Restorative Justice Conferencing as a ‘Holistic’ Process: Convenor Perspectives

Abstract

Restorative justice conferencing (RJC) has demonstrated strengths over traditional criminal justice approaches, including victim satisfaction and redress, and offender perceptions of legitimacy and fairness. However, less is known about how and why. This research examines conference convenor perspectives concerning how and why RJC 'works' in terms of such outcomes. The convenor perspective is a poorly investigated area in RJC research, despite the pivotal role that convenors play as 'key' participants in RJC practice. Based on semi-structured interviews with convenors involved in the Youth Justice Group Conferencing program in Victoria, findings highlight that not only face-toface dialogue, but also preparation and follow-up play distinct and important roles in the outcomes of RJC. As preparation and follow-up phases are often dismissed or compromised in practice, this article suggests that RJC should be clearly articulated and implemented as a 'holistic' process that requires equal attention to all three phases.

The role of (self-)forgiveness in restorative justice: Linking restorative justice to desistance

“…Our process-based model of self-forgiveness in RJ is significant because it fills the void in RJ literature. Recent RJ scholarships have been shifting their research focus from 'what works' to 'how it works' (Suzuki and Wood, 2017) because little is known about how, in what conditions and for whom RJ works (O'Mahony and Doak, 2017).…”

From ‘what works’ to ‘how it works’ in research on restorative justice conferencing: the concept of readiness

“…The final dimension of readiness is knowledge. In this regard, preparation plays important and different roles by promoting a level of participants' understanding of aims (Shapland, Robinson & Sorsby, 2011;Wallis, 2014) and their realistic expectations about possible outcomes (Suzuki & Wood, 2017b;Van Camp & Wemmers, 2016). Participants' understanding may be important because they have to understand the purposes of the restorative justice process in order to achieve restorative goals (Bazemore & O'Brien, 2002).…”

“…Their pre-and post-interviews with offenders also showed that offenders' emotions transformed over time from guilt to relief (Bruce & Bolitho, 2019). This is why, drawing from interviews of convenors' perspectives on how restorative justice conferencing works, Suzuki and Wood (2017b) suggest that focusing solely on the face-to-face meeting process may not be enough to develop an understanding of how restorative justice conferencing works. Their finding indicated that both the preparation and follow-up phases play different, important roles.…”

“…Scholars argued that far less is known about how, in what conditions and for whom restorative justice conferencing works (Bolitho, 2017;Saulnier & Sivasubramaniam, 2015;Suzuki & Wood, 2017b). In particular, Bazemore and Green (2007: 291) noted that restorative justice researchers are 'less than certain about the "independent variable" [of restorative justice] that has most likely produced both negative and positive results'.…”

“…Yet, there is a lack of knowledge about 'how it works ' (O'Mahony & Doak, 2017;Rossner, 2008). Little is known about how, in what conditions and for whom restorative justice conferencing works (Bolitho, 2017;Saulnier & Sivasubramaniam, 2015;Suzuki & Wood, 2017b).…”