Source: johnmenadue.com 12/3/25
A major Australian Institute of Criminology evaluation shows restorative justice in the ACT has improved victim wellbeing and significantly reduced reoffending in domestic and sexual violence cases.
The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) was a global leader in extending restorative justice into the fraught area of domestic and sexual violence – and it has resoundingly worked.
A comprehensive Australian Institute of Criminology research report has found victims felt better supported, perpetrators learned that victims are not to blame and – most importantly – the frequency of re-offending has dropped.
Principal research analyst Dr Siobhan Lawler gave the annual McAulay Oration to the ACT Chapter of the Australian Academy of Forensic Sciences on 27 November – and the results were clear:
Improved feelings of safety, support and wellbeing for persons harmed;
Improved understanding that the violence is not acceptable and is serious for persons harmed and persons responsible;
Improved understanding by the persons responsible of the impact of their behaviour and that the person harmed is not to blame; and
Decreased re-offending by the person responsible (both during the lead-up to the conference with the victim and post-conference.)
The report declared that, in the almost four years to August 2022, 162 cases, involving 208 persons harmed and 165 persons responsible, had been referred to the extended program. Most common among them was family violence (including child abuse and child-to-parent violence) at 60 per cent, followed by intimate-partner violence at 36 per cent.
One in four participants (numbers were the same for persons harmed and perpetrators) referred to the scheme were found suitable to participate in a conference.
The report said, “Interviews identified that persons harmed were motivated to …
An important distinction –
“Further, the recidivism analysis found that adult persons responsible who participated … had a lower rate of domestic or family violence reoffending than a matched control comparison group.”
Only skimmed it, but didn’t see anything about reduction of recidivism for sex offenses. I suspect that was because sexual recidivism is pretty rare in Australia (as well as the US) despite sensationalized media reporting to the contrary. Not to mention that, despite popular opinion, those convicted for sex offenses are unlikely to repeat their offenses in the first place.
But despite its success, this program is unlikely to find any support among legislators in the US because it is contrary to the primary reason legislators propose new (or more likely, redone) obligations and restrictions on registrants – political grandstanding. Anyone who thinks public safety and the protection of children is the driving force behind such legislation is foolish.