Offer and Acceptance of Apology in Victim-Offender Mediation

Abstract

Past research on restorative justice (RJ) has highlighted the importance of apology for both victims and offenders and the prevalence of apology during the RJ process. The present study moves this work further by examining the nature of the apologies that are offered during victim-offender mediation, as well as the individual-, case-, and mediation-level factors that can affect the offer and acceptance of apology. In addition, we measure the implications that the offer and acceptance of apology can have on satisfaction with the mediation outcome. We conducted a content analysis of 57 records of mediations occurring between 2008 and 2010 at a UK mediation centre. Perpetrators said "I'm sorry" in over one-third of cases, and full apologies were offered in nearly one-fifth of cases. Apologies were accepted in over 90% of cases, although forgiveness was much less common. The offer of apology was most closely associated with the type of incident/offence, and number of previous mediations in a case. There was also some support for the relationship between the offer of apology and victim age, perpetrator gender, formal sanction, and the number of participants attending the mediation meeting. None of the factors studied were associated with the acceptance of apology. The offer of apology was associated with satisfaction with the mediation outcome, and in all of the cases where the apology was accepted, the victim was satisfied with the mediation outcome. The findings thus shed light on the role that apology can play in the effectiveness of RJ. © 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V

Do Retributive and Restorative Justice Processes Address Different Symbolic Concerns?

“…This does not mean that the terms of the conflict are subject to negotiation in such a dialogue; the offender's wrongdoing needs to be accepted by all sides and is non-negotiable. Rather, the aim is to achieve a shared understanding of its meaning, which implies that the offender at a minimum has to accept their wrongdoing and responsibility, and ideally shows remorse and expresses an apology, while the victim ideally develops some forgiveness (Garvey 2003;Retzinger and Scheff 1996;Zehr 1985; see also Dhami 2012). …”

Restorative Justice: The Ideals and Realities of Conferencing for Young People

“…Emergent standards are those factors that are not seen to be essential for restorative justice to occur, though they are an indicator of restorativeness and potentially change the conference dynamic. As Dhami (2012) notes, some victims and offenders place a high value on the presence of apology and remorse; and indeed her research findings suggest that the offer of an apology is associated with participant satisfaction.…”

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

“…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. In addition, when restorative aims are realized (e.g., an apology is offered to the victim), victims report feeling more satisfied and feel more forgiveness toward the offender than when they are not (Dhami 2012). Although both victims and offenders have to choose to participate in these conferences (which could mean that a selfselection bias explains the improved outcomes of victims; see Menkel-Meadow 2007), the use of randomized controlled trials (and intention-to-treat analyses) amongst those who have agreed to participate provides evidence against the self-selection explanation being able to fully account for the victim satisfaction results (see Sherman and Strang 2009a, b).…”