Honing the stone: refining restorative justice as a vehicle for emotional redress

Abstract

Commentators have frequently claimed that restorative justice (RJ) programs hold the potential to deliver therapeutic outcomes. However, if we are serious about integrating a therapeutic agenda into criminal justice, our current understanding of the mechanics of RJ is incomplete. Having established a case for doing justice better, proponents of RJ now need to think in much more concrete terms about the ways in which the process is designed in order to reap a tangible sense of forgiveness, reconciliation, and closure for victims of crime. From the evidence to date, it is suggested that there are four 'keys' which may be used to unlock the therapeutic potential of RJ. These are: (1) personal narratives;(2) apology; (3) forgiveness; and (4) procedural justice within restorative programs. A major challenge for future research in the area is to attempt to measure how these aspects of RJ operate at a micro-level to transform emotions.

Adult reparation panels and offender-centric meso-communities: an answer to the conundrum

“…Despite the absence of direct victims, the writing of an apology is an ever-present and fundamental piece of every reparation contract. The act of apology itself is said to represent one of a number of potential 'keys' which can ultimately unlock the therapeutic potential of restorative justice practice (Doak, 2011), whilst for Braithwaite (2002: 571), the restorative apology, along with true remorse, can be viewed as 'the most powerful form of censure as [it] is offered by the person with the strongest reasons for refusing to vindicate the victim by censuring the injustice'. However, in many of the cases observed, it was clear that direct victims, or victim representatives, did not receive the apology letter as they did not want to become involved in the process at any level.…”

“…Moreover, many of these rehabilitative social care and welfare-based concerns were discussed outside the parameters of the reparation contract itself and represented the cornerstone of this newly identified hybrid 'mesocommunity of care, concern and accountability'. This welfare themed discourse contrasts fundamentally with the adversarial dynamic within a courtroom justice encounter wherein the personal narratives of both victims and offenders are often neglected (Doak, 2011). 6 In this regard, these preliminary introductions were arguably a small but vivid example of how panel practices can begin to challenge the fundamentals of the conventional criminal justice process by increasing normative dialogue and emphasising 'right relationships over right rules' (Zehr, 1990: 211), thereby returning ownership of the criminal justice conflict back to the primary stakeholders most affected (Christie, 1981).…”

“…Doak (2011) argues that the conventional trial process tends to 'crush' such narratives. It is acknowledged, however, that such a welfare ethos might prove more practical within the reparation process wherein guilt has already been proved or admitted.…”

The Burden of Bearing Witness: The Impact of Testifying at War Crimes Tribunals

“…Assessments about transitional justice turn on personal appraisals and motivations as well as larger issues regarding whether the institution has contributed to truth, justice, and reconciliation (Stepakoff et al 2014(Stepakoff et al , 2015a(Stepakoff et al , 2015bCody et al 2014;Clark 2014;Stover 2005). These differences between the personal versus institutional are mirrored in findings across different types of mechanisms and diverse violent conflicts (David 2017) with two patterns emerging-(1) most studies use the constructs of positive or negative to ask about participant perceptions regarding the transitional justice mechanism and (2) those who testify are markedly more positive about their personal interactions as compared to whether they believe the institution has performed well (Doak 2011a;Brounéus 2010;Hamber 2009;Hayner 2010;Stover 2005;Stepakoff et al 2014Stepakoff et al , 2015aDoak 2011aDoak , 2011bMendeloff 2009;Clark 2014;Subotić 2009;Hayden 2011;Orentlicher 2008Orentlicher , 2010Herman 1992;Laub 1992). Thus, we focus on an individual's views about testifying not whether he or she believes the ICTY as an institution has had a positive impact.…”

“…One contentious issue within transitional justice is whether those who testify before tribunals, truth commissions, and other venues are helped, harmed, or affected in some other manner because of testifying (Doak 2011a;Brounéus 2010;Stover 2005;Hayner 2010), with much still unknown about the impact of testifying over the long term (Doak 2011a;Mendeloff 2009). This article focuses on testimonial impact by developing a theory of witness resilience and then testing that model using new ICTY data.…”