Skip to start of content

Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE)

Recidivism patterns in the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE)

Lawrence W Sherman, Heather Strang and Daniel J Woods
Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University

November 2000

Australian National University

Abstract

This is the final report on a project partially funded by the Criminology Research Council. The original title of the project, in the name of John Braithwaite and Lawrence W. Sherman, was "Reintegrative shaming of violence, drink driving and property crime : a randomised controlled trial". This report describes findings on the recidivism behaviour of offenders involved in the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments, which compared the effects of standard court processing with the effects of a diversionary conference for four kinds of cases: drink driving at any age; juvenile property offending with personal victims; juvenile shoplifting offences detected by store security officers; and youth violent crimes. Across the four experiments that make up the Reintegrative Shaming Experiments project (RISE), very different results have emerged for the different offence categories. In the youth violence experiment, those offenders who were assigned to conference subsequently offended at substantially lower levels-38 fewer offences per year per 100 offenders-than did the offenders assigned to court. This was not true for any of the other experiments. For drink-driving offenders, a very small increase in detected reoffending was found for the conferenced offenders relative to court-about four offences per offender per year per 100 offenders. The methodological conclusion of this five-year project is that multiple randomised trials are advisable for testing a new method of justice. The design of RISE anticipated the possibility of detecting different effects for different types of offences. That still remains the most plausible account of the differences reported, as opposed to differences by type of offender background. Further research should continue to break out different offence types for testing, rather than lumping diverse offence types together. The substantive conclusion of RISE is that restorative justice can work, and can even reduce crime by violent offenders. But there is no guarantee that it will work for all offence types. Caution and more research are needed before rapid expansion of any new approach to treating crime. Less caution is needed, however, in testing restorative justice on more serious types of violent offences. The findings in this report provide firm ground for repeating the violence experiment in many other venues and with more refined types of violent offences, including robbery, assault and grievous bodily harm.

Contents

List of figures

  • Figure 1 Change in 1 Year Monthly Offending Rate (Any Offence) by RISE Assigned Treatment (Youth Violence Offenders, N = 110)
  • Figure 2 Relative Change in Monthly Offending Rates 1 Year Before and After RISE by Assigned Treatment (Youth Violence Offenders, N=110)
  • Figure 3 Change in 1 Year Monthly Offending Rate (Any Offence) by RISE Assigned Treatment (Drink Driving, N = 900)
  • Figure 4 Relative Change in Monthly Offending Rates 1 Year Before and After RISE by Assigned Treatment (Drink Driving, N=900)
  • Figure 5 Change in 1 Year Monthly Drink Driving Offending Rate by RISE Assigned Treatment (Drink Driving, N = 900)
  • Figure 6 Relative Change in Drink Driving Monthly Offending Rates 1 Year Before and After RISE by Assigned Treatment (Drink Driving, N=900)
  • Figure 7 Change in 1 Year Monthly Offending Rate (Any Offence) by RISE Assigned Treatment (Juvenile Shoplifting-Security Offenders, N = 135)
  • Figure 8 Relative Change in Monthly Offending Rates 1 Year Before and After RISE by Assigned Treatment (Juvenile Shoplifting-Security Offenders, N=135)
  • Figure 9 Change in 1 Year Monthly Offending Rate (Any Offence) by RISE Assigned Treatment (Juvenile Personal Property Offenders, N = 238)
  • Figure 10 Relative Change in Monthly Offending Rates 1 Year Before and After RISE by Assigned Treatment (Juvenile Personal Property Offenders, N=239)
  • Figure 11 Percent Self-Reported Marijuana Use by Assigned Treatment and Experiment
  • Figure 12 Percent Male by Assigned Treatment and RISE Experiment
  • Figure 13 Percent Binge Drinking Offenders by Assigned Treatment and Experiment
  • Figure 14 Frequency of Presenting Youth Violence Cases to RISE (N = 89)
  • Figure 14a Frequency of Presenting Youth Violence Cases to RISE by Assigned Treatment (N = 89)
  • Figure 15 Frequency of Presenting Juvenile Personal Property Cases to RISE (N = 162)
  • Figure 15a Frequency of Presenting Personal Property Cases to RISE (N = 162)
  • Figure 16 Percent Self-Reported Property Crime by Assigned Treatment and Experiment
  • Figure 17 Percent Self-Reported Violent Crime by Assigned Treatment and Experiment
  • Figure 18 Percent Unemployed Offender by Assigned Treatment and Experiment
  • Figure 19 Percent Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Offender by Assigned Treatment and Experiment
  • Figure 20 Mean Prior Offences per Case by Assigned Treatment (Youth Violence Cases, N = 89)
  • Figure 21 Mean Length of Criminal Career (in Months) Pre-RISE per Offender by Treatment (Youth Violence Offenders, N=110)
  • Figure 22 Mean Time at-risk (in Months) Post-RISE by Treatment (Youth Violence Offenders, N=110)
  • Figure 23 Mean Prior Offences (Any Offence) by Assigned Treatment (Drink Driving, N = 900)
  • Figure 24 Mean Prior Drink Driving Offences by Assigned Treatment (Drink Driving, N = 900)
  • Figure 25 Mean Length of Criminal Career (in Years) Pre-RISE by Treatment (Drink Driving, N=900)
  • Figure 26 Mean Time at-risk (in Months) Post-RISE by Treatment (Drink Driving, N=900)
  • Figure 27 Mean Prior Offences per Case by Assigned Treatment (Juvenile Property-Security Cases, N = 108)
  • Figure 28 Mean Length of Criminal Career (in Months) Pre-RISE per Offender by Treatment (Juvenile Property-Security Offenders, N=135)
  • Figure 29 Mean Time at-risk (in Months) Post-RISE by Treatment (Juvenile Property-Security Offenders, N=135)
  • Figure 30 Mean Prior Offences per Case by Assigned Treatment (Juvenile Personal Property Cases, N = 164)
  • Figure 31 Mean Length of Criminal Career (in Months) Pre-RISE per Offender by Treatment (Juvenile Personal Property Offenders, N=239)
  • Figure 32 Mean Time at-risk (in Months) Post-RISE by Treatment (Juvenile Personal Property Offenders, N=239)