Understanding victim participation in restorative practices: Looking for justice for oneself as well as for others

Abstract

Restorative justice (RJ) promotes a constructive dialogue between the victim of a crime and the offender. Restorative practices have been credited for allowing victims to move on from victimization. This paper goes beyond victim appreciation of RJ and addresses what motivates victims to agree to communicate with their offender. Victim-participants were interviewed at the start of a restorative intervention and again after its conclusion, with the aim of identifying reasons for participation and exploring whether these evolve as a restorative procedure progresses. Discourses reveal that victims hoped that interaction with their adult or young offender would advance insight and healing as well as help the offender. Shifts in motivation over time were only subtle and many respondents manifested prosocial intentions (for example to help the offender) early on.

A glimpse into the role of personal values within the restorative justice process: a qualitative study with restorative justice facilitators

“…It is a process which uses communicative and interactive practices between victims and offenders to address the conflict and harm experienced by individuals, relationships, and communities following criminal behaviour (Bolitho, 2012;Menkel-Meadow, 2007;Paul, 2016). Practices common within restorative justice include victimoffender conferences and letter writing between the two parties (Van Camp, 2016). Victimoffender conferences are where victims and offenders are brought together to discuss the criminal behaviour and potential reparations in the presence of a trained facilitator (Paul, 2016;Strang, Sherman, Mayo-Wilson, Woods, & Ariel, 2013).…”

“…This meeting allows an opportunity for both parties to express their feelings, their version of events, and hopefully reach an agreement concerning the responsibility of the offender, the harm that was caused, and what can be done to put things right (Okimoto, Wenzel, & Feather, 2009). Both conferences and written communications can require significant amounts of preparation, with trained facilitators meeting with both the victim(s) and offender(s) separately on multiple occasions (Van Camp, 2016).…”

“…Van Camp (2016) conducted interviews with victims during preparation before the victim-offender conference. The participants stated that restorative justice offered them choices, and they felt enabled to make an informed decision as to whether they participated or not (Van Camp, 2016). This idea around freedom and choice regarding one's participation reflects the goals of self-direction.…”

“…Van Camp (2016) also confirmed the role of universalism and benevolence values in encouraging victim participation. Specifically, victims spoke of wanting to accept the apology, wanting to persuade the offender to refrain from reoffending, and show the offender that they did not feel negatively towards them (Van Camp, 2016).…”

What Pollock and Rothko may have announced and restorative justice may have to deal with: sovereign victim culture

“…But a few words can be said. As to the theme of actual victim desire and behaviour, research seems to suggest that indeed many victims, although often exhibiting a pro-social attitude (Van Camp, 2016), tend to also harbour slightly consumerist desires for complete information -which should be 'proactively' provided by criminal justice officials-whilst at the same time reserving the right to 'freely' engage with the available Restorative Justice offer (Van Camp and Wemmers, 2015; see also Gavrielides, 2017, and infra). As to the efforts with which EU member states are actually implementing or reforming their Restorative Justice provision, and Victim Support provisions more broadly, and the nature of those changes (if changes there will be), it is, at the time of writing, too soon to tell.…”