acr201

[acr201]

Restorative Justice

The traditional criminal justice system practices are based on the philosophy of retributive justice, which says that if a crime is committed, there must be a punishment to the offender. In contrast, restorative justice (RJ) in law and justice is based on a different philosophy (Braithwaite 1999).  RJ considers criminal acts as violations of interpersonal relationships between the offender and victim. Therefore, the offender has an obligation to repair this relationship and ‘restore’ the community to its prior status. Thus, in the RJ process, following a criminal act, offenders, victims, and the wider community would engage in ‘restorative discussions’ and decide on the appropriate course of action (Australian Law Reforms Commission 2010). There are several methods of RJ practice, with victim-offender mediation, conferencing, and circle and forum sentencing, being the three most common. The offender will be required to perform a range of rehabilitative activities, to enable him/her to reintegrate into the community (Tyler et al. 2007).

Through engaging in restorative activities, it is expected that the offenders would re-define themselves as law-abiding members of the community and would not re-offend (Sherman & Strang 2007). Many researchers and policy makers see these as positive developments and, therefore, consider the concept of restoration, as a valid alternative in the criminal justice system (Latimer, Dowden & Muise 2005). The restorative justice legislation in Australia, the Crimes (Restorative Justice) 2004 Act (ACT), makes specific provision for restorative justice practices to apply (in the case of both young and adult offenders) to crimes constituting family violence under its family violence legislation.

Does it work?

                                     Michigan Virtual (2020)

There has been a lot of research interest in restorative justice in recent years. From a meta-analysis of 20 such research studies, Latimer et al (2005) concluded that reoffending rates to be lower in RJ compared with other justice interventions. Similar results in re-offending rates were observed in both adult and adolescent offenders (Wong et al. 2016). Along with benefits to offender outcomes, RJ also has benefits for victims of crime that are not found in customary adversarial justice. Victims are given a central role in the process of RJ, with the aim that they should receive information about their victimization ending with emotional restoration and apology (Sherman & Strang 2003). This is achieved through victim-offender conferences (VOCs), which are conversations facilitated by a restorative justice practitioner. VOCs provide both the victim and offender an opportunity to discuss their thoughts and feelings related to the incident (Strang et al. 2006).

Mariyam Usha Hameed

[acr201]

More on Restorative Justice

                                        Restorative Justice (2020)

The concept of ‘restorative justice (RJ)’ sees crime as a violation of people’s relationships (Wilson, Olaghere & Kimbrell 2017). Marshall (1996) defined RJ as “a process whereby all 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” (p. 37). The term “restorative” means that the aim is to achieve restoration of the victim, restoration of the offender to a law - abiding life and, the restoration of the community, to the state it was before the crime.  

RJ is seen as a way of resolving disputes that arise out of civil and criminal offences, while avoiding the escalation of legal action, its delays and cost (Australian Law Reforms Commission 2010). RJ attends to victims’ financial, material, emotional and social needs. RJ also impacts on the offender, forcing the person to own responsibility for the socially undesirable action and, be rehabilitated, to prevent re–offending and, be reintegrated into the community.  The RJ legislation in Australia - the Crimes (Restorative Justice) 2004 Act (ACT), makes specific provision for restorative justice practices to apply to crimes of family violence under its family violence legislation.

Rather than rely on legal professionals or the State to make judgements about guilt or innocence and the type of punishment, Restorative Justice proceedings give that responsibility to the parties involved and the community (Lauristen 2018). RJ programs are commonly used for juvenile or first-time offenders than adult or repeat-offenders. They are typically used as a diversionary program, instead of a formal plea or criminal judgment.

Effectiveness of Restorative Justice

Criminologists study restorative justice programs to determine whether such efforts provide better outcomes than traditional criminal justice system practices. The outcomes typically studied include victim satisfaction and restitution outcomes, and offender recidivism and perceptions of fairness. A meta-analysis of 84 relevant evaluations, by Wilson et al. (2017), found promising evidence suggesting possible but, still uncertain, benefits for the youth participants in terms of reduced future delinquent behavior and other non-delinquent outcomes. Victim participants in these programs, however, do appear to experience several benefits and are more satisfied with these programs than traditional approaches to juvenile justice.

Mariyam Usha Hameed

[acr201]

Mental Health in prison

In Australia, individuals with mental health illnesses encompass a disproportionate number of those who are arrested, appear before the courts and who are imprisoned.  These findings are reflected in most countries around the world. These findings are reflected in changes to the criminal justice system to accommodate for people with mental health illnesses and to ensure that every person receives fair treatment throughout their experiences with the criminal justice system. Some of the changes that have been occurring include different diversion programs. Within Australia, every state has different strategies in place to support individuals with mental health illnesses (McSherry & Richardson, 2010).

Queensland has a mental health court which decides the state of mind of people charged with criminal offences. Criminal cases can be referred to the court if it is believed that an alleged offender is or was mentally ill or has an intellectual disability. The court, which is comprised of several psychiatrists and a supreme judge, decides whether the alleged offender was of sound mind when the offence was allegedly committed and whether the individual is fit for trial (Queensland Courts, 2018).

The Hobart Mental Health Diversion List sits in the Hobart Magistrates Court. Adults charged with summary offences and indictable offences that have impaired mental or intellectual functioning as a result of mental illness are eligible to move through the court system and possibly participate in the program. Once an offender is accepted onto the Hobart Health Diversion list, they undergo a full assessment and are assisted to access treatment and services in the community, aided by a liaison officer and a detailed treatment plan (McSherry & Richardson, 2010).  

Victoria and Tasmania have alternatives for judges and magistrates to make hospital orders instead of a criminal justice to allow that individual to pass from the Criminal Justice System to the civil mental health system. The Victorian government has also stated that after viewing the different diversions being used by other states that Victoria will create its own mental health court as well (McSherry & Richardson, 2010)

                                     Ogloff, et al. (2007, fig.1)

A 2015 report conducted by the Australian Insitute of Health and Welfare revealed that almost half of prison entrants reported having been told by a health professional that they have a mental health disorder and more than one in four indidviduals reported taking medication for their mental health illness. This report was composed

from data from over 1,000 prison entrants (Australian Institue of Health and Welfare, 2015).

Mental health courts are generally “attempting a rehabilitative response to what would otherwise have been criminally sanctioned behaviour” (McSherry & Richardson, 2010).

Hayley Sait

[acr201]

More on Mental Health in Prison

In the year of 2014, The Australian Human Rights Commission launched a report, which detailed a range of problems existing within the Criminal Justice System, which result in people with disabilities not enjoying equality before the law. Since then, there has been an influx of services and programs to support people with disabilities as they converse with the criminal justice system. Below are some of the programs and services offered to those working within the Criminal Justice System and also to individuals with disabilities involved with the Criminal Justice System:

·      Intellectual Disability Diversion Program

·      Justice Support Program

·      Magistrates Court Diversion Program

·      ACSO

·      Disability Pathways Program Corrections Victoria

·      Equal Treatment Benchbook

·      Multiple and Complex Needs Initiative, Corrections Victoria

·      Acquired Brain Injury Program, Corrections Victoria

(Australian Human Rights Commission, 2014)

There are also specific courts in place for proceedings involving individuals with disabilities.

The Intellectual Disability Diversion Court in Western Australia seeks to address the over representation of individuals within the Criminal Justice System with one of more of the following diagnoses

·      Intellectual Disability

·      Cognitive Disability

·      Autism Spectrum Disorder

                                             AIHW (2018, fig 9.4)

The aim of this court is to work with individuals to reduce further contact with the Criminal Justice System and to achieve an outcome whilst being respectful of their charge that is proportionate and reasonable to the circumstances in which the offence occurred and their disability or impairment (Magistrates Court of Western Australia, 2019).

Every state in Australia has several programs and services in place to support people with disabilities through the Criminal Justice System. Many of these programs are diversion from prison programs, attempting to reduce the overrepresentation of people with disabilities in prison and generally in contact with the Criminal Justice System (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2014).

Hayley Sait

[acr201]

Drug Court of Victoria

                                          (Gclipart.com, 2016)

The Drug Court is a divisional program through the Victorian Magistrates Court that focuses on indictable offences committed by offenders who have drug and/or alcohol dependency. The only Drug Courts in Victoria are located within the Melbourne and Dandenong Magistrates Courts’ and are governed by the Victorian Sentencing Act 1991. The overall focal point of the Drug Court of Victoria (DCV) is the treatment and long-term rehabilitation of these particular offenders in order to help reduce recidivism rates and better the community (MCV 2019).

A Drug Treatment Order (DTO) is a custodial order imposed by the Drug Court that has the purpose of diversion of punishment for offenders who have a dependency on drugs or alcohol that constituted or added to their offence or behaviour leading to the offence. A DTO is to be served in the community to ensure the offender can participate in extensive drug/alcohol treatment while still being under secure supervision. To be eligible to apply for the DCV the accused must:

·         Have a dependency on drugs or alcohol that is relevant to the offences

·         The offence must warrant a term of imprisonment of two years or less

·         The offence committed must be an indictable offence and not sexual or overly harmful in nature

·         Plead guilty to all relevant offences (MCV 2019).

While under a DTO the offender is required to participate in a range of appointments with case managers, clinical advisors, alcohol and drug counsellors, the police, Victoria Legal Aid and more. The offender is also required to:

·         Submit regular samples for supervised drug/alcohol testing

·         Attend weekly drug court hearings, where conditions, requirements or time frames can be adjusted accordingly

·         Participate in drug, alcohol, medical, psychological and/ or psychiatric assessments as well as the required treatments

·         Participate in the relevant employment, educational and/or vocational courses

Other conditions may be applied to the community-based sentence, these conditions vary in relevance and can include requirements such as curfews, residential and association restrictions, police station sign-in responsibilities, IVO compliance and various others. If any of these requirements or conditions are not met the DTO can be cancelled and the offender will likely spend an amount of time in prison. The usual term of a DTO is two years but this is often adjusted accordingly on a case-by-case basis (MCV 2019).

Taylor-Jayne Moss

[acr201]

Does The Drug Court Work?

On 18 December 2014 a final report detailing the most recent evaluation of the Victorian Drug Court (DCV) was released. The evaluation was carried out by the Victorian Magistrates Court and took place from 1 July 2010 until 30 June 2013. The final report states that when a Drug Treatment Order (DTO) is ordered upon an offender by the DCV it consists of 3 different, successional stages which are labelled, Stabilisation (1), Consolidation (2) and lastly Re-integration (3) (KPMG 2014). The two-year evaluation showed that 54% of DTO participants completed stage one and continued onto stage 2, although only 22% of the DTO participants completed the diversion program in its entirety. This 22% were specifically evaluated in regards to the completion of a DTO and recidivism rates and the results show a significant drop in re-offending as well as a drop in the seriousness of the re-offending. Although this is a great positive the group included consisted of a mere 61 participants therefore making the result inadequate for wider generalisation (KPMG 2014).

During the evaluation the offenders were asked a range of questions about their experience going through the Drug Court and the Drug Treatment Order (DTO) and when asked ‘What does the drug court have that others don’t?’ (KPMG 2014), all the answers listed mentioned a significant increase of support and encouragement to do well, fair treatment and the feeling of comfortability to open and honest. The offenders were also asked what their favourite part of the Drug Court was and again almost all the responses mention a heightened feeling of support and encouragement to succeed (KPMG 2014).

Taylor-Jayne Moss

[acr201]

RECIDIVISM RATES COMPARED TO PRISON

Diversion programs are a form of a rehabilitation plan to address issues of crimes that an eligible offender may have committed to promoting potential dismissal of the matter or conviction without penalty (Groves, 2017).

Specialised courts created by the judiciary have significant involvement in these diverting processes. The following courts/ programs are examples:

The Drug Court (VIC)

The Magistrates Court Diversion Program

The Treatment Intervention Program (TIP)

Abuse Prevention and Family Violence Court

The Aboriginal (Nunga) Court (SA)

Chelsea Schmidt

[acr201]

Effectiveness of diversion programs with recidivism rates

It can be argued that not all diversion programs are successful and not effective enough to reduce recidivism rates. On a national basis,outcomes of recidivism rates post-program are inconsistent (Willis & Ahmad, 2009), with several studies revealing a limited difference in rates from offenders completing diversional programs (Airey & Wiese, 2001; Makkai & Veraar, 2003). Consequently, population groups believe that harsher penalties are needed to be placed to ensure and uphold effective punishment to the offender for the criminal misconduct and deterrence of recidivism (Groves, 2017).

However, described as one of the harshest forms of punishment, imprisonment is not always the most appropriate legal sanction. Moreover, research indicates that the “Australian public is less punitive than portrayed” (Gelb 2006; 2008 as cited in Groves, 2017), reporting increased willingness to use alternatives to imprisonment to ease prisoner numbers and rates of convictions in the criminal justice system. This is especially notable for non-violent vulnerable population groups of offenders including:

-Drug dependent

-Obtains mental illness

-Juvenile

-Indigenous

On the other hand, with increased prisoner rates - by nearly 25% - there has also been a noticeable increase in recidivism rates by 10.8% since 2010 (Victoria's Ombudsman, 2015). The figure below reveals the increasing statistics of recidivism behaviour in Victorian prisoners between 2001-2015.

There is an iron law of imprisonment that prisons always obey: 'almost every prisoner will eventually leave, one day… [except for] those serving life sentences or indefinite detention' (Groves, 2017, 502). Thus, with most prisoners returning to the community at some stage in their life, the initial concern should be rehabilitation during sentencing rather than punishment to uphold protection to the community and reduce recidivism rates (groves, 2017). It can be suggested that there is a correlation between maximum security prisons and higher rates of recidivism based on Victoria's Ombudsman's report in 2015. This could be explained by the different conditions that prisoners experience in maximum security locations compared to minimum including reduced hours spent outside the cell, potential less opportunity for transition support and possibly less opportunity to obtain educational or diversional programs during their sentence

As much as imprisoning an offender would temporarily represent the protection of the community and punishment for criminal behaviour, this does not 'rehabilitate' an offender, but instead could worsen the risks especially for offenders with special needs, thus, increasing the chances of reoffending post-sentencing. It is clear based on the statistics that the criminal justice systems approach with imprisoning offenders as punishment is not reducing recidivism rates is not working and needs to be evaluated and consider implementing more programs to divert offenders from prison and give them the best opportunity to rehabilitate which would essentially complement deterrence of future criminal activity.

Chelsea Schmidt

[acr201]

Recidivism rates compared to prison: Notes, Stats, and Information.

The Victorian Ombudsman report, the investigation into Rehabilitation and Reintegration of prisoners in Victoria, supports the findings that there are several alternative forms of justice and sentencing through Victorian court implementations. These implementations indicate positive results regarding lowered recidivism rates. 

The following statistics are published on this report on executive summary eight:

• the Drug Court in Dandenong: 34 per cent reduction in reoffending within 24 months 

• Koori Courts operating in Melbourne and regional Victoria: reduction in recidivism among Koori defendants

• the Court Integrated Services Program in Melbourne, Sunshine and the Latrobe Valley: almost $2 million in avoided costs of imprisonment per annum

• the Assessment and Referral Court List at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court for people with mental illness or cognitive impairment: an estimated benefit of between $2 and $5 for every dollar spent 

• the Neighbourhood Justice Centre Collingwood: 16.7 per cent reduction in reoffending within 2 years 

• Criminal Justice Diversion Program for first-time or low-risk offenders: 94 per cent of participants successfully completed the program

 • the CREDIT/Bail Support Program: 2.5 per cent of participants who successfully completed this program received a custodial sentence, compared to 30 per cent of nonparticipants.

Chelsea Schmidt

[acr201]

CULTURALLY SENSITIVE DIVERSION PROGRAMS FOR ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER OFFENDERS

At each stage of the criminal justice system, there are diversion programs aimed to address various issues experienced by offenders, especially those of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent. These diversion programs are specifically designed to address the over-representation of Indigenous persons in the criminal justice system and minimise the negative labelling and stigmatisation surrounding criminality (An economic analysis for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander offenders, 2013).

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults make up approximately 2% of the Australian adult population (Australian Law Reform Commission, 2018). In 2018, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults constituted approximately 28% of the total Australian prison population (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2018).

The period between June 2017 and June 2018 saw the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander imprisonment rate increase by 2% to 2481 prisoners per 100,000 Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander population. In comparison, the non-indigenous imprisonment rate increased by 2% to 164 prisoners per 100,000 non-indigenous population (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2018).

The over-representation of indigenous women in the Australian prison system is being addressed by a number of diversion programs that are present throughout each stage of the criminal justice system. They aim to address the fact that in 2016, Indigenous women were imprisoned at a rate of 464.9 per 100,000, while non-indigenous women were imprisoned at a rate of 21.9 per 100,000 (Australian Law Reform Commission, 2018). It has also been found that indigenous women are more likely to serve shorter prison sentences compared to their non-indigenous counterparts which suggests that they are being incarcerated for minor offences (Australian Institute of Criminology, 2010).

Rekindling the Spirit Program (NSW) is a diversionary program that is accessible throughout all stages of the criminal justice process. This program may be a condition of a court order or women can refer themselves. It is an Indigenous owned and run program that focuses on holistic healing that emphasises behavioural change to assist communities, families or individuals that have experienced family violence or substance abuse. (Australian Institute of Criminology, 2010). The NSW Department of Corrective Services has found that 97% of men and women who have completed this program have not returned to custody after two years of completing the program (Australian Institute of Criminology, 2010).

Ashleigh Charlier

[acr201]

MORE ON DIVERSION PROGRAMS FOR ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER OFFENDERS

Another example of a more culturally appropriate diversion program is the Balund-a Program. This program is a residential diversionary program based in Tabulam, New South Wales. This program is tailored to males aged 18 - 55 and females aged 18 to 35. This diversionary program aims to reduce recidivism rates and places offenders in an environment that is culturally supportive. The Balund-a Program addresses the offender’s specific area of risk, whether that be drug and alcohol rehabilitation, anger management or domestic violence, and helps them rebuild their skills so they can be reintegrated into the community (Balund-a (Tabulam), 2015). This program consists of culturally appropriate activities led by indigenous elders that restore the traditional links to the country such as visiting sacred sites and engaging in traditional music, art and dance (Balund-a (Tabulam), 2015).

Traditional dance is part of the program for indigenous offenders at Balund-a, near Tabulam. (ABC North Coast: Samantha Turnbull)

Richard Heycock, the manager of Balund-a, says “the program gives offenders an opportunity to address their offending behaviour through therapeutic programs, in a holistic approach prior to being sentenced by the courts.” Richard believes this program is an important step in breaking the stereotype often associated with indigenous males and offending (Turnbull, 2015). Mr Heycock says that the most significant part of the program is the immersion of offenders in Indigenous Culture (Turnbull, 2015), “Aboriginal culture is extremely important, to reconnect younger people and mature offenders. It instils pride in them and with that pride comes self-confidence” (Turnbull, 2015).

Ashleigh Charlier

[acr201]

YOUTH DIVERSION PROGRAMS: AN OVERVIEW

Marie Morrison talks about a Youth Diversion Program that has been running successfully in Alice Springs for 15 years that she has been a part of. This program is a form of restorative justice program where all the stakeholders involved in the crime have to be present to have a discussion about the crime. She says that the young people who take part in these programs are usually between the ages of 10 to 17 and have been involved in property offences most of the time. The way these young children compensate for the crime committed is usually through some form of community service. According to research conducted by Wilson and Hoge 2013, youth diversion programs are more effective in maintaining long time community safety as well as reducing recidivism rates among young people than methods of conventional judicial intervention. The reason for this is that instead of just facing punishment for their crimes, restorative diversion programs provide a deeper understanding of the impact that their crime has had on the victim as well as the community as a whole. This teaches these children the right thing when they are young enough to be able to change their way of life as well as take responsibility for their actions. The involvement of youth in the formal judicial system usually provides negative outcomes. These programs are not only more beneficial than punitive methods but also more cost effective and would not cost more than imprisonment and hence there is less reason not adopt this. The Department of Justice and Community Safety outlines the objectives of the Children’s Court Youth Diversion service that they provide. This is a pre-plea service that aims to make these young offenders take responsibility for their actions, understand the harm that they have caused, complete a diversion plan that includes activities that are likely to prevent further offending, have the charges discharged on a successful completion of the program and avoid the stigma surrounded around a criminal record and the impact that has on future life opportunities. (Department of Justice and Community Safety 2020).

Deneka Xavier

[acr201]

Restorative justice as a diversion program for youth- Does it work?

According to Zehr and Mika 1997, the principles of the restorative justice approach is that by committing a crime, one has violated the person and interpersonal relationships and that these violations now cause obligations and liabilities. What Restorative Justice does is that it aims to remedy the wrongs committed by the offender is a way that is satisfactory for the victim and the community. It focuses on the ‘restoration of harm rather than the restitution of the offender’. (Wong, Bouchard & Gravel 2016, Pg. 1312). The study by Wong et al. concluded that Restorative Justice Programs are effective in ensuring limited recidivism in youth offending and has a long-lasting impact. Restorative Justice has proved to be a more effective methods of reparation compared to punitive juvenile measures that do more harm than good in most cases. Restorative justice leads to – ‘victim satisfaction, decreased costs and long term success in recidivism prevention through avoidance of labelling and community willingness for offender reintegration. (Wong et al 2016, Pg. 1324). Motivation to engage in and fulfil victim and community reparations is of key importance for offenders to successfully participate in the Restorative Justice Process.

Deneka Xavier

[acr201]

Boot camps as a form of diversion program

A form of prison diversion program is boot camps which began in the 1980s and 1990s in the United States, more specifically Oklahoma and Georgia (MacKenzie and Hebert, 1996).

What type of offenders are in boot camps?

There are different types of boot camps available, however the most common one being correctional boot camps are used for both adult and juvenile offenders. Although they are used for both, it is more common in juvenile cases.

What are the goals of boot camps?

The main goals of having the boot camp alternatives available are to reduce recidivism, reduce prison populations and reduce overall costs.

How do boot camps positively affect attendee’s behaviour?

Although boot camps are considered controversial in their effectiveness and positive outcomes there are some positive effects which are noted through attitudes, behaviour and perception among the participants.

Are boot camps effective?

Multiple different studies of juvenile and adult boot camps have demonstrated that they are no different than other forms of intervention programs at reducing recidivism. Some studies have found that the rates of reoffending to be higher for boot camp participants.

Vanessa McCaull

[acr201]

More on boot camps.

The whole premise behind boot camps is based on the notion of individual responsibility for crime and anti-social behaviour (Lincoln, 2012). The background behind the offending can be attributed to the failure of parenting and or family environments ultimately resulting in young people getting in trouble with the law.

Boot camps are appealing from a political perspective as it promises both tough punishment and financial savings through shorter prison sentences. It also appeals to the citizenry through the “noncompromising image of rigorous discipline” for offenders (MacKenzie and Hebert, 1996). Lastly, it appeals to corrections administrators by offering the possibility of freeing space in prisons.

The way the boot camps are executed are similar to military style boot camps in that the principles revolve around shock treatment, power and control and discipline techniques. Words used to describe being “shocking”, “discipline”, “strict”, “obedience” and “authority” (MacKenzie and Hebert, 1996).

The program intends to instil discipline and respect and ensures direct consequences for offending and entails considerable supervision (Lincoln, 2012). It has been labelled by some as “vengeance justice” due to the nature of boot camps being “mean-spirited” and only addressing the blame of crime in general on an individual level.

The measuring used to describe the effectiveness of boot camps can be through re-offending rates or cost-effectiveness. From the empirical work, research suggests that there is no real benefit to boot camps and that they are not a better alternative (Lincoln, 2012).  

Given the variety of boot camps and the way in which they are executed, the philosophies and practices need to be taken with caution. Trying to conduct a universal boot camp program can prove difficult to collect data and research due to the random allocation of youth (Lincoln, 2012). When looking at results it is important to take into consideration the backgrounds and outcomes in the studies including the age, sex and any previous convictions.

A common theme across most research results were that not all boot camp programs conformed to the same model (MacKenzie and Hebert, 1996). Thus, results will be diverse and not conclusive.

The lifestyle of the boot camp covers exhausting physical demands and “planned and repeated humiliation” which is conveyed through drill sergeants who are described to be “unrelenting in their discipline”. Being exposed to this type of aggression and behaviour can actually serve to model and reinforce antisocial behaviours. Boot camps also reject the values that promote conformity, like empathy or compassion and align these characteristics with being weak and feminine (Meade and Steiner, 2010).

Boot camps also generally offer some type of reduced sentence in exchange for participation in the program however it involves breaking down the inmates’ individualism in order to recast the inmate in a disciplined, conformist mould (Atkinson, 1995)

From the multiple previous studies and several decades of evaluations of boot camps demonstrates quite conclusively that they are not effective in reducing recidivism and have marginal impact on cost savings. A common issue that arose was that the boot camps are centred around individual responsibility, eliminating the lack of appreciation for causes of “crime demographic changes, deployment of police, reformed to criminal codes, urban design, extended surveillance, tougher supervision orders” (Lincoln, 2012). It displays more of a vengeful justice system with a basis of fear and terror. Boot camps have and were more based in the US, they have not found a place here in Australia other than testing in Queensland (Atkinson, 1995).

Vanessa McCaull

[acr201]

Complete list of sources

A meta-analysis, The prison Journal, vol.85, pp.127-144,

AIHW – see Australia Institute of Health and Welfare

Airey, M & Wiese, J 2001, How the WA Pilot Drug Court is Progressing: A lawyer’s Perspective’, Brief, vol 28, no 10, pp. 12-13.

Atkinson, L, 1995, ‘Boot camps and justice: a contradiction in terms?’, Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 46, Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, <https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi46>

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2018, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Prisoner Characteristics, Australian Bureau of Statistics, retrieved 5 May 2020, <http://www.abs.gov.au>.

Australian Government – Australian Law Reform Commission 2010, ‘Restorative justice’.

www.alrc.gov.au › publication › 11-alternative-processes

Australian Human Rights Commission 2014, Programs and services that assist people with disability in the criminal justice system, Australian Human Rights Commission, retrieved 29th April 2020, <https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/disability-rights/programs-and-services-assist-people-disability-criminal-justice-system>

Australian Institute of Criminology 2010, Diversion programs for Indigenous women, Australian Government: Australian Institute of Criminology, retrieved 1 May 2020, <https://aic.gov.au/publications/rip/rip13>.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2015, The health of Australia’s prisoners 2015, AIHW, retrieved 27th April 2020, <https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/prisoners/health-of-australias-prisoners-2015/contents/mental-health-of-prison-entrants>

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2018, The health of Australia’s prisoners 2018, AIHW, retrieved 29th April 2020, < https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/prisoners/health-australia-prisoners-2018/contents/table-of-contents>

Australian Law Reform Commission 2018, Disproportionate incarceration rate, Australian Government: Australian Law Reform Commission, Brisbane, retrieved 1 May 2020, <https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/pathways-to-justice-inquiry-into-the-incarceration-rate-of-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples-alrc-report-133/executive-summary-15/disproportionate-incarceration-rate/>.

Australian National Council on Drugs 2012, An economic analysis for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander offenders 2012, Australian National Council on Drugs, Civic Square, A.C.T.

Braithwaite, J 1999, ‘Restorative justice: Assessing optimistic and pessimistic accounts. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 1-127). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Department of Justice and Community Safety 2020, Children’s court youth detention service, Victoria State Government Australia, retrieved May 6 2020, <https://www.justice.vic.gov.au/justice-system/childrens-court-youth-diversion-service>

Gclipart.com, 2016, Courthouse Clipart - Image (15361), Best Clip Art Images, retrieved 9 May 2020,<http://gclipart.com/courthouse-clipart_15361/>

Gelb, K 2006, “Myths and Misconceptions”, Public opinion versus Public Judgement  about Sentencing. Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council.

Gelb, K 2008, “Myths and Misconceptions”. Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council.

Groves, A 2017, ‘Community-based corrections/justice’, in D Palmer, W De Lint & D Dalton (5), Crime and Justice: A guide to Criminology, Thomson Reuters, Pyrmont, pp.465-484.

KPMG, 2014, Evaluation of the Drug Court of Victoria, Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, retrieved 9 May 2020,<https://www.mcv.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2018-10/Evaluation%20of%20the%20Drug%20Court%20of%20Victoria.pdf>

Latimer, J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D 2005, ‘The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: A meta-analysis, The prison Journal, vol.85, pp.127-144,  https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885505276969.

Lauristen, J 2018, Restorative Justice, Oxford Bibliographies, 24 July 2018.

Lincoln, R, 2012, ‘Boot Camps A Poor Fit For Juvenile Justice’, The Conversation, retrieved 7 May 2020,<https://theconversation.com/boot-camps-a-poor-fit-for-juvenile-justice-9208>

MacKenzie, D, and Hebert, E, 1996, Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction, U.S. G.P.O.

Magistrates’ Court of Victoria (MCV), 2019, Drug Court, Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, retrieved 9 May 2020, <https://www.mcv.vic.gov.au/about_us/drug-court.>

Magistrates of Western Australia 2019, Intellectual Disability Diversion Program Court, Western Australia Government, retrieved 29th April 2020, <https://www.magistratescourt.wa.gov.au/I/intellectual_disability_diversion_program_court.aspx>

Makkai, T & Veraar K 2003, “Final Report on the South East Queensland Drug Court”, Australian Institute of Criminology Technical and Background Paper Series No 6 (Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra).

Marshall, TF 1996, ‘The evolution of restorative justice in Britain’, European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, vol. 4, pp. 31-43.

McSherry, B & Richardson, E 2010, ‘Diversion down under – Programs for offenders with mental illnesses in Australia’, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, vol. 33, no. 4, retrieved 22nd April 2020,   <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160252710000531>

Meade, B, and Steiner, B, 2010, The total effects of boot camps that house juveniles: A systematic review of the evidence, Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(5), p. 841-853.

NSW Government: Communities & Justice 2015, Balund-a (Tabulam), NSW Government, retrieved 8 May 2020, <https://www.correctiveservices.justice.nsw.gov.au/Pages/CorrectiveServices/Community%20Corrections/offender-management-in-the-community/balund-a_tabulam.aspx>.

Ogloff, J, Davis, M, Rivers, G & Ross, S 2007, The identification of mental disorders in the criminal justice system, Australian Institute of Criminology, retrieved 9th May 2020, <https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi334>

Queensland Courts 2018, About the Mental Health Court, The state of Queensland (Queensland Courts), retrieved 25th April 2020, <https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/courts/mental-health-court/about-the-mental-health-court>

"Restorative Justice | District Attorney" 2020, retrieved 9 May 2020, <https://sfdistrictattorney.org/restorative-justice>.

SA, R, 2020, "Restorative Justice in our Schools. Is it really just? - IEUSA", IEUSA, retrieved 9 May 2020, <https://ieusa.org.au/restorative-justice-schools-really-just/>.

Sherman, L & Strang, H 2007, Restorative Justice: The Evidence. London: Smith Institute.

Turnbull, S 2015, ‘Balund-a program gives offenders second chance’, ABC News, 22 December, retrieved 8 May 2020, <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-10/tabulam-balund-a-gives-offenders-second-chance/7017280?nw=0>.

Tyler, TR., Sherman, L., Strang, H et al 2007, ‘Reintegrative shaming, procedural Justice, and recidivism: The engagement of offenders' psychological mechanisms in the Canberra RISE Drinking-and-Driving Experiment’ Law & Society Review, 41(3), 553–586.

Victorian Ombudsman 2015, “Investigation into the rehabilitation and reintegration of prisoners in Victoria”, retrieved May 7, <https://assets.ombudsman.vic.gov.au/assets/Reports/Parliamentary-Reports/1-PDF-Report-Files/Investigation-into-the-rehabilitation-and-reintegration-of-prisoners-in-Victoria.pdf?mtime=20191217123824>

Virtual, M 2020, "Restorative Justice 101 — A Paradigm Shift in Education [with infographics] | Michigan Virtual", Michigan Virtual, retrieved 9 May 2020, <https://michiganvirtual.org/blog/restorative-justice-101-a-paradigm-shift-in-education/>.

Willis, K & Ahmed, J 2009, “Intermediate Court Diversion in Australia”, Criminal Justice Bulletin, retrieved May 7 2020, <http://ncpic.org.au>

Wilson, DB., Olaghere, A & Kimbrell, CS 2017, Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Principles in Juvenile Justice: A MetaAnalysis, National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Document Number: 250872

Wilson, HA and Hoge, RD 2013, The Effect of Youth Diversion Programs on Recidivism: A Meta-Analytic Review, Criminal Justice and Behaviour, Sage Publications, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 497–518.

Wong, JS., Bouchard, J., Gravel, J et al 2016, ‘Can at-risk youth be diverted from crime? A meta-analysis of restorative diversion programs’, Criminal Justice and Behaviour, vol. 43, pp. 1310–1329.https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816640835.

Wong, JS et al. 2016, Can At-Risk Youth Be Diverted From Crime? : A Meta-Analysis of Restorative Diversion Programs, Criminal Justice and Behaviour, Sage Publications, vol. 43, no. 10, pp. 1310–1329.

Zehr H, Mika H 1997, Fundamental concepts of restorative justice - Contemporary Justice Review: Issues in Criminal Social and Restorative Justice, Sage Publications, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 47-56.