Restoring Communities and Young Offenders?

A Critical Evaluation of Restorative Justice in the UK - 2007

Restoring Communities and Young Offenders?

Introduction
________________________________________________

Confusion and a False Dichotomy: Restoration / Retribution

When headmaster Phillip Lawrence died from a knife wound outside his school in 1
995, a saga began to unfold that continues to the present day. At time of writi
ng the Home Office, having already lost its appeal case, is seeking an injunctio
n in the High Court to force the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal into reconsider
ing its decision not to deport Learco Chindamo, who had stabbed the headmaster w
hen he was only 15 years old.
Chindamo is 26 now; due for parole in 2008. Knowingly or not, he has the potent
ial to become a prison ‘success story’; a “young man full of bravado, lacking maturity
and self restraint” and illiterate when he began his sentence, he has since passe
d maths & English GCSEs and an NVQ in Health and Social Care. When his original
application to stay was successful, because “his family and life were in the UK”; h
e issued a statement expressing deepest sympathy and “hope the decision would not
cause grief to Philip Lawrence s widow” (BBC website, 21/08/07). Despite all this
, the media’s concentration has remained on Mrs Lawrence’s reaction, reporting she w
as “unutterably depressed” and “devastated and demoralised by the ruling”, a response th
at might seem ‘natural’ under such circumstances. But in 2003 Mrs Lawrence was repo
rted to have “blown a kiss” to the young man her husband died saving, as he was ‘taken
down’ to serve a four year sentence for possession of a firearm, his second priso
n term in a five year period.
Clearly, Phillip Lawrence’s widow does not shrink from publicly expressing her ‘mixe
d’ emotions; a veritable treasure trove for journalists in search of a sound bite.
Her power as a media ‘angel’ has potential that is arguably equivalent to its ant
ithesis, the ‘moral devil’, which might explain the Home Office’s persistent and “robust”
attempts to deport Chindamo; enhanced by the vested interest it has in an awards
 scheme set up in memory of Mrs Lawrence’s husband (BBC website, 21/02/03 &20/08/0
7). For all that; however sympathetic we might be for the Lawrences, or indeed
for the ‘reformed’ Chindamo, surely the real tragedy of this saga is in just how muc
h it symbolises the inherent disarray, found not only in the practical applicati
on of UK criminal justice, but in our social construction of crime, and rehabili
tation / punishment.
The purpose of this essay is to promote the case for an ‘alternative’ ideology to cu
rrent thinking/support for the UK’s present Retributive Justice’ system, which enjo
ys almost hegemonic socio-political status (sic). The essay is supposed to argu
e the case for a ‘restorative’ approach and to conform to this requirement it will i
ndeed ‘touch’ on some of the diverse origins and propositions of Restorative Theory,
prior to examining examples of practical implementation. It will also consider
some critical issues surrounding both theory and practice.
However, in its examination of Restorative Justice this paper intends to highlig
ht the ‘symbiotic’ relationship between Retribution and Restoration. In places in t
his text words relating to Restorative theory or practice will be replaced with
combined terms, such as ‘restorative / retributive’, in order to bring out this aspe
ct. The essay will argue ‘by example’, that ever more dissertation about the appare
nt dichotomy between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ options simply promulgates a false prospectus, an
d that ‘division’ between Restorative / Retributive confounds an already confused so
cial mindset that is plagued by media and haunted by ‘folk devils’, reinforced by ac
ademic research and exacerbated by political and corporate self-interest; all of
which must be overcome before any social clarity about crime and ‘punishment’ is ac
tually achievable. Lastly, the essay will posit a ‘consensus’ solution, similar to
that attained for the ‘Social Democratic’ project that created the UK’s Welfare State,
as the best method of restructuring our collective ‘retributive’ nature and acquiri
ng greater pellucidity over the problem of crime.

__________________
___________________________
Restoring Communities and Young Offenders?
Origins and Theory
________________________________________________
Diversity on Origins, Discordance in Propositions
Discord breeds confusion; competing criminological theories translated into mudd
led social policy are only one sorry outcome. Such jumble is evident in theory
even around seemingly impractical issues such as the ancestry of Restorative Jus
tice; researched, according to McLaughlin, because it lends support for Restorat
ive advocates and is a defence against its detractors, because “history… provides cr
edibility”. Proposals for projects, which are normally resisted because they cons
ist of “informal methods”, are thereby helped towards possible acceptance and recogn
ition (McLaughlin et al, 2003, p2).
However, this author argues that concern about ‘credibility’ is not specific to rest
orative / retributive justice theory; it is a symptom of the pandemic ‘self-questi
oning’ suffered throughout sociological science, an overall issue that won’t be reso
lved by historical research. ‘Looking backwards’ into matters criminological may ha
ve more practical use; justifying its cost in time/resources by passing on the t
raditions it discovers succinctly. But if McLaughlin’s assertion about ‘academic de
fence’ is correct, a refocusing on successfully handing down practical social wisd
om would require an ending of disputes between ‘criminologists’ in search of credibi
lity.
Be that as it may; McLaughlin continues in a compactly detailed introduction, hi
ghlighting various ‘anthropological resources’ for restorative methods of conflict-r
esolution that once dominated “non-state, pre-state and early state societies”. He
cites Hadley’s collection of these customs, which reveal restorative values “in phil
osophy, doctrine (and) tradition” (McLaughlin et al, 2003, p2&3). However, McLau
ghlin later praises the critical work of Kathleen Daly as “one of very few sustain
ed deconstructions of… restorative justice”; in which she ‘contends’ the existence of “fou
r myths” canted by its proponents. Daly’s paper attempts to provide structure to th
e quagmire of Restorative theory that may prove useful to ‘drowning’ criminology stu
dents. It should however be remembered that her primary purpose was demolition.
In debunking her ‘second myth’ Daly questions the authoritative value of these hi
stories of ancient custom. She regards them as imaginings about “golden days of y
ore” (2003, p14), which, respectfully, is hardly ‘authoritative’.
Her ‘first myth’ should also be noted, for this essay’s position on the existence of a
false dichotomy. According to McLaughlin, Daly describes the language of duali
sm in restorative / retributive justice as a “sales pitch”, which she accuses of “over
simplifying the complex, inter-dependent relationship between the two modes of j
ustice” (2003, p14).
One historical resource, of interest to this essay’s theme, is the Lex Talionis.
The retributive quality of an “an eye for an eye” from the Old Testament is ‘common kn
owledge’ to all good Christians. Other commentators claim it is a statement about
‘misuse of power’. Even Mahatma Ghandi is quoted as saying ‘an eye for an eye makes
the whole world blind’. Nevertheless, Burnside argues this is all a misunderstand
ing of translation, expressing the possibility that the Talionis is an innocent
treatise on compensation. He cites Daube: “The word ‘for’ (tachat) can mean ‘in the pla
ce of’ – that is to say, one thing being given in the place of another”, before contin
uing, “‘life for life’ (e.g. Exodus 21 v23) points towards… the return of a living creat
ure for a dead one” (2007, p138). Unfortunately, Burnside’s biblical thesis neglect
s to address how, in the first instance, the retributive version of ‘an eye for an
eye’ found its way into our social consciousness. And the counterpoint between H
adley and Daly, Ghandi and Burnside, exposes a common pattern in criminological
literature; theoretical assertion followed up by equally convincing contradictio
n. These disputes appear to give their variant claims more substance. Referenc
ing to them, resourcing from them; this somehow increases their ‘legitimacy’. No-on
e is actually ‘wrong’, and so everyone is right; social conditions similar to those ‘r
eputed’ to have been prevalent in ‘historic’ Babel.

Amongst the diversity of theoretical propositions on Restorative Justice, McLaug

hlin’s team make several pertinent observations; not least that RJ offers “a much
broader critique than… pointing to the limitations of the criminal justice system"
(McLaughlin et al, 2003, p4). Using terms like Third Way , they argue Restora
tive Justice has a superior ‘social reach’ to its Retributive counterpart; it "deals
with how the social is ordered", is "informal” and “participatory” (2003, p1). Whils
t the latter term might at least engender some sympathy from ‘retributive advocate
s’, ‘informal’ has already been posited by McLaughlin as a focal point of division. C
onversely, Miller and Blackler state that the phrase ‘restorative justice’ is used t
o refer to an “extraordinarily wide and diverse range of formal and informal inter
ventions” (emphasis added, in Miers, 2001, p4). The above statement undermines M
cLaughlin’s justification for historical research even further, and this author qu
estions why ‘informal’ is used at all if it causes dispute. An altering of terminol
ogy to promote consensus would, perhaps, be timely and appropriate.
Nevertheless confusion continues to dominate the subject: Miers cites Marshall’s 1
999 ‘comprehensive overview’ of restorative justice as central to his own 2001 revie
w of UK Restorative Justice programmes, which this essay will deal with later.
He states that Marshall ‘draws attention’ to the pluralism of Restorative programmes
, concluding that “Restorative justice is not… a single academic theory of crime or
justice, but represents, in (an) eclectic way, the accretion of actual experienc
e in working successfully with particular crime problems” (Marshall in Miers, 2001
, p8). Now consider Marshall’s assertion again. Cannot exactly the same be said
of ‘retributive’ justice?
As further evidence of ‘symbiosis’; within this myriad of Restorative propositions a
nd proponents, Burnside’s paper apparently speaks as much for God Himself as it do
es for retribution’s value to restorative theory: His “just acts” are clear examples “fi
rstly, that retribution has a role to play in securing justice” and “secondly, it pa
ves the way for restoration” (2007, p137). But again, aren’t these the same thing?
The overall message from Restorative advocates is that they are not; ‘justice’ is on
e thing, ‘restoration’ another. McLaughlin argues that current (UK/retributive) jus
tice arrangements actually separate justice from community , leading to "diss
atisfaction and social discord" (McLaughlin et al, 2003, p1). So neither as ind
ividual victims, nor even as a social group, are we ‘restored’ from criminal acts.
Marshall gives readers a rudimentary diagram (See Fig1 below) and defines restor
ative justice in relation to ‘criminal justice’ rather than using the ‘retributive’ labe
l: “Restorative Justice (is) criminal justice embedded in its social context, with…
stress on relationships to other components, rather than a closed system in isol
ation” (1999, p5).

Fig 1. Integration between all the agents involved in a crime (Source:

Marshall 1999)
Restorative exponents prefer alternative discourses to crime , such as harm o
r conflict-resolution . Christie’s paper on the ownership of ‘conflict’, which begi
ns with “Maybe we should not have any criminology”, argues that conflict is part of
the life-blood of society: “Conflicts might kill, but too little of them might par
alyse”. Nevertheless, he sees a need for officialdom and structure; “Without them,
private vengeance and vendettas will blossom” (Christie in McLaughlin et al, 2003,
p21).
Hillyard and Tombs argue that in the constructed sense crime has no ontologica
l reality. As to punishment, they cite Hulsman: "as so many acts are... crimes
, a standard(ised)... punishment cannot a priori be assumed to be effective" (2
005, p8). All of which suggests a need to refocus on things that are ‘existent’, su
ch as harm .
Nevertheless, and despite repeatedly demonstrating the already emergent ‘shared in
terest’ of restorative / retributive terminology, this paper must provide words an
d concepts, such as ‘participatory’, ‘social order’, ‘community’, ‘experience’, ‘harm’ and
esolution’, as the supposed essence of Restorative proposition.
____________________
_________________________
Restoring Communities and Young Offenders?
Practical Implementation
________________________________________________
Criminal Justice Acts and Realistic Data
Christie’s paper on conflict argues that the victim of crime is a ‘double-loser’. Not
only has the offender caused them injury but “often in a more crippling manner” the
y have been denied the right to participating in officialdom’s redress of the crim
e. The victim is reduced to merely “triggering off” a criminal process by complaini
ng about an offence. Although they might be present during proceedings they are
rarely asked to ‘partake’ in them. As such, “they have lost their case to the state” (
Christie in McLaughlin et al, 2003, p22).
In his International Review of Restorative Justice Procedures Miers reports ‘subst
antial growth’ in restorative justice provision over three decades. More than onc
e he cites Christie’s paper as directly affecting European nations’ crime and justic
e policies:
In the case of Austria: “At a theoretical level, the Vienna Institute for the Soc
iology of Law and Deviance was both influenced… and influential in, disseminating
at policy level Christie’s notion of the reappropriation of conflicts” (Miers, 2001,
p10). A 1999 directive organises agencies and protocols about how contact betw
een offender and victim are to be conducted. Article 167 of Austrian penal code
lists offences not liable for prosecution where an offender voluntarily makes go
od the damage done. Of equal importance to offender rehabilitation is Article 4
2, which stipulates no criminal record of these ‘restored’ cases (2001, p7). Frenc
h statutes allow the prosecutor to decide on mediation. Article 61(b) orders re
storative action from the offender prior to sentencing. German law distinguishe
s between victim-oriented measures that can be taken without a trial, and those
which follow from a trial. Whilst no ‘restorative’ statute exists in Holland the HA
LT programme provides for restoration including compensation, where the offender
undertakes unpaid work or enrols in an education project. Norway boasts ‘mediati
on boards’ that have jurisdiction over both civil and criminal cases.
Miers reports that in Poland, “the philosophy of the Juvenile Justice Act has hist
orically been offender-oriented. While accommodating… public interest, the Law on
Juvenile Responsibility provides that criminal justice principles… be primarily in
the best interests of the young person… Article 65 of the Juvenile Justice Act (s
tates) the objective… is to encourage juveniles to accept social and civic respons
ibilities” (2001, p56). Ireland has set up an independent, multi-agency ‘Mediation
Bureau’, which begins to function only after a guilty verdict has been reached.
Meanwhile, in the UK, both the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and the Crime and Disor
der Act 1998 present avenues for restorative responses to crime, especially for
youth offenders. The 1991 Act requires ‘community orders’ to be served on young peo
ple where the offender may be required to make reparation to the community or to
anyone directly affected by the offence. The 1998 Act presents a ‘tiered respons
e’ to youth offending. At the second level young offenders receive a warning and
come under the watch of a youth offending team (YOT). YOTs are part of the loca
l authority. Their purpose is to co-ordinate and monitor programmes of behaviour
for young offenders that may include rehabilitation programmes.
Unfortunately, Morris and Gelsthorpe have several criticisms of these measures:
"the continued focus on blaming and punishing will subvert... restorative aspira
tions", coupled with the likelihood that restorative practices "will develop in
a somewhat ad hoc fashion... in the youth justice system, but at no point will t
he key participants in all of this – offenders, victims and their families... be a
ble to take charge. Victims will no longer be marginalised in quite the same way
... but their involvement will hardly be significant". Meanwhile offenders may
be ‘coerced’ into making reparation, even though "nothing in the research literature
suggests that this reduce(s) re-offending” (Morris and Gelsthorpe in Miers et al,
2003, p12). It therefore becomes necessary to ask what the purpose of these ‘sem
i-restorative’ processes actually is. They are either the ‘first steps’ towards a mor
e ‘restorative’ criminal justice approach, or else they were ‘media-driven’ into existen
ce; it largely depends upon the reader’s opinion. But regardless of criticisms an
d possible pitfalls in all the above examples, what is important to note is that
restorative measures are being legislated for and administered through traditio
nally ‘retributive’ institutions. Again Miers, on Polish procedures: “Educational obj
ectives should be given priority… and educational and corrective measures individu
alised” (emphasis added, 2001, p56).
Another ‘requirement’ is that this essay deals with research from restorative Youth
Justice programmes. So be it. But rather than considering ‘outcomes’, it will exam
ine what might be referred to as ‘incomes’ instead. Because, in advocating the use
of Restorative justice processes, whether to an imaginary audience or a real one
, it is arguably far more important to highlight the factors that lead to their
failure, rather than picking through data to pinpoint those elements that promis
e some sign of success.
Miers’ 2001 ‘Evaluation of Restorative Justice Schemes’ in the UK is a case in point.
Set up by the Home Office to review seven ‘restorative’ projects, five of which wer
e directed towards youth offending and rehabilitation. However, “by the time the
fieldwork began, some important and unforeseen changes had taken place (Miers et
al, 2001, p1). One scheme was almost entirely inactive owing to cuts in resour
ces. Unfortunately, such news is not rare; in fact it is almost a feature of su
ch projects. Miers reports that during the evaluation “none of the schemes was in
receipt of any Home Office funding” (2001, p2). And that, in itself, is curious.
In a paper on the ‘policing of valid knowledge’, Whyte argues that present governm
ent policy towards funding academic research is based on a ‘principle of utility’ (2
002, p2). If that is so then the question arises; ‘How would it serve the Home Of
fice to set up research on restorative programmes that are already failing?’ In l
ight of the ongoing privatisation of criminal justice the answer seems painfully
obvious. But, as stated by this author elsewhere, such matters are more the pr
ovender of conspiracy theorists.
Further on, Miers states that “all the schemes claimed to be involved to some exte
nt in ‘restorative justice’” but concludes that in two of the youth schemes his team r
esearched there were “serious doubts as to whether they can reasonably be called r
estorative justice schemes at all” (Miers et al, 2003, p2). Miers uses the word
‘fragile’ on several occasions, to describe both individual and collective aspects
of these ‘restorative’ schemes. Their success often depended “on work ‘beyond the call
of duty’ by small numbers of exceptionally committed individuals”. It is therefore
safe to surmise that without these individuals the projects may not have survive
d at all. And even when they received large numbers of referrals from court, “mos
t schemes made unambiguously ‘restorative’ interventions in relatively few cases”.
But if there is a final ‘nail in the coffin’, it comes from Miers’ report on the use o
f ‘mediation’, where offender and victim confront ‘their’ crime together. In his introd
uction Miers emphasises that one purpose of his review was to examine the cost-e
ffectiveness of restorative implementation. Despite reporting that crime victim
s who experienced some form of restorative justice were in favour of it, appreci
ating the opportunity to express themselves; and even though more than 60% belie
ved that intervention had a beneficial impact on the offender it is not difficul
t to imagine the Home Office response to the following passage: “Whatever its prec
ise form, ‘restorative justice’ is a labour-intensive and time-consuming activity, b
eset by communication problems and delays. Particularly where direct mediation i
s contemplated, it can involve weeks of preparatory and exploratory work, and… man
y cases do not reach the desired conclusion. This situation raises some doubts a
bout the future potential of mediation as a mainstream service capable of ‘process
ing’ large numbers of cases within (or outside) the criminal justice system” (all in
2003, p (ix)). In the light of ‘real-life’ reports on costs such as this one, ther
e is arguably little worth in reciting ‘what works’ in restorative programmes.

Restoring Communities and Young Offenders?

Critical Issues & Conclusion
________________________________________________
The case for Overall Restoration
This paper has not conformed to the required format. Criticism of ‘restorative ju
stice’ and its proponents is present throughout the document instead of being conf
ined to one section. As stated in the introduction, the author’s intention has be
en to avoid what amounts to a set intellectual exercise and argue ‘by example’ that
there is no case for examining restorative measures as though they are a separat
e entity; an ‘alternative’ to the system of criminal justice that already exists. H
owever, this does not mean that ‘restorative’ philosophy does not have a substantial
role to play in the development of criminal justice policy. In the end, it is
not so much a question of replacing a ‘retributive’ system with a ‘restorative’ one. It
is more about supplementing the weaknesses in both of them with the strengths f
ound in their counterpart; the outcome of consensus. Herein, what is argued is
that exclusive concentration on restorative methods almost entirely misses this
point. The essay has shown that even the heaviest critics of present criminal j
ustice procedures, such as Christie, admit the need for the present ‘retributive’ st
ructure and institutions; without them society would descend into chaos.
Instead, the essay has attempted to highlight a fundamentally inseparable connec
tion between ‘restorative / retributive’. This includes an implication that any cri
ticism of one side of that equation has connotations for the other side as well.
Hence, excessive concern about terms like ‘informal’ indicates reaction to ‘retribut
ive’ rigidity, which ‘restoratives’ attempt to overcome. Issues like this would be le
ss of a problem if they only involved academic dispute, but overcrowded prisons
and public disillusionment are harsh reminders that criminal justice matters aff
ect us all.
If there is an overall criticism specific to ‘restorative’ arguments then it is that
their collective message is inconclusive and even, at times, nebulous. This re
sults in an imbalance of presentation between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ options, resulting in so
cietal ‘ignorance’ and confusion. Because of separate issues of ‘self-interest’, media
and politicians expound ‘retributive’ solutions because they are easier to express,
easier to understand and accept, and probably easier to implement, since they a
re usually a continuation of what already exists (i.e. building more prisons).
On a similar tack; the European Commission’s 2005 International Crime & Safety Sur
vey reports UK citizens as being more inclined to jail recidivists than their Eu
ropean counterparts (EU ICS, 2007, p72). And Walker states that readers of nati
onal ‘tabloids’ are likely to think the national crime rate “increased ‘a lot’ in the prev
ious two years” even though it has been in decline for over a decade (Walker et al
., 2006), In his thesis on ‘Changing Public Attitudes’ Allen states that “the genera
l public have lost confidence in criminal justice and are looking instinctively
for a simple and robust solution”. He asserts that citizens “need simple fables in
which wrong doers get punished, not cared for” yet “public attitudes are full of con
tradictions” (2004, p56). Society seems certain of what it wants; protection from
‘harm’. But the public is confused in how to achieve it. The evidence for this is
clearly shown in a graph of public respondents who were asked to choose methods
for reducing crime, where ‘restorative’ or ‘preventative’ methods have been substantial
ly chosen over ‘retributive’ ones (See Fig2 below).
It would seem from this, that though ‘on the surface’ UK citizens are tough, on a de
eper, possibly even a subconscious level; they prefer crime solutions that ‘restor
e’ them as individual victims and their society as a whole. This social philosoph
y is embodied in the often repeated statement, “Tough on crime, tough on the cause
s of crime.”

Fig 2. Which two or three of the following factors would do most to reduce cr
ime? (Source: Allen 2004)

A theme against ‘division’ has been present throughout this essay. Indeed, it is a
rguable that variant criminological constructs are incompatible with the concept
of restoration anyway. Whilst Christie posits a fundamental social need for d
iversity there are historical examples of socio-political unification that have
successfully achieved huge societal endeavours. Victory in the Second World War
gave this nation’s populace a collective desire for change and improvement that r
esulted in Atlee’s landslide election victory over the ‘victorious’ Prime Minister Chu
rchill. Even though this was an almost ‘unthinkable’ outcome, in fact it had been s
et in motion by the report produced by the Beveridge Commission in 1942. Accord
ing to Gazeley and Thane the wartime coalition government “set out to promise and
to plan for a better future… so that the population continued to believe that the
war was worth fighting and suffering for” (1998, p203).
It is not difficult to argue the existence of an almost similar situation in the
present day, in society’s attitude towards the ‘problem of crime’. Perhaps the failu
re of the ‘Social Democratic’ project hinged upon its inability to adapt to the chan
ging circumstances of public need. If that is true, then a successful outcome t
o a restorative / retributive’ project must be dynamic and ongoing, where, whenev
er possible, a continuum of balance is maintained between offender and victim, i
ndividual and community.
To restore our collective faith in society’s ability to deal with crime our academ
ics and politicians must take on a long-term view, expounded as a ‘consensus solut
ion’ and possibly even supplemented with an element of ‘retributive compulsion’ that c
ompletely overrides the short-term concerns inherent in electioneering and media
sales strategies. Our collective concern with ‘crime’ and ‘punishment’ must be ‘lessened’
whilst the alleviation of ‘harm’ and the resolution of ‘conflict’ is ‘visibly’ given a hig
er prioritisation; these are methods of achieving a restorative / retributive ‘equ
ilibrium’, for in the final analysis, all forms of ‘justice’ are, by definition, ‘restor
ative / retributive’.

Restoring Communities and Young Offenders?

References
________________________________________________
Allen, R (2004) – ‘What Works in Changing Public Attitudes:
.
Lessons from Rethinking Crime and Punishment’
in Journal for Crime, Conflict and the Media 1 (3) 55-67
ISSN 1741 1580
BBC (21/02/03) – ‘Lawrence school attack victim jailed ‘ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/h
i/england/2787371.stm

(20/08/07) – ‘Lawrence killer to remain in UK ‘ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lon

don/6955071.stm
(21/08/07) – ‘Appeal over teacher killer ruling ‘ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/l
ondon/6956088.stm
Burnside, J (2007) – ‘Retribution and restoration in biblical texts’
in ‘Handbook of Restorative J
ustice’ by Johnstone, G & Van Ness, D (ed.) Cullompton, Dev
on, Willan Publishing
Daly, K (2003) – ‘Restorative Justice: The Real Story
in Restorat
ive Justice: Critical Issues by McLaughlin et al (ed)
London, Sage/Open University
EU ICS (2007) – ‘The Burden of Crime in the EU’
A Comparative Analysis of the European Su
rvey of Crime & Safety 2005 .
Gazely, I & Thane, P (1998) – ‘Education for labour: Soci
al problems for Nationhood ’
in ‘forming nation, framing welfare’ by Lewis, G (ed.)
London, Routledge/The Open University.
Hillyard, P & Tombs, S (2005) – ‘Beyond Criminology?
in Criminal Obsessions: Why harm matters more than crime
by Hillyard et al (ed)
London, Crime&Society Foundation
ISBN 0-9548903-1-0
Marshall, T (1999) – ‘Restorative Justice: An Overview’
by Home Office Research Developm
ent and Statistics Directorate Home Office/ C
rown copyright 1999 ISBN 1 84082 244 9
McLaughlin, E Fergusson, R Hughes, G & Westmarland, L
(2003) – ‘Contextualising Restorative Justice
in Restorative Justice: Critical
Issues by McLaughlin et al (ed)
London, Sage/Open University
Miers, D (2001) – ‘An International Review of Restorative Justice’
by Home Office Policing and Reducing Crim
e Unit – Webb, B (ed.) Home Office/ Crown Cop
yright 2001 ISBN 1-84082-693-2
Miers, D Maguire, M Goldie, S
Sharpe, S Hale, C Netten, A
Uglow, S Doolin, K Hallam, A
Enterkin, J & Newburn, T (2001) – ‘An Exploratory Evaluation of Resto
rative Justice Schemes’ by Home Office Policing and
Reducing Crime Unit – Webb, B (ed.) Home Off
ice/ Crown Copyright 2001 ISBN 1-84082-692-4
Walker, A Kershaw, C & Nicholas, S (2006) – ‘Crime in England & Wales 2
005/06’ in Hom
e Office Statistical Bulletin
HMSO – Licence C01 W0000065
(in Talbo
t et al, D315 ‘Ccime, Order & Social Control’ – Policy File SUP 981030) .

Whyte, D (2002) – ‘Behind the Line of Truncheons:

 Crimes of the Powerful and the Policing of Valid Knowledge’
The British Criminology Conference: Selected Proceedi
ngs Volume 5 ISSN 1464 – 4088
.