Effects of face-to-face restorative justice on victims of crime in four randomized, controlled trials

Do Retributive and Restorative Justice Processes Address Different Symbolic Concerns?

“…It is consistent with findings that victims appear to see revenge as more effective when the offenders understand why they have been punished (Gollwitzer and Denzler 2009), and that offender remorse and apology have the potential to reduce counter-aggression in victims (Ohbuchi et al 1989) and increase their forgiveness (Fehr et al 2010). Sherman et al (2005) found in randomized controlled trials that victims reported having received an apology from the offender more often, and the apology being more sincere, in face-to-face restorative justice than in conventional justice processes. The authors take this as evidence that restorative justice can achieve, and establish justice through, a ''recommitment to the group's standards of morality'' (Sherman et al 2005, p. 371).…”

“…However, while the utilitarian aspect of the offender-reforming effects of restorative justice are well theorized (e.g., Braithwaite 1989), it is less clear why and how restorative processes can restore people's feelings of justice (Sherman et al 2005). What is it about restorative justice that is capable of restoring a sense of justice?…”

Restoring the Victim: Emotional Reactions, Justice Beliefs, and Support for Reparation and Punishment

“…The central role that victims play in the justice proceedings, and the attention given to their concerns, likely underlies the now welldocumented finding that the use of restorative justice practices improves outcomes for victims more than traditional court processes (Latimer et al 2005;Sherman et al 2005;Strang et al 2006;Umbreit and Coates 1993). Victims report greater feelings of satisfaction and fairness, lesser feelings of fear and desire to seek revenge against the offender, and feeling better emotionally about their victimization, when they participate in restorative conferences.…”

Laboratory Experiments: A Meaningful Contribution to Restorative Justice Research?

“…Studies have established that RJ tends to be evaluated positively based on these measures (e.g., Sherman et al 2005;Strang and Sherman 2003). While several studies have established the success of restorative processes on various measures, there has been little investigation into specific factors influencing or causing the success or failure of RJ.…”

“…Rather than directly testing causal relationships between particular aspects of RJ processes and measures of success, RJ researchers often draw upon findings from other bodies of research to speculate on the factors that drive success in RJ. For example, RJ theorists extrapolate from procedural justice research demonstrating that voice increases procedural fairness and satisfaction judgments, to argue that participants judge RJ procedures to be more fair and satisfactory than court because voice is increased in RJ compared to court (e.g., Strang 2002;Sherman et al 2005;Tyler 2006). However, these assertions are made without a direct test of the effect of voice in RJ procedures, thus failing to demonstrate that voice is indeed the factor driving the success of RJ on these fairness and satisfaction measures.…”