Item Details

Print View

Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) in Australia, 1995-1999 [electronic resource]

Lawrence W., Sherman, John Braithwaite, Heather Strang, Geoffrey C. Barnes
Format
Computer Resource; Online
Published
Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2001
Edition
2006-03-30
Series
ICPSR
ICPSR (Series)
Access Restriction
AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.
Abstract
The Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) project compared the effects of standard court processing with the effects of a restorative justice intervention known as conferencing for four kinds of cases: drunk driving (over .08 blood alcohol content) at any age, juvenile property offending with personal victims, juvenile shoplifting offenses detected by store security officers, and youth violent crimes (under age 30). Reintegrative shaming theory underpins the conferencing alternative. It entails offenders facing those harmed by their actions in the presence of family and friends whose opinions they care about, discussing their wrongdoing, and making repayment to society and to their victims for the costs of their crimes, both material and emotional. These conferences were facilitated by police officers and usually took around 90 minutes, compared with around ten minutes for court processing time. The researchers sought to test the hypotheses that (1) there would be less repeat offending after a conference than after a court treatment, (2) victims would be more satisfied with conferences than with court, (3) both offenders and victims would find conferences to be fairer than court, and (4) the public costs of providing a conference would be no greater than, and perhaps less than, the costs of processing offenders in court. This study contains data from ongoing experiments comparing the effects of court versus diversionary conferences for a select group of offenders. Part 1, Administrative Data for All Cases, consists of data from reports by police officers. These data include information on the offender's attitude, the police station and officer that referred the case, blood alcohol content level (drunk driving only), offense type, and RISE assigned treatment. Parts 2-5 are data from observations by trained RISE research staff of court and conference treatments to which offenders had been randomly assigned. Variables for Parts 2-5 include duration of the court or conference, if there was any violence or threat of violence in the court or conference, supports that the offender and victim had, how much reintegrative shaming was expressed, the extent to which the offender accepted guilt, if and in what form the offender apologized (e.g., verbal, handshake, hug, kiss), how defiant or sullen the offender was, how much the offender contributed to the outcome, what the outcome was (e.g., dismissed, imprisonment, fine, community service, bail release, driving license cancelled, counseling program), and what the outcome reflected (punishment, repaying community, repaying victims, preventing future offense, restoration). Data for Parts 6 and 7, Year 0 Survey Data from Non-Drunk-Driving Offenders Assigned to Court and Conferences and Year 0 Survey Data from Drunk-Driving Offenders Assigned to Court and Conferences, were taken from interviews with offenders by trained RISE interview staff after the court or conference proceedings. Variables for Parts 6 and 7 include how much the court or conference respected the respondent's rights, how much influence the respondent had over the agreement, the outcome that the respondent received, if the court or conference solved any problems, if police explained that the respondent had the right to refuse the court or conference, if the respondent was consulted about whom to invite to court or conference, how the respondent was treated, and if the respondent's respect for the justice system had gone up or down as a result of the court or conference. Additional variables focused on how nervous the respondent was about attending the court or conference, how severe the respondent felt the outcome was, how severe the respondent thought the punishment would be if he/she were caught again, if the respondent thought the court or conference would prevent him/her from breaking the law, if the respondent was bitter about the way he/she was treated, if the respondent understood what was going on in the court or conference, if the court or conference took account of what the respondent said, if the respondent felt pushed around by people with more power, if the respondent felt disadvantaged because of race, sex, age, or income, how police treated the respondent when arrested, if the respondent regretted what he/she did, if the respondent felt ashamed of what he/she did, what his/her family, friends, and other people thought of what the respondent did, and if the respondent had used drugs or alcohol the past year. Demographic variables in this data collection include offender's country of birth, gender, race, education, income, and employment.Cf: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02993.v1
Contents
  • Administrative Data for All Cases
  • Observations of Court Cases
  • Case-Based Observations of Non-Drunk-Driving Conferences
  • Offender-Based Observations of Non-Drunk-Driving Conferences
  • Observations of Drunk-Driving Conferences
  • Year 0 Survey Data from Non-Drunk-Driving Offenders Assigned to Court and Conferences
  • Year 0 Survey Data from Drunk-Driving Offenders Assigned to Court and Conferences
Description
Mode of access: Intranet.
Notes
Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2016-02-11.
Series Statement
ICPSR 2993
ICPSR (Series) 2993
Other Forms
Also available as downloadable files.
Copyright Not EvaluatedCopyright Not Evaluated
Technical Details
  • Staff View

    LEADER 07933cmm a2200625la 4500
    001 ICPSR02993
    003 MiAaI
    006 m f a u
    007 cr mn mmmmuuuu
    008 160211s2001 miu f a eng d
    035
      
      
    a| (MiAaI)ICPSR02993
    040
      
      
    a| MiAaI c| MiAaI
    245
    0
    0
    a| Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) in Australia, 1995-1999 h| [electronic resource] c| Lawrence W., Sherman, John Braithwaite, Heather Strang, Geoffrey C. Barnes
    250
      
      
    a| 2006-03-30
    260
      
      
    a| Ann Arbor, Mich. b| Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] c| 2001
    490
      
      
    a| ICPSR v| 2993
    516
      
      
    a| Numeric
    538
      
      
    a| Mode of access: Intranet.
    500
      
      
    a| Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2016-02-11.
    536
      
      
    a| United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice c| 98-IJ-CX-0033
    506
      
      
    a| AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.
    530
      
      
    a| Also available as downloadable files.
    522
      
      
    a| Australia
    522
      
      
    a| Global
    520
    3
      
    a| The Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) project compared the effects of standard court processing with the effects of a restorative justice intervention known as conferencing for four kinds of cases: drunk driving (over .08 blood alcohol content) at any age, juvenile property offending with personal victims, juvenile shoplifting offenses detected by store security officers, and youth violent crimes (under age 30). Reintegrative shaming theory underpins the conferencing alternative. It entails offenders facing those harmed by their actions in the presence of family and friends whose opinions they care about, discussing their wrongdoing, and making repayment to society and to their victims for the costs of their crimes, both material and emotional. These conferences were facilitated by police officers and usually took around 90 minutes, compared with around ten minutes for court processing time. The researchers sought to test the hypotheses that (1) there would be less repeat offending after a conference than after a court treatment, (2) victims would be more satisfied with conferences than with court, (3) both offenders and victims would find conferences to be fairer than court, and (4) the public costs of providing a conference would be no greater than, and perhaps less than, the costs of processing offenders in court. This study contains data from ongoing experiments comparing the effects of court versus diversionary conferences for a select group of offenders. Part 1, Administrative Data for All Cases, consists of data from reports by police officers. These data include information on the offender's attitude, the police station and officer that referred the case, blood alcohol content level (drunk driving only), offense type, and RISE assigned treatment. Parts 2-5 are data from observations by trained RISE research staff of court and conference treatments to which offenders had been randomly assigned. Variables for Parts 2-5 include duration of the court or conference, if there was any violence or threat of violence in the court or conference, supports that the offender and victim had, how much reintegrative shaming was expressed, the extent to which the offender accepted guilt, if and in what form the offender apologized (e.g., verbal, handshake, hug, kiss), how defiant or sullen the offender was, how much the offender contributed to the outcome, what the outcome was (e.g., dismissed, imprisonment, fine, community service, bail release, driving license cancelled, counseling program), and what the outcome reflected (punishment, repaying community, repaying victims, preventing future offense, restoration). Data for Parts 6 and 7, Year 0 Survey Data from Non-Drunk-Driving Offenders Assigned to Court and Conferences and Year 0 Survey Data from Drunk-Driving Offenders Assigned to Court and Conferences, were taken from interviews with offenders by trained RISE interview staff after the court or conference proceedings. Variables for Parts 6 and 7 include how much the court or conference respected the respondent's rights, how much influence the respondent had over the agreement, the outcome that the respondent received, if the court or conference solved any problems, if police explained that the respondent had the right to refuse the court or conference, if the respondent was consulted about whom to invite to court or conference, how the respondent was treated, and if the respondent's respect for the justice system had gone up or down as a result of the court or conference. Additional variables focused on how nervous the respondent was about attending the court or conference, how severe the respondent felt the outcome was, how severe the respondent thought the punishment would be if he/she were caught again, if the respondent thought the court or conference would prevent him/her from breaking the law, if the respondent was bitter about the way he/she was treated, if the respondent understood what was going on in the court or conference, if the court or conference took account of what the respondent said, if the respondent felt pushed around by people with more power, if the respondent felt disadvantaged because of race, sex, age, or income, how police treated the respondent when arrested, if the respondent regretted what he/she did, if the respondent felt ashamed of what he/she did, what his/her family, friends, and other people thought of what the respondent did, and if the respondent had used drugs or alcohol the past year. Demographic variables in this data collection include offender's country of birth, gender, race, education, income, and employment.Cf: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02993.v1
    505
      
      
    t| Administrative Data for All Cases
    505
      
      
    t| Observations of Court Cases
    505
      
      
    t| Case-Based Observations of Non-Drunk-Driving Conferences
    505
      
      
    t| Offender-Based Observations of Non-Drunk-Driving Conferences
    505
      
      
    t| Observations of Drunk-Driving Conferences
    505
      
      
    t| Year 0 Survey Data from Non-Drunk-Driving Offenders Assigned to Court and Conferences
    505
      
      
    t| Year 0 Survey Data from Drunk-Driving Offenders Assigned to Court and Conferences
    567
      
      
    a| Individuals who committed offenses of drunk driving over .08 blood alcohol content at any age, juvenile property offending with personal victims, juvenile shoplifting offenses detected by store security officers, and youth violent crimes (under age 30) in the Australian Capital Territory.
    650
      
    7
    a| case processing 2| icpsr
    650
      
    7
    a| driving under the influence 2| icpsr
    650
      
    7
    a| intervention 2| icpsr
    650
      
    7
    a| intervention strategies 2| icpsr
    650
      
    7
    a| juvenile offenders 2| icpsr
    650
      
    7
    a| petty theft 2| icpsr
    650
      
    7
    a| pretrial procedures 2| icpsr
    650
      
    7
    a| police officers 2| icpsr
    650
      
    7
    a| property crime 2| icpsr
    650
      
    7
    a| restorative justice 2| icpsr
    653
    0
      
    a| IDRC II. Economic Data
    653
    0
      
    a| ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System
    653
    0
      
    a| IDRC VII. Public Opinion Data
    653
    0
      
    a| IDRC VI. Human Dimension of International Relations
    653
    0
      
    a| NACJD VI. Criminal Justice System
    700
    2
      
    a| Sherman, Lawrence W., u| University of Maryland, Australian National University, and University of Pittsburgh
    700
    2
      
    a| Braithwaite, John u| University of Maryland, Australian National University, and University of Pittsburgh
    700
    2
      
    a| Strang, Heather u| University of Maryland, Australian National University, and University of Pittsburgh
    700
    2
      
    a| Barnes, Geoffrey C. u| University of Maryland, Australian National University, and University of Pittsburgh
    710
    2
      
    a| Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.
    830
      
    0
    a| ICPSR (Series) v| 2993
    856
    4
    0
    u| http://proxy.its.virginia.edu/login?url=http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02993.v1
    999
      
      
    w| WEB l| INTERNET m| UVA-LIB t| INTERNET
▾See more
▴See less

Availability

Access Online