Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) in Australia, 1995-1999

The Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) project
compared the effects of standard court processing with the effects of
a restorative justice intervention known as conferencing for four
kinds of cases: drunk driving (over .08 blood alcohol content) at any
age, juvenile property offending with personal victims, juvenile
shoplifting offenses detected by store security officers, and youth
violent crimes (under age 30). Reintegrative shaming theory underpins
the conferencing alternative. It entails offenders facing those harmed
by their actions in the presence of family and friends whose opinions
they care about, discussing their wrongdoing, and making repayment to
society and to their victims for the costs of their crimes, both
material and emotional. These conferences were facilitated by police
officers and usually took around 90 minutes, compared with around ten
minutes for court processing time. The researchers sought to test the
hypotheses that (1) there would be less repeat offending after a
conference than after a court treatment, (2) victims would be more
satisfied with conferences than with court, (3) both offenders and
victims would find conferences to be fairer than court, and (4) the
public costs of providing a conference would be no greater than, and
perhaps less than, the costs of processing offenders in court. This
study contains data from ongoing experiments comparing the effects of
court versus diversionary conferences for a select group of
offenders. Part 1, Administrative Data for All Cases, consists of data
from reports by police officers. These data include information on the
offender's attitude, the police station and officer that referred the
case, blood alcohol content level (drunk driving only), offense type,
and RISE assigned treatment. Parts 2-5 are data from observations by
trained RISE research staff of court and conference treatments to
which offenders had been randomly assigned. Variables for Parts 2-5
include duration of the court or conference, if there was any violence
or threat of violence in the court or conference, supports that the
offender and victim had, how much reintegrative shaming was expressed,
the extent to which the offender accepted guilt, if and in what form
the offender apologized (e.g., verbal, handshake, hug, kiss), how
defiant or sullen the offender was, how much the offender contributed
to the outcome, what the outcome was (e.g., dismissed, imprisonment,
fine, community service, bail release, driving license cancelled,
counseling program), and what the outcome reflected (punishment,
repaying community, repaying victims, preventing future offense,
restoration). Data for Parts 6 and 7, Year 0 Survey Data from
Non-Drunk-Driving Offenders Assigned to Court and Conferences and Year
0 Survey Data from Drunk-Driving Offenders Assigned to Court and
Conferences, were taken from interviews with offenders by trained RISE
interview staff after the court or conference proceedings. Variables
for Parts 6 and 7 include how much the court or conference respected
the respondent's rights, how much influence the respondent had over
the agreement, the outcome that the respondent received, if the court
or conference solved any problems, if police explained that the
respondent had the right to refuse the court or conference, if the
respondent was consulted about whom to invite to court or conference,
how the respondent was treated, and if the respondent's respect for
the justice system had gone up or down as a result of the court or
conference. Additional variables focused on how nervous the respondent
was about attending the court or conference, how severe the respondent
felt the outcome was, how severe the respondent thought the punishment
would be if he/she were caught again, if the respondent thought the
court or conference would prevent him/her from breaking the law, if
the respondent was bitter about the way he/she was treated, if the
respondent understood what was going on in the court or conference, if
the court or conference took account of what the respondent said, if
the respondent felt pushed around by people with more power, if the
respondent felt disadvantaged because of race, sex, age, or income,
how police treated the respondent when arrested, if the respondent
regretted what he/she did, if the respondent felt ashamed of what
he/she did, what his/her family, friends, and other people thought of
what the respondent did, and if the respondent had used drugs or
alcohol the past year. Demographic variables in this data collection
include offender's country of birth, gender, race, education, income,
and employment.

Tags: case-processing, driving-under-the-influence, intervention, intervention-strategies, juvenile-offenders, petty-theft, police-officers, pretrial-procedures, property-crime, restorative-justice
Organization: Department of Justice