialogue as equals. Participants invite

each other and attend voluntarily. The dialogue process used is shared

openly with all participants, and guided by a community member. The

process ends when actions have been found that bring mutual benefit.

O Restorative Circles are facilitated in 3 stages designed to identity the key

factors in the conflict, reach agreements on next steps, and evaluate the

results. As a circle form, they invite shared power, mutual understanding,

self-responsibility and effective action. (Restorative Circles, Online,2013)

The thinking behind Restorative Justice

O Restorative practices has its roots in restorative justice, a way of looking at criminal

justice that emphasizes repairing the harm done to people and relationships rather

than only punishing offenders (Zehr, 1990).

O In the modern context, restorative justice originated in the 1970s as mediation or

reconciliation between victims and offenders. In 1974 Mark Yantzi, a probation

officer, arranged for two teenagers to meet directly with their victims following a

vandalism spree and agree to restitution. The positive response by the victims led to

the first victim-offender reconciliation program, in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, with

the support of the Mennonite Central Committee and collaboration with the local

probation department (McCold, 1999; Peachey, 1989). The concept subsequently

acquired various names, such as victim-offender mediation and victim-offender

dialogue as it spread through North America and to Europe through the 1980s and

1990s (Office of Victims of Crime, 1998).

What’s the thinking behind Restorative Justice?

O Restorative justice echoes ancient and indigenous practices employed

in cultures all over the world, from Native American and First Nation

Canadian to African, Asian, Celtic, Hebrew, Arab and many others

(Eagle, 2001; Goldstein, 2006; Haarala, 2004; Mbambo & Skelton,

2003; Mirsky, 2004; Roujanavong, 2005; Wong, 2005).

O Eventually modern restorative justice broadened to include

communities of care as well, with victims’ and offenders’ families and

friends participating in collaborative processes called conferences and

circles. Conferencing addresses power imbalances between the victim

and offender by including additional supporters (McCold, 1999).

The thinking behind Restorative Justice

O Restorative Justice service mandate The Crime and Disorder Act 1998, was the

first attempt to introduce widespread use of Restorative Justice into criminal

justice processing in England and Wales at a moment when legislative action

was focused on the prevention of offending by young people. The use of

Reparation Orders was introduced by the same Act.

O The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, introduced an extension in

the use of Restorative Justice to young people who offend through the device

of Referral Orders for Juvenile Offenders pleading guilty in court for the first

time. The YOTs had primary responsibility for developing the interventions in

support of the Reparation Order, partly on their own and partly via liaison with

other statutory or community-based organisations. Much of the effort here

was focused on consulting with and supporting victims of youth offending.

The thinking behind Restorative Justice

O Restorative justice gives victims answers to their questions, and offenders

the chance to make amends.

O Restorative justice has been shown to deliver 85% victim satisfaction for victims who

choose to participate; and reduces the frequency of re-offending by 14% according to

the latest MoJ evidence.

O Restorative justice is not designed to replace criminal justice proceedings - although

for more minor offences it can be used as an alternative - but alongside and

integrated with criminal justice it can deliver benefits that traditional criminal justice

on it's own cannot.

O Restorative justice holds offenders to account, directly and personally, gives them an

insight into the real impact of their behaviour, and an opportunity to make amends.

Restorative justice gives victims the chance to have their say, to get answers to their

questions, to receive an apology and move on with their lives. (Restorative Justice,

Online, 2013)

The theories behind Restorative Justice

O 1. Reversal of moral disengagement

O 2. Social and moral development

O 3. Emotional and moral psychological healing

O 4. Reintergrative shaming

Moral-psychological theory

Moral-psychological theory - concerned with the psychology of a person in relation to moral matters - someone

engages in activities which are harmful to others, they will tend to silence their conscience by means of various

internal.

O Psychological mechanisms of disengagement.

• Rationalisations about good consequences which are imagined to outweigh the bad ones (moral

justification). (‘If I make enough money on this, I can later help others.’)

• Obscuring or otherwise lessening personal responsibility for the wrongful activity. (‘It wasn’t my fault. I just

did what I was told;’ ‘I played only a small part in it;’ ‘Others do it, why can’t I?’)

• Denial of the seriousness of the harmful effects on others. (‘They won’t mind;’ ‘They will be fine;’ ‘It’s only a

few bits and pieces (TV, stereo, jewellery, etc.), and they can claim it on insurance.’)

• Blaming, dehumanising, or otherwise derogating the victim. (‘Foolish folk. Should not have left the window

open;’ ‘Stupid man. He tried to be a hero;’ ‘He was a b**ard;’ ‘She was a b*ch;’ ‘Serves them right. They

should not have …’)

This can happen to both offender and victim.. by using restorative justice meetings as a form of disengagement

method. Often barriers can be broken down and challenged.

Emotional and moral psychological healing.

O Emotional and moral psychological healing.

• Material and symbolic reparation - The process of material reparation results in a final settlement

between offender and victim and typically consists of specific agreements about compensating

the victim, community service, etc. The process of symbolic reparation is less visible. It is

composed of gestures and expressions of courtesy, respect, remorse, and forgiveness.

• Reparation is what we give to victims to help them overcome damage they have suffered, to

improve their way of life, however not everyone is the same and we have to understand that as

far as the victim is concerned, this can only happen with time and the correct amount of care

and attention.

• For example: It is important that the offender shows remorse and truthfulness within their

apology as it helps the victim to accept and move forward.

• Material reparation works towards repairing the harm caused by the offender and it compensates

for the damage associated with that harm, such as the medical costs ect. This often takes form

of financial payments

Social and moral development.

O Social and moral development.

• Despite this, it is highlighted that victims are not expected to forgive the offender,

however if such a process is correctly performed and maintained, it is hopeful that

this process would benefit towards the forgiveness by the victims.

• Looking back to childhood, we are reminded that good behavior is rewarded with

incentives and that punishment deferrers bad behavior. Learning from our mistakes

as well as those around us, is a key aspect to development, socially and morally.

• This type of method works particularly well with young offenders especially when

they can see the extent of harm to the people around them, this includes the

offender and victim family. Offender meetings offer a huge insight to the views and

opinions of others close to both the victim and the offender, for instance why the

offenders behavior is wrong and why it wont be tolerated. Following this, it is

important to then focus on repairing the harm done.

Reintegrative shaming – offender focused.

O Reintegrative shaming – offender focused.

• Shaming happens when the person’s behaviour is condemned but their self-esteem and confidence are upheld

through positive comments about them and gestures of forgiveness and (re-)acceptance.

O John Braithwaite –“Crime is best controlled when members of the community are the primary controllers through

active participation in shaming offenders, and, having shamed them, through concerted participation in ways of

reintegrating the offender back into the community of law abiding citizens…”

O For example, if we take a look at a family that has a strong bonding relationship where shaming and punishment

are only used when necessary, the relationships still maintain a high level of respect between them.

O It is considered to be highly successful within victim, offender restorative meetings, particularly when offender

family members are present as it brings a realization of what they have done, to who they are. However despite

being a successful method within victim/offender meetings, there is little to suggest this method contributes

towards the restoration and healing of victims.

O Secondly, as rare as it happens, sometimes the intergrative shaming can cause the reverse effect and leave the

offender feeling humiliated and shamed upon by everyone. The key to a positive outcome is to then reinforce

encouragement and self confidence by positive and reassuring comments forwarded by the offender supporters.

• Misconception of the word “shaming” as it implies that the offender is shamed and humiliated. It has a sense of an

unfair process.

Research commissioned by the UK Government, which was undertaken

between 2004 and 2008 by a team headed by Professor Joanna Shapland

at the University of Sheffield, showed that 77% of victims offered an RJ

session took the opportunity.  Offender participation rates were similarly

high.

Another research project, led by criminologists Professor Lawrence

Sherman and Dr Heather Strang found that 27% fewer crimes were

committed by offenders after they’d taken part in an RJ conference than

those offenders who did not.

33% of offenders leaving prison are less likely to reoffend after RJ.

55% of those who have had non-custodial punishments are less likely to

reoffend after RJ.

What are the claims made about its capacity to reduce

reoffending?

Continued

O The Government trials showed that 85% of victims were satisfied with the

process and 72% would recommend it to others.

O The trials showed that through bringing about reductions in reoffending ,

RJ saved the Criminal Justice System nine times what it cost to deliver. In

other words, for every £100 of tax payers’ money spent on setting up RJ

sessions, £800 is saved on court time, legal representation, prison costs

and rehabilitation on a subsequent offence committed by the offender who

took part.

O Ministry of Justice figures show that 49% of adults released from prison are

reconvicted within a year.  72% of under  18s released from custody in

2008 reoffended within a year.

O According to the National Audit Office, reoffending by ex-prisoners cost the

economy over £9.5 billion between the years 2007 and 2008. (WhyMe.Org,

2013)

New Zealand Court-Referred Restorative Justice Pilot: Evaluation

O Over two - thirds of the offenders were not reconvicted within 12 months of

their court-referred restorative justice conference. The actual reconviction rate

of the conferenced offenders (32 per cent) was significantly lower than the

average rate for the ten matched comparison groups (36 per cent).

O Offenders with the following characteristics who attended a conference had

significantly lower actual reconviction rates relative to the same types of

offenders from the comparison groups: • violent offenders; • traffic offenders

(driving causing death or injury); • theft/other offenders (i.e. all offenders

other than fraud and burglary offenders); • offenders with one or two previous

proved cases; • males; • offenders aged 25 to 29 years or 30 to 39 years; •

and, medium and high-risk offenders (i.e. offenders with predicted

reconviction rate of 25 per cent or more).

Mediating Criminal Domestic Violence Cases:

O Results of the study found that for defendants without previous criminal convictions, the

fraction of court cases that are re-charged (6/16) is clearly different from the fraction of

mediated cases that are re-charged (2/55) to an extent that cannot be explained by

random variation (p-value = 0.0025). The difference between court and mediation for

defendants with previous criminal convictions is too large to be easily explained by

random variation.

O Although cases were not assigned to mediation on a random basis, it appears from the

study that mediation had a significant effect in reducing repeat offenses. The effect was

greatest when the defendant did not have any previous convictions and the parties lived

together. Even where cases a defendant had previous convictions, the data shows

mediation has an effect on reducing recidivism. The seriousness of the assaults is not

known and it may well be that the courts have a higher levels of violence. Although, one

of the mediated cases had an assault with a deadly weapon charge so this may not

necessarily be so.

Evaluating conferencing for serious Juvenile Offenders

O This study was of a conferencing project in Belgium for juvenile offenders who had

committed either a serious offence or a series of crimes. The New Zealand model of

conferencing was used in the project.

O The recidivism of the juveniles was assessed through examination of court files six to

eighteen months after either the referral to the conference

O There was no control group in this study.

O 78 per cent of the juveniles who took part in the conference had no new crimes

recorded in the judicial files compared to 22 per cent who were not involved in

conferences.

O It is also worth noting that most of the juveniles involved in conferences who did re-

offend did not commit crimes for several months and, when they did, the crimes were

of a less serious nature than the crime(s) for which they were referred to a conference.

Essex Family Group Conferencing Project

O The authors collected qualitative and quantitative data from

30 family group conferences, convened to address offences

committed by young people considered to be in the top 20

per cent receiving services from YOTs, with regard to

seriousness of offending. Re-offending rates were 31.6 per

cent for the year one sample (2000) and 7.1 per cent for year

two (2001). This was measured at least three, and up to

seventeen months after the conference (Bowes, 2003).

What are the skills required to successfully achieve victim-offender mediation?

O Victim and Offender mediation has been shown to reduce the risk of re-offending, and helps the

victim move on in life. Mediation is an extremely effective way of empowering victims and also

helps the Offender to see the damage that they are doing to people, thereby encouraging them

to take responsibility for their actions.

O For Victim – Offender mediation to take place, it needs a neutral party in place as mediator who

will be selected by the Mediation service selected for the task by the police, solicitor etc.

O Skills a mediator need to possess will be a non-judgemental or non-bias attitude, towards both

the perpetrator and victim. They need to have the ability to create a rapor between perpetrator

and victim so they feel like they make amends surrounding their issues. The mediator will be

trained to notice uncomfortable body language, have an ability to give both the perpetrator and

victim benefits for being at the meeting and help to find a solution matching both parties.

O A safe, comfortable environment needs to be created so all parties feel secure to complete the

mediation but always the knowledge of any mediation session is in the strictest confidence.

What are the challenges and dilemmas involved in delivering victim mediation and

RJ work?

• Victims of crime and Mediation

• Offenders and Mediation

• Offender led Mediation

• Victim led Mediation

• Benefits for Victims

• Benefits for Offenders

• Benefits to a Community

• Benefits to the Justice System

Victims of crime and Mediation

O Being a victim of crime can be a traumatic experience; feelings of violation,

anger, numbness and a sense of bereavement are all normal. Not all victims

react in the same way, everyone is an individual.

Mediation offers victims the chance to tell the person who - committed the

crime against them exactly how they feel.

Very often there are a lot of questions that victims need answers to. Common

questions are: Why Me? What did you do with my property? Do you realise how

I've been affected by this crime?

Mediation can and does help get answers to these questions. If the victim and

offender live in the same community, the victim may feel apprehensive.

Mediation can address all these issues.

Offenders and Mediation

O Some offenders do feel genuinely sorry for their crimes and

need to apologise to their victims as part of their wish to

make amends. Mediation gives the offender the opportunity

of explaining to their victims how and why they committed

the crime.

O If the offender and their victims live in the same area they

may feel apprehensive of becoming a target for revenge or

ostracism by the victim, members of the victim's family or

the community at large. Mediation can address all of these

issues and can also go some way in making our community

a better place in which to live.

Offender led Mediation

O Following an admission of guilt the mediator will interview

the offender in order to determine the level of remorse

and the mediator will also discuss with the offender what

is expected if they engage in the process.

If the mediator is satisfied and the offender agrees, an

approach will then be made to the victim.

O If the victim declines to take part in the mediation

process then the offender is informed that no further

action is to be taken.

Victim led Mediation

O The mediator will assess the victims suitability, needs and

motives for wishing to engage in the mediation process

before any attempt is made to locate the offender (It is

important that the victim's expectations of the mediation

process are not unrealistic).

O If the offender can be traced, the mediator will seek their

views on entering into the mediation process. If the offender

cannot be traced or declines mediation then the victim is

informed and no further action is taken.

Benefits for VictimsO Have the offender right the wrong, in whatever way is possible and valuable to the victimO Opportunity to confront the offender with the real human impact of the offense; express

thoughts and feelings directly to the offender O Find out what the offender is like O Get answers to questions that only the offender can answer (Why did you do this to me? How

did you get into my house? Were you watching me? Is there anything that I did to cause this? Is there anything I could have done to prevent this?)

O Allay fears (often exaggerated) about the offender (Will he come back? What kind of a monster would do a thing like this to me? Am I in danger?)

O Opportunity to ask for/receive an apology O Opportunity to be seen as a person, instead of an object or a target O Become empowered as a primary and valued participant in the resolution of the offense,

instead of being left out or viewed as a nuisance, as commonly occurs in the traditional juvenile and criminal justice processes

O Hold the offender personally accountable to the victim O Help determine what restitution or other restoration the offender will provide and obtain it in a

form that is personal and meaningful to the victim O Greatly increase (4 times more likely, according to research) the chance that restitution will

actually be paid O Opportunity to have a personal impact on the crime problem by decreasing the likelihood that

this offender will re-offend O May avoid the need to appear in court/typically takes fewer weeks, months or even years O Opportunity to feel that justice has been done O Obtain the closure that brings peace of mind

Benefits for Offenders

O Opportunity to make amends and meaningfully right the wrong, rather than just

be punished

O Chance to offer an apology or an explanation

O Opportunity to truly understand the real human consequences of the offense

O Opportunity to be seen as a person, rather than a monster or a criminal

O Opportunity to participate in deciding what restitution/restoration will be given to

the victim and negotiate a restitution agreement that is reasonable and do-able

O In appropriate cases where the offender is not dangerous to the community (first

offenses, minor offenses), the unique opportunity to avoid prosecution, a

juvenile/criminal record or incarceration, by righting the wrong to the victim

instead

O Opportunity to restore self-image as a good person and a competent person

Benefits to a CommunityO Lessen the impacts of crime on the community by increasing restoration of losses

O Reduce the incidence of repeat crime by making offenders understand how they have hurt

someone

O Increase the experience of justice in the community

O Reduce the impacts of incarceration on the community, i.e., locking up parents and breadwinners;

offenders who return to the community having received an education in crime while incarcerated

O In situations where the offense is part of an ongoing interpersonal conflict or where the victim and

offender are likely to come in contact in the future, provide a framework for maintaining peace in

the community

O By training volunteers to resolve offenses, overcome feelings of impotence and empower the

community to have a direct impact on its crime problem, rather than looking solely to

governments for problem-solving

O Trained volunteers take new skills in appropriate dispute resolution back to benefit neighborhoods

and the community as a whole, in a wide variety of settings in which they interact.

Benefits to the Justice System

O Meet the needs of crime victims and increase their sense of justice and satisfaction with the

juvenile/criminal justice system

O Increase the public's experience of justice and increase public satisfaction with the

juvenile/criminal justice system

O Greatly decrease the time generally required to process offenses in the traditional adversarial

manner

O Greatly decrease the expense of processing offenses in the traditional manner by leveraging

services from trained volunteers

O Reduce incarceration costs by substituting creative alternatives for offenders who are not

dangerous and can usefully contribute to the community and the victim

O Reduce court dockets, reduce the caseloads of juvenile courts, prosecutors, public defenders,

corrections officers, and reduce the volume of police calls, making these resources more

available for the cases that most need them

O Increase the community's understanding and ownership of the criminal/juvenile justice

process, as a result of victim and volunteer involvement

Observations

The observations from Restorative Justice are:

O It can give the victims of a crime the answers they need

therefore giving them closure.

O It can give the offender a chance to apologise for their

actions and see the consequences of their actions.

O From case studies Restorative Justice helps to reduce the

reoffending of offenders.

Bibliography BooksO Eagle, H. (2001, November). Restorative justice in native cultures. State of Justice 3. A periodic

publication of Friends Committee on Restorative Justice.O Goldstein, A. (2006, October). Restorative practices in Israel: The state of the field. Paper presented at

the Eighth International Conference on Conferencing, Circles and other Restorative Practices, Bethlehem, PA, USA.

O Haarala, L. (2004). A community within. In Restorative Justice Week: Engaging Us All in the Dialogue. Ottawa, ON, Canada:. Correctional Service of Canada.

O Mbambo, B., & Skelton, A. (2003). Preparing the South African community for implementing a new restorative child justice system. In L. Walgrave, (Ed.), Repositioning Restorative Justice. (pp. 271-283). Devon, UK: Willan Publishing.

O McCold, P. (1999, August). Restorative justice practice—The state of the field. Paper presented at Building Strong Partnerships for Restorative Practices Conference, Burlington, VT, USA.

O Morris, A., & Maxwell, G. (2001). Restorative conferencing. In Bazemore, G. and Schiff, M. (Ed.), Restorative Community justice: Repairing Harm and Transforming Communities (pp. 173-197). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co.

O O’Connell, T., Wachtel, B., & Wachtel, T. (1999). Conferencing Handbook. Pipersville, PA: The Piper’s Press.

O Peachey, D. (1989). The Kitchener experiment. In M. Wright and B. Galaway (Eds.), Mediation and Criminal Justice. Victims, Offenders and Community. London, UK: Sage.

O Roujanavong, W. (2005, November). Restorative justice: Family and community group conferencing (FCGC) in Thailand. Paper presented at the Seventh International Conference on Conferencing, Circles and other Restorative Practices, Manchester, UK.

O Wong, D. (2005) Restorative justice for juveniles in Hong Kong: Reflections of a practitioner. Paper presented at the Sixth International Conference on Conferencing, Circles and other Restorative Practices, Penrith, NSW, Australia.

O Zehr, H. (1990). Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press.

Bibliography WebsitesO The Office of Social Justice (1996-2013) Issues Restorative Justice, Accessed( 28th

April 2013), Retrieved from http://www2.crcna.org/pages/osj_restorativejustice.cfm

O Restorative Justice Organisation (2010) Restorative Justice in Criminal Justice, Accessed (28th April 2013), Retrieved http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/what_is_restorative_justice/in_criminal_justice/#.UX1dcqtwbIU

O Central Mediation Services,(1994), Victim Offender Mediation, Accessed 28th April 2013, Retrieved http://www.centralmediation.co.uk/VOP.htm

O Restorative Justice Online (2009) Restorative Conferencing, Accessed 28th April 2013, Retrieved http://www.restorativejustice.org/press-room/05rjprocesses/restorative-conferencing

O Mirsky, L. (2004, April & May). Restorative justice practices of Native American, First Nation and other indigenous people of North America: Parts One & Two. Restorative Practices eForum. Retreived from http://www.iirp.edu/article_detail.php?article_id=NDA1

O Office for Victims of Crime (1998). Recovered from U.S. Government website. National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/ovc_archives/reports/96517-gdlines_victims-sens/guide4.html