The Ritual of Apology and Restorative Justice: Exploring the Victim’s Perspective

Possibility of Sincere Apology in Restorative Justice: When and How?

“…Based on the identified conditions of how and when a sincere apology is possible, this paper concludes by providing research implications on a sincere apology in RJ. Given the complexity of apology (Bolívar et al, 2013), the sincerity of apology in RJ may be best examined with a qualitative approach (Stanfield, 2006). When employing a qualitative approach, it may be particularly beneficial to utilise what is called a 'relational analysis', which creates a pair of a victim and an offender who have participated in the same RJ process.…”

Receptivity to restorative justice: A survey of goal importance, process effectiveness, and support for victim–offender conferencing

“…These processes are largely competitive, impersonal, and controlled, with victims and offenders rarely, if ever, interacting with each other (Braithwaite, 1999(Braithwaite, , 2002Johnstone, 2002). RJ processes, such as VOCs, typically rely on facilitated dialogic communication to help victims and offenders share their experience of the offense with each other, ask questions of each other, and negotiate ways to make the situation right (Bolívar, Aertsen, & Vanfraechem, 2013;Dignan et al, 2007;Dzur & Wertheimer, 2002;Gavrielides, 2005;Green, Johnstone, & Lambert, 2013;Marshall, 1999;Paul, 2015;Rugge & Cormier, 2013;Umbreit, 2001;Zehr, 2002). As noted above, RJ advocates assert that this interaction can enhance victims' sense of satisfaction, empowerment, and closure (Armour & Umbreit, 2006;Braithwaite, 1999Braithwaite, , 2002Morris, 2002;Morrison, 2006;Zehr, 2002).…”

“…Based on previous research, participants were asked to rate the importance of five outcomes: (a) preventing the offender from committing another offense in the future (Latimer et al, 2005); (b) learning, growing, and maturing (Borton & Paul, 2015;Wenzel et al, 2008); (c) paying restitution for the damage they caused (Shapland et al, 2006); (d) experiencing punishment and negativity for their actions (Barton, 1999;Paul & Schenck-Hamlin, 2017); and (e) apologizing to their victims (Bolívar et al, 2013). Based on exploratory factor analysis, preventing recidivism and facilitating learning were grouped into a single variable with sufficient reliability (α = 0.71) of helping offenders experience restoration by getting on a better path, thereby creating four offender outcomes.…”

Toward a Communication Perspective of Restorative Justice: Implications for Research, Facilitation, and Assessment

“…Communication occupies a central place in discussion about RJ. RJ literature emphasizes the importance of face‐to‐face meeting of stakeholders to engage in a facilitated discussion about harms and reparations (Bolívar, Aertsen, & Vanfraechem, ; Dzur & Wertheimer, ; Gavrielides, ; Green et al., ; Jülich, ; Marshall, ; Paul & Riforgiate, ; Rugge & Cormier, ). Green et al.…”

“…Process‐oriented definitions typically highlight the act of stakeholders coming together and interacting directly with each other to agree on how to repair whatever harm was done. Many definitions highlight the voluntariness of participation, the use of direct dialogue between interested parties, the effects of an offense, and that offense's implications for the future (Bolívar et al., ; Gavrielides, ; Jülich, ; Rugge & Cormier, ). Some definitions identify specific participants or “stakeholders”: the victim and the offender as primary stakeholders, and communities of care and the more general “community” (macro‐community) as secondary stakeholders (Acton, ; Armstrong, ; Bolívar et al., ; Laxminarayan & Wolthuis, ; Martin et al., ; Toews & Zehr, ; Umbreit, Coates, & Vos, ; Zehr, ).…”