nach oben

Social Justice Research

Erschienen in:

01.12.2006

Restoration and Retribution: How Including Retributive Components Affects the Acceptability of Restorative Justice Procedures

verfasst von: Dena M. Gromet, John M. Darley

Erschienen in: Social Justice Research | Ausgabe 4/2006

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Two studies investigated people’s perceptions of the acceptability of restorative justice procedures for handling crimes that differ in severity. Results from Study 1 supported our hypothesis that as crimes increase in seriousness, people require a restorative justice procedure that also has a possible retributive component (i.e. a prison sentence). Study 1 also demonstrated that individuals assigned lower prison sentences for offenders who successfully completed a restorative procedure as compared to a traditional court procedure. The results from Study 2 replicated those from Study 1, as well as demonstrating that offenders who failed to successfully complete the restorative procedure received no reduction in prison sentence. These findings suggest that in order for citizens to view a restorative justice procedure as an acceptable alternative to the traditional court system for serious crimes, the procedure must allow for the option of some retributive measures.

Nächster Artikel Support for Harsh Criminal Sanctions and Criminal Justice Beliefs: A Social Dominance Perspective

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Eighteen of these participants were run in a control group in order to test our hypothesis about the lowering of prison sentences in the mixed procedure. The control group participants were not given the option to choose one of the alternative procedures; they could only use the traditional court system. These participants were taken from the same subject pool as the participants who were asked to decide among the pure restorative procedure, the mixed procedure, and court.

We asked our respondents which of three judicial procedures they would choose for each case. We did so because this would be the task facing the decision maker who allocates real cases to differing procedures. As an anonymous reviewer pointed out, if we had asked participants to rate the appropriateness or suitableness of sending each case to each of the three procedural options instead, more useful information could be extracted. For instance, for an option that was not chosen, the researcher could tell whether this option was merely less preferred to the selected one, or regarded as a completely unsuitable option.

Some of the experimental materials were adapted from Bilz (2002).

We did not have enough participants sending cases to court among the original 39 participants to answer this question, which made running a control group necessary. In addition, the inclusion of a separate control group allowed us to overcome a potential confound. Participants who chose to send offenders to court rather than to the mixed procedure may have done so because they saw the crime as being more serious. Thus, any differences in punishment between participants choosing to send offenders to court instead of the mixed procedure could be attributed to differential perceptions of crime severity between the groups, rather than to the fact that participants believed in the need for less punishment after a restorative conference. Including a control group that required participants to send the offenders to court eliminated this potential confound.

For this part of the analysis, we did not include the ratings of the control participants, as they were not given the option to choose where to send the offenders. The seriousness ratings of the control participants did not differ from the participants who did get to choose (all p’s > 0.1), except for the oil drum theft (control: M = 3.78, SD = 1.22), F (1, 55) = 4.53, p < 0.04.

A repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) demonstrated that the low, mid, and high-seriousness crimes differed significantly from each other, F(2, 64) = 149.31, p < 0.0001, η² = 0.82. The low-seriousness crimes differed from the mid-seriousness crimes, and the mid-seriousness crimes differed from the high-seriousness crimes, p’s < 0.0001.

For the complete analyses of the seriousness groupings and send decision proportion data for this study and the next, please contact the corresponding author.

We did not include the control group participants in these analyses, as they did not have a choice of where to send the cases.

The degrees of freedom for this correlation is the total number of observations from the 39 participants for each of the 9 cases.

One issue here is that participants were able to select into the mixed procedure, but in the control group, participants were assigned to the court process. However, the participants who selected the mixed procedure also had the option of selecting the pure restorative procedure. Therefore, if there were any differences between these participants, it is likely that those who selected the mixed procedure would be slightly more punitive than those in the control group. This would work against our predictions, which is why we are not concerned about the difference in selecting between these two groups.

As before, these three groups (low, mid, and high) differed from each other F(2, 82) = 238.34, p < 0.0001, η² = 0.85. The low-seriousness crimes differed from the mid-seriousness crimes, and the mid-seriousness crimes differed from the high-seriousness crimes, p’s < 0.0001.

For the analyses of participants’ sentencing and rehabilitation judgments, it is important to note that comparisons including the pure restorative and the traditional court system procedures are not experimentally manipulated (as are the unsuccessful versus unsuccessful conferences within the mixed restorative and retributive procedure). Thus, the results including those two conditions must be interpreted cautiously, as factors that produced the respondents’ initial referral decisions may have “silently” affected people’s final sentencing and rehabilitation judgments.

Of course, punishment reactions are not only determined by the motives of retribution and restoration. Other motives, such as incapacitation of dangerous offenders, are also likely to be involved in punishment decisions.

Barton C. K. B., (1999). Getting Even: Revenge as a Form of Justice Open Court Publishing Company Peru, IL

Bazemore G., Stinchcomb J., (2004). A civic engagement model of re entry: Involving community through service and restorative justice Fed. Probat. 68: 14–24

Bilz, K. (2002). Restorative justice and Victim Offender Meditation (VOM): A new area for social psychological inquiry. Unpublished master’s thesis, Princeton University

Bowers W. J., (1993). Capital punishment and contemporary values: People’s misgivings and the court’s misperceptions Law Soc. Rev. 27: 157–175CrossRef

Braithwaite J., (1998). Restorative justice In Tonry M. (ed.), The Handbook of Crime and Punishment Oxford University Press Oxford, UK pp. 113–147

Braithwaite J., (1999). Restorative justice: Assessing optimistic and pessimistic accounts In Tonry M., (ed.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 25 University of Chicago Press Chicago pp. 1–127

Braithwaite J., (2002). Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation Oxford University Press Oxford, UK

Braithwaite J., Strang H., (2001). Restorative Justice and Civil Society Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UK

Carlsmith, K. M. (2006). The roles of retribution and utility in determining punishment. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol., 42, 437–451CrossRef

Carlsmith K. M., Darley J. M., Robinson P. H., (2002). Why do we punish? Deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 83: 284–299PubMedCrossRef

Daly K., (2002). Restorative justice: The real story Punishment Soc. 4: 55–79CrossRef

Darley J. M., Carlsmith K. M., Robinson P. H., (2000). Incapacitation and just deserts as motives for punishment Law Human Behav. 24: 659–683CrossRef

Doble J., Greene J., (2000). Attitudes Towards Crime and Punishment in Vermont: Public Opinion about an Experiment with Restorative Justice John Doble Research Associates Englewood Cliffs, NJ

Duff R. A., (2003). Restorative punishment and punitive restoration In Johnstone G. (ed.), A Restorative Justice Reader: Texts, Sources, and Context, Portland, OR Willan Publishing Portland, OR pp. 382–397

Felson R. B., Ribner S. A., (1981). An attributional approach to accounts and sanctions for criminal violence Soc. Psychol. Quart. 44: 137–142CrossRef

Gold G. J., Weiner B., (2000). Remorse, confession, group identity, and expectancies about repeating a transgression Basic Appl. Soc. Psych. 22: 291–300CrossRef

Glaze, L. E. and Palla, S. (2004). Probation and parole in the United States, 2003. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, Office of Justice Programs. Available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ppus03.pdf

Hogan R., Emler N. P., (1981). Retributive justice In Lerner M. J., Lerner S. C. (eds.), The Justice Motive in Social Behavior Plenum Press New York pp. 125–143

Klienke C. L., Wallis R., Stadler K., (1992). Evaluation of a rapist as a function of expressed intent and remorse J. Soc. Psychol. 132: 525–537CrossRef

Lind E.A, Tyler T. R., (1988). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice Plenum Press New York

Marshall T. F., (2003). Restorative justice: An overview In Johnstone G. (ed.), A Restorative Justice Reader: Texts, Sources, and Context Willan Publishing Portland, OR pp. 28–45

McGarrell E. F., Sandys M., (1996). The misperception of public opinion toward capital punishment: Examining the spuriousness explanation of death penalty support Am. Behav. Sci. 39: 500–513

Miller D. T., Vidmar N., (1981). The social psychology of punishment reactions In Lerner M., Lerner S., (eds.), The Justice Motive in Social Behavior Academic Press New York pp. 145–172

Nadler J., (2005). Flouting the law Tex. Law Rev. 83: 1399–1441

Pager D., (2003). The mark of a criminal record Am. J. Sociol. 108: 937–975CrossRef

Roberts, J. V. (2005). Mandatory sentences of imprisonment in common law jurisdictions: Some representative models. Research and Statistics Division, Department of Justice Canada. Available at http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/rs/rep/2005/rr05-10/index.html

Roberts J. V., Stalans L. J., (2004). Restorative sentencing: Exploring the views of the public Soc. Justice Res. 17: 315–334CrossRef

Robinson D. T., Smith-Lovin L., Tsoudis O., (1994). Heinous crime or unfortunate accident? The effects of remorse on responses to mock criminal confessions Soc. Forces 73: 175–190CrossRef

Robinson P. H., (2003). The virtues of restorative processes, the vices of restorative justice Utah Law Rev. 1: 375–388

Robinson P. H., Darley J. M., (1995). Justice, Liability, and Blame: Community Views and the Criminal Law Westview Press Boulder, CO

Rosenmerkel S. P., (2001). Wrongfulness and harmfulness as components of seriousness of white-collar offenses J. Contemp. Crim. Justice 17: 308–327

Rumsey M. G., (1976). Effects of defendant background and remorse on sentencing judgments J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 6: 64–68CrossRef

Sherman L. W., (2003). Reason for emotion: Reinventing justice with theories, innovations, and research Criminology 41: 1–37CrossRef

Shultz T. R., Wright K., Schleifer M., (1986). Assignment of moral responsibility and punishment Child Dev. 57: 177–184CrossRef

Strang H., (2002). Repair or Revenge: Victims and Restorative Justice Oxford University Press Oxford, UK

Thomas C. W., Petersen D. M., Cage R. J., (1981). A comparative organizational analysis of prisonization Crim. Justice Rev. 6: 36–43

Tyler T. R., (1990). Why People Obey the Law Yale University Press New Haven, CT

Tyler T. R., Boeckmann R. J., (1997). Three strikes and you are out, but why?: The psychology of public support for punishing rule breakers Law Soc. Rev. 31: 237–265CrossRef

Tyler T. R., Boeckmann R. J., Smith H. J., Huo Y. J., (1997). Social Justice in a Diverse Society Westview Press Boulder, CO

Vidmar N., Miller D. T., (1980). Social psychological processes underlying attitudes toward legal punishment Law Soc. Rev. 14: 401–438CrossRef

Warr M., (1989). What is the perceived seriousness of crimes? Criminology 27: 795–821CrossRef

Titel: Restoration and Retribution: How Including Retributive Components Affects the Acceptability of Restorative Justice Procedures
verfasst von: Dena M. Gromet
John M. Darley
Publikationsdatum: 01.12.2006
Verlag: Kluwer Academic Publishers-Plenum Publishers
Erschienen in: Social Justice Research / Ausgabe 4/2006
Print ISSN: 0885-7466
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-6725
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-006-0023-7

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2006

Why We Punish in the Name of Justice: Just Desert versus Value Restoration and the Role of Social Identity

Support for Harsh Criminal Sanctions and Criminal Justice Beliefs: A Social Dominance Perspective

Evaluating the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa

Acknowledgments

Making the Sexual Harassment of Others Self-Relevant: The Roles of Identity Salience and Value Affirmation

Explaining School Corporal Punishment: Evangelical Protestantism and Social Capital in a Path Model

Premium Partner