A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THEO GAVRIELIDES, ‘CONTEXTUALISING RESTORATIVE JUSTICE FOR HATE CRIME’ (2012) 27(18) JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE 3624-3643.
Introduction
‘Despite the rapid expansion of restorative justice within many criminal justice systems, there remains a resistance towards its use for hate crimes.’[1] This doubt as to the effectiveness of restorative justice for hate crime is due to the potential risk of exposing victims to further victimisation or creating an easier route for hate crime offenders.[2] It is against this backdrop that up to recently, researchers are venturing into this area of interest; including Gavrielides’[3] three-year research study.[4] This article review is conveniently, divided into three sections: introduction, the review and conclusion. The introduction will provide the structure of this review, definition of restorative justice and hate crime, and a summary of the research article. The review section will firstly, present a general critique of the whole research article, and subsequently, scrutinise all the sections of the article; highlighting its strengths and weaknesses. The concluding section will give the overall assessment on the article.
The research article is a report on the findings of a research study carried out from 2008 to 2011 under the auspices of Independent Academic Research Studies (IARS).[5] It focuses on restorative justice, on one hand, and hate crimes, on the other hand. Restorative justice is a process, which provides an opportunity for offender and victim of a crime or conflict to identify and address harms and obligation in order to repair as much as possible the harm done to the victim.[6] It is a process that falls within a variety of community-justice initiatives aimed at providing an alternative to retributive justice [7] and, which has gained support among an increasing number of practitioners, policy-makers, activists, victimologist, and law enforcement officials.[8] Hate crimes, are crimes committed which the victim, or anyone else, thinks is because of victim’s religion[9], race[10], disability[11], sexual orientation[12] or because they are transgender.[13] According to Saucier and others, perpetrators of hate crimes are often prejudiced toward targets’ group.[14]
To contextualise restorative justice for hate crimes, Gavrielides presents a combination of literature reviews and 3years field research carried out in the United Kingdom (UK). This field research adopted a research design consisting combination of different qualitative methods. These qualitative methods included semi-structured interviews with 27 UK based restorative justice practitioners and policy makers, and 21 unrelated victims and offenders of hate crimes. In addition, observations of two separate restorative justice meetings took place. The non – probability sampling method was used in selecting participants, and the qualitative data obtained was analysed using the content analysis method.
He finds there are two categories of hate incidents that can constitute hate crimes. The first category he states constitutes those hate incidents, which are by their nature violent and, calls for the attention of the state. Here, the State readily prosecutes offenders of these crimes because of their perceived long lasting or life lasting impact on the victim and the community. The second category of hate incidents, he states, are those at the lower spectrum. These hate incidents often do not attract the State’s attention because the State perceive them as harmless, or at least not as violent as to constitute crimes. He concludes that restorative justice and hate crimes have definitional problems, but that restorative justice particularly appeals to hate crimes at the lower spectrum. He offers the implications of his study – the need to provide additional qualitative information that may be helpful in understanding restorative justice for hate crime; and encourage further research in this research area.
The review
This research article, published in 2012, referenced a wide range of forty-six relevant literatures, with three web-based citations. This is impressive considering that most of the literatures are 21st century publications; and he explains that literatures on the research area are scarce.[15] The structure of the study is well set out, having in this order: title, abstract, keyword, introduction, literature review, methods, results, discussions, conclusion, and references. Most research study adopt this same structure, although, the structure of journal article varies, depending on the academic discipline.[16] Like the structure of journal article, the citation style an author adopts also varies but what is important is that, the citation style chosen contains relevant details. These details, includes the author’s name, editors (if applicable), title of the work or book, location in a journal (if applicable), date of publication, publishers etc. The research article adopted American Psychological Association (APA) citation style,[17] and is properly used.
The hate crimes studied were mostly racially motivated hate, leaving out other kinds of hate (those motivated by religion, disability, sexual orientation). This study is thus, one sided, and do not proffer a balance argument of using restorative justice for hate crimes. Even he acknowledges there were numerous hate crime cases not racially motivated,[18] but no reason was stated why other kinds were not reported. The language of the article is formal, easy-to-read, and there seems to be logical flow of information, except for the fact that at times, Gavrielides spends so much time on an aspect, and at other times, he provides insufficient information. For instance, he did not address or acknowledge the inherent limitations in social researches. These limitations usually arise where there is bias because of choice of a group of people, strict adherence to a predefined structure, or other human behaviour.[19] Again, the details of the research study sites were not stated; and reasons for the omission not provided.
Interestingly, another research article published by this same researcher under the auspices of Race on the Agenda (ROTA) in June 2007,[20] still on this research area, contains a more detailed information than this present research article. This present research article seems to be an abridged version, and this somewhat explains why there are information lapses in some part of this research article. The reviewer will scrutinise each section of the research article to highlight these lapses. Gavrielides provides an abstract to give an overview of his research. The abstract rightly identifies the research purpose and outlines methods used, but omits to state the problem statement, findings, implications, and recommendations (if necessary), as in this case.[21] Again, the length of an abstract may vary, depending on the discipline and publisher’s requirement. Many publishers, including the APA publishing guidelines[22] recommends 150 to 250 words. Based on this recommendation, the length seems sufficient. His use of keywords although, not compulsory is desirable because of their function in helping researchers point to relevant papers, which ordinarily may not come to their attention.[23]
In his introduction, Gavrielides identifies the problem statement as the need to clarify the role of restorative justice for ‘hate crimes …, not under the legal definition of “hate crime”’. While he has some insight, the idea he is trying to express is misconceived, and somewhat unfounded and untenable in law; and this idea has not earned much followers. The relevant UK laws on hate crimes neither provides specific list of offences constituting hate crimes nor classifies hate crimes into two levels of offending. For a hate incident to fall under hate crimes, it must first be a crime, that is, declared by a law to be a crime.[24] This fact, he acknowledges.[25] If the commission of that crime is borne out of the offender’s prejudice as to victim’s race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, it then comes under the hate crime category as an aggravated offence. Nevertheless, the problem statement is thought provoking, and seems researchable.
The educational significance of the problem, stated many times, is to provide additional information for both advocates and opponents of restorative justice in understanding restorative justice for hate crime. The purpose, as identified, includes gathering comprehensive information on the use of restorative justice for hate crime. Admittedly, this research purpose is particularly relevant, as it will aid in clarifying the debate: if restorative justice suit all crimes, including hate crimes. The House of Commons Justice Committee[26] in their report asserted that some witnesses who gave evidence expressed doubt for the use of restorative justice in domestic violence, sexual offences and hate crime. Recent works now advocate for the use of effective restorative justice in hate crimes.[27]
The literature review is comprehensive and relevant to the research design and questions. He cites a wide range of literary sources including the writings of Walters and Hoyle.[28] He used few primary and many secondary sources in his review. A comprehensive description of what restorative justice and hate crimes are, with critical analysis of relevant references were provided. The summaries of the case studies presented, show cases where criminal justice system was both prevented and where it was deferred for restorative justice; also, different forms of restorative justice. This is consistent with his descriptions of restorative justice in the literature review. However, these cases studies seem not to support his problem statement. For instance, the case study from Minnesota, United States (US) did not disclose what kind of racial offending was done to ascertain if it supports his case. In the Southwark, London, case study, the involvement of the police, who were said to have framed charges to prosecute offenders, means a crime was committed, not mere hate incident. This case again, do not support him. The case studies only show successful use of restorative justice to hate crime cases in general.
Gavrielides explicitly lists three specific questions answered by all the participants. He clarifies that since the research was in the UK, most interviewees used the definition that arose out of the Macpherson inquiry, an inquiry conducted in the UK. The research questions for the interviewees, framed under the misconceived problem statement, affected their answers as they made them to understand all hate incidents to be hate crime. This explains why most of the restorative justice experts disagreed with the word crime, in hate crimes. They are somewhat right to have disagreed because as earlier mentioned, not all hate incidents are hate crimes. He reports that some participants disagreed with terms like, victims and offenders. They rather prefer to use, victims for all hate crime parties. The reason they give seems justified but misplaced, because, he would have made them to understand that these terms are to differentiate between the offended and the offending party. The reviewer observes that these research questions seems framed in such a way as to elicit desired answer.
Gavrielides scores well in his choice of design and procedure, which are appropriate for answering the questions listed. The reasons for using the combination of various qualitative methods and the convenience sampling are given. He explains the risks associated with both, but did not provide sufficient description of their procedures. The sizes and major characteristics of the sample studied are stated.[29] No pilot study or control procedure is identified. His choice for semi-structured interviews with 27 UK based restorative justice practitioners and policy makers, avoiding the risks of extreme effects of structured interviewing or unstructured interviewing[30]is quite impressive. However, he neither states the reasons for the semi-structured interviewing nor the 27 interviewees. No reason, why they are not more or less interviewees; and why only experts? The sample seems small, however, as Alan Bryman stated; the purpose of a research determines the number of qualitative interviews that is enough.[31]It seems 27 interviewees is sufficient considering Gavrielides’ research purpose, which is merely to create knowledge and contextualise restorative justice for hate crimes.
Reasons advanced for discussing with 21 unrelated victims and offenders group between the age group of 16 to 25 years seems justified. This is because studies have shown that persons within that age bracket commit high rate of hate crime[32] and, UK mainly use restorative justice for youth offenders.[33] For using unrelated focus group, he explains the need was to enable participants feel more comfortable to consent and discuss.[34] Again, he fails to explain the reason for discussing with only 21 of the victims and offenders. In 2016, the UK Home office estimated from the police monitored strand, 43, 968 cases on hate crime for the period from 2011 to 2016.[35] Gavrielides states that it was difficult to find adult offenders for his research, this means that most of the 43, 968 cases were from youth offenders. It therefore follows, that discussing with only 21 victims and offenders is somewhat too low considering the number of youth hate crime cases at his disposal. It is worth noting that the constant reference to statements by only black participant appears prejudicial, and arguably, may not present a balance discussion. It has the tendency to paint the picture that only, or majority of hate crime victims and offenders are blacks.
To address ethics and confidentiality issues, he obtains a research ethics approval from a committee of the IARS; an institute he is the founder and a director. It may have looked better if the approval was sought from other approved institutions, unrelated to the researcher. This is because ethics approvals aims at protecting research participants, even the researchers, and such issues relate to a participant’s fundamental human rights.[36] Gavrielides states no reason for observing only two UK based restorative justice practices, and why his preference to those two specific practices. He fails to state the details of the restorative justice process observed, but is quick to state how data obtained, is analysed. His use of content analysis, no doubt is very effective in analysing vast amount of information, but it might have been helpful to provide more detail information on data collected and the process of analysing the data. For instance, he reports what participants says, and omits to report what others says. Using a table would have afforded him the opportunity to produce a well-detailed report on all participants.
Despite the misconception of questioning the role of restorative justice in hate crimes, not under the legal definition of hate crimes, Gavrielides presents appropriate descriptive findings. The presentations, admirably, are composed soundly, presented clearly, and addresses the research questions. The findings emphasised on the spectrum of hate incidents. This, the article argues span from minor hate incidents like egg throwing to more serious hate crime like murder. It finds further, that the spectrum is significance because it will help in identifying the role of restorative justice in seemingly minor hate incidents cases with lasting harmful effects on victims and the community. The discussions relate to the findings and the purpose of the research article in general. The conclusions are consistent with his finding but almost got distracted when he diverted into discussing hate crimes and its consequences. However, the implications of the findings were clearly stated, and recommendations for further investigation made.
Conclusion
The reviewer described the problem statement as a misconceived idea at first, but curiously, accepted the research statement to be a researchable area. The reviewer chose to identify with the theoretical application of the problem statement and ignore its practical application, especially, as the problem statement, is merely to conceptualise restorative justice for hate crimes that are lower on the spectrum, and not under the legal definition of hate crime. The literature reviews and the research study presented, prove restorative justice can be conceptualised for this category of hate crimes, at the lower spectrum, and all hate crimes in general.
The research article is significant for the following reasons: (1) Given that studies of the use of restorative justice for hate crimes are rare, this will prompt more research studies into this area, and further encourage restorative justice practitioners to engage in restorative justice for hate crimes. (2) The article emphasised the need for the cooperation of all stakeholders in restorative justice practice and hate crimes. (3) As one of the interviewees said, restorative justice should not end with repairing harm done to victims but look further at the emotional impact on families, and the community and the society. Overall, I am fully convinced that he has established a strong case for restorative justice in hate crime.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- American Psychological Association, ‘Publication Manual’ (6th edn, APA Publishing 2010)
- Chigora P and Mutenheri F, ‘Beyond the Truth: Limitations in Social Science Research from a Development Perspective in Africa’ (2007) 9(3) Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa 172-185
- Creswell J, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th edn, SAGE 2014)
- Eglash A, ‘Beyond Restitution: Creative Restitution’ in Joe Hudson and Burt Galaway (eds) Restitution in Criminal Justice (Lexington 1977)
- Gavrielides T, ‘Contextualising Restorative Justice for Hate Crime’ (2012) 27(18) Journal of Interpersonal Violence 3624-3643
- Keating H, SR Kyd Cunningham, T Elliot and Walters M, ‘Clarkson and Keating: Criminal Law (8th edn, 2014)
- Ono O, Phillips K and Leneman M, ‘Content of an Abstract: De Jure and De facto’ (1996) 51(12) American Psychologist 1338 – 1340
- Saucier D, Brown T, Mitcjell and Cawman A, ‘Effects of Victims’ Characteristics on Attitudes Toward Hate Crimes’ (2006) 21(7) Journal of Interpersonal Violence
- Umbreit M, Lewis T, and Burns H, ‘A Community Response to a 9/11 Hate Crime: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue’ Contemporary Justice Review (2003) 6(4) 383-391
- Walters M and Hoyle C, ‘Healing Harms and Engendering Tolerance: The Promise of Restorative Justice for Hate Crime’ in Chakraborti N (ed), Hate Crime: Concepts, Policy, Future Directions (Willan Publishing 2010)
- Zehr H and Gohar A, The Little Book of restorative Justice (Good Books Intercourse 2002)
- Zehr H, ‘Commentary: Restorative justice: Beyond victim-offender mediation’ (2004) 22(1-2) Conflict Resolution Quarterly 307 (citation omitted).
[1] Mark Walter, ‘Hate Crime and Restorative Justice: Exploring Causes, Repairing Harms’ (INHS, 15 May 2014) <www.international hatestudies.com/hate-crime-restorative-justice-exploring-causes-repairing-harms/> accessed 10 March 2017.
[2] ibid.
[3] Professor Theo Gavrielides is an international expert in Restorative Justice, human rights, equality, race equality, youth policy and crime; Founder and director of IARS international Institute, UK; Co- director of Restorative Justice for All (RJ4all); A Visiting Professor at Buckinghamshire New University (UK); and an adjunct Professor at the School of Criminology, Simon Fraser university, Canada.
[4] Theo Gavrielides, ‘Contextualising Restorative Justice for Hate Crime’ (2012) 27(18) Journal of Interpersonal Violence 3624-3643.
[5] See <www.iars.org.uk>.
[6] Howard Zehr and Ali Gohar, The Little Book of restorative Justice (Good Books Intercourse 2002) 37; Albert Eglash, ‘Beyond Restitution: Creative Restitution’ in Joe Hudson and Burt Galaway (eds), Restitution in Criminal Justice (Lexington 1977) 91; The Crown Prosecution Service, ‘Restorative Justice’ <https://cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/restorative_justice/ >accessed 3 March 2017.
[7] Howard Zehr, ‘Commentary: Restorative justice: Beyond victim-offender mediation’ (2004) 22(1-2) Conflict Resolution Quarterly 307 (citation omitted).
[8] Mark Umbreit and others, ‘A Community Response to a 9/11 Hate Crime: Restorative Justice through Dialogue’ (2003) 6(4) Contemporary Justice Review 384.
[9] Section 39 of the Anti-terrorism; Crime and Security Act 2001; Crime and Disorder Act 1998, s 28.
[10] ibid.
[11] Section 146 Criminal justice Act 2003 (UK).
[12] Ibid.
[13] The Crown Prosecution Service, North East < http://www.cps.gov.uk/northeast/victims_and_ witnesses/ hate _crime/> accessed 22 January 2017.
[14] Donald Saucier and others, ‘Effects of Victims’ Characteristics on Attitudes Toward Hate Crimes’ (2006) 21(7) Journal of Interpersonal Violence 890.
[15] (n 4) 3628
[16] See generally, John Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th edn, SAGE 2014)
[17] American Psychological Association, ‘Publication Manual’ (6th edn, APA Publishing 2010) 25.
[18] (n 4) 3637.
[19] Percyslage Chigora and Feddious Mutenheri, ‘Boyond the Truth: Limitations in Social Science Research from a Development Perspective in Africa’ (2007) 9(3) Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa.
[20] Theo Gavrielides, Restoring Relationships: Addressing Hate Crimes through Restorative Justice (ROTA June 2007) <http://www.rota.org.uk/webfm_send/54> accessed 9 March 2017.
[21] Ono Hiroshi and others, ‘Content of an Abstract: De Jure and De facto’ (1996) 51(12) American Psychologist 1333.L
[22] (n 17).
[23] Westburn Publishers Ltd, ‘Academic Papers’ Journal of Customer Behaviour accessed 5 March 2017.
[24] For the definition of a crime. See Black’s Law Dictionary (Deluxe 10th eds, 2014).
[25] (n 4) 3627
[26] Restorative justice Fourth Report of Session 2016–17 7, 14.
[27] Mark Walters and Carolyn Hoyle, ‘Healing Harms and Engendering Tolerance: The Promise of Restorative Justice for Hate Crime’ in Neil Chakraborti (ed), Hate Crime: Concepts, Policy, Future Directions (Willan Publishing 2010) 228.
[28] M walters and C Hoyle’ Healing Harms and Engendering tolerance: The Promise of Restorative Justice for Hate Crime’ in N Chakraborti (ed) Hate Crime: Concepts, Policy, Future Directions (Willan 2010) 228.
[29] (n 2) 3623 – 3625.
[30] Harvey Bernard, Social research methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (SAGE Publications) 184.
[31] Sarah Baker and Rosalind Edwards, ’How Many Qualitative Interviews is enough? : Expert voices and early career reflections on Sampling and cases in Qualitative Research’ National Centre for Research Methods Review Paper 5.
[32] Hannah Corcoran and others, ‘Home Office on Hate Crime, England and Wales 2014/15’ 15. http://www.report-it.org.uk/files/ho_hate_crime_statistics_201415.pdf accessed 23 January 2017.
[33]Code of Practice for Victims of Crime 2013; Crime Courts Act 2013.
[34] (n 4) 3635. See also World Health Organisation, ‘World Health Survey: Guide to Administration and Question by Question Specifications 2002’ <http://www.who.int/healthinfo/survey/whslongversionguide.pdf> accessed 2 March 2017 6.
[35] Nannah Corcoran and Kevin Smith, ‘Hate Crime, England and Wales 2015/2016’ (UK Home Office) 9.
[36] Charter of Fundamental Rights of European Union 2000, art 3, 7, 8, and 13.