The truth and the trial: victim participation,restorative justice,and the International Criminal Court

In the field of international criminal justice, the international criminal court (ICC) has been lauded for its integration of victim participants into its legal proceedings. In particular, the ICC’s framework of victim participation has been understood to figure as a balance between retributive and restorative justice as it enables the actual voices of the victims to be heard. However, there has been little research that considers how victim participation works in practice as a form of truth-telling. In order to begin to address this gap, the integration of the ‘voices of the victims’ into the proceedings and outcome of The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo is explored. The forms of harms and experiences that comprise the truth of the events under adjudication put forward by the victim participants are considered, and then how the truth-telling functions of the ICC represent these states of injury. While the ICC’s legal proceedings enable victims to speak of their harms and experiences, their ‘voices’ are largely absent from its judgment. To address this issue, the ICC needs to develop and maintain a level of ‘restorative justice coherence’ to manage victims’ expectations of its justice approaches.     

Connecting restorative justice with gender-responsive programming

Despite the encouraging results of public opinion assessments on restorative justice, people are not likely to spontaneously suggest restorative measures after a crime. Restorative justice thus seems in need of a public relations strategy. This paper discusses the strategy labeling victims as the universal remedy to promote restorative justice, and the proposal of promoting restorative justice through the media by foregrounding crime victims in media reports on crime. This strategy stems from a belief that the most appealing aspect of restorative justice to the public is its thoughtfulness to victims. However, I will argue that there are three problems with this approach. These concern: (1) the victim’s position in both restorative justice theory and practice; (2) the characteristics of media reporting on crime in general and victims in particular; and (3) the risk of attaining a result opposite to the initial objective (i.e. increasing punitive attitudes instead of promoting restorative justice).     

Community of care from a victim-perspective: a qualitative study

Even if there has been some theoretical debate on the role of what has been called the ‘community of care’ in restorative justice (RJ) there has not been much research on, or analysis of, the implications of the role of significant others in its practice. This lack of reflection is especially evident in the case of the victims’ community of care, despite findings that would indicate a systematic lack of participation of victim’s supporters in restorative practices. Through the qualitative analysis of 35 interviews with victims of crime who consented to attend mediation (direct and indirect), an attempt to describe and discuss the characteristics of victim’s communities of care that may become relevant for the practice of RJ is made. Results indicate that, despite a victims’ need for company or support, victims tend to disclose few details about the offense, its consequences and the mediation offered as a way to protect their loved ones or to avoid possible negative reactions from their communities. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are offered.     

REASON FOR EMOTION: REINVENTING JUSTICE WITH THEORIES,INNOVATIONS, AND RESEARCH—THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CRIMINOLOGY 2002 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS*

Criminology was born in the age of reason to apply “reason” to justice, tempering the expression of moral indignation with the economics of deterrence. Modern criminology is now poised for reinventing justice around the emotions of victims, offenders, and society. One prime example is restorative justice. Others include wider use of biomedical mental health treatments for offenders, programs to make justice officials more aware of the emotional impact of their words on citizens, and programs to help justice officials manage their own emotions. Research can advance theory and innovations as a basis for a new paradigm of “emotionally intelligent justice.”     

Sexual Offences in Vanuatu under the Light of Custom and Law: “An Avenue for Restorative Justice”

This paper will focus on the Republic of Vanuatu’s society and customs relevant to this topic. I will consider the laws made by the legislature to deal with sexual offences in Vanuatu and how they are being implemented or enforced. I will also discuss the different provisions under the law whereby accused persons have an option to actually compensate the victim of the offence and how it is being used in Vanuatu in relation to sexual offences. This paper will also look at how Vanuatu’s culture influences the prosecution or the sentencing of sexual offences or dealing with such crimes in the first place. This will reveal whether Vanuatu’s customary approaches to sexual offences actually support the state’s laws to punish such offenders and if a more fair and just process is needed where the voices of the offender as well as the victim are heard. Custom usually does not allow the victim to speak, and the victim’s parents and the elders of the community decide how the offender should be dealt with. Neither the formal court process nor the customary reconciliation process seem to take into account the wishes and interests of the victim and the offender. The flaws within the legal system and customary laws in addressing victims’ and offenders’ issues will be examined and an alternative process of restorative justice will be discussed.     

Restorative justice in Belgian prisons: the results of an empirical research

Justice – when spelled with a capital ‘J’ – should be discursive [31] and based on equal respect ([40]: 206, 210) allowing a plurality of voices within the discourse. Particularly in the present research, this thread of pluralism is important. Prisoners’ voices have rarely been heard. Yet, if we wish to be true to the principle that restorative justice is discursive, it follows that the discourse is not complete without also accommodating their voices. To date, little research attention has been paid to the inner motivations of imprisoned offenders for willing to participate in restorative justice initiatives, as well as to their perceptions about their relationships with the victim and the community and the impact of religion on them. Hence, the present empirical study, conducted in several prisons across Belgium, endeavours to shed light on these aspects that have been theoretically overlooked, providing valuable information at policy-level about the design of future restorative justice programmes.     

Justice, Sanctioning, and the Justice Model

The justice model has emerged as an alternative to the discredited rehabilitative ideal as a basis for sanctioning policy. Retributivism or just deserts is offered as the primary justification for the criminal sanction in this model, although sometimes in combination with incapacitation and deterrence as companion rationales for sanctioning. Desert is, additionally, an integral component of a sense of justice that is presented as an attribute of the justice model. Desert, both as a rationale for sanctions and as the basis for justice, is drawn from the philosophical models of Immanuel Kant and John Rawls. However, these models have some rather disturbing implications that have not been addressed by proponents of the justice model. A critical examination of them and their implications for criminology is therefore in order.     

“And focused upon victims’ needs”: towards an assessment of the victim-friendly principles of restorative justice practice

Scholars and policy-makers typically laud restorative justice as being ‘victim-friendly’ in its rules and practices. High levels of victim satisfaction with its outcomes are put forward to substantiate this claim. However, there has been little research that engages with the constitutive role of restorative justice in shaping conceptions of identities, practices and needs. To address this gap, this article develops an analytic framework through which to assess the victim-friendly approach of restorative justice processes across social and legal contexts. In so doing, it engages with three key elements of restorative justice processes: firstly, how this justice approach conceives victims; secondly, how it shapes its practices (and not just outcomes) to address their concerns; and thirdly, how it responds to individual needs. The paper argues that engagement with the constitutive processes can bring a fresh perspective to the relationship between victims and restorative justice.     

Retribution as Revenge and Retribution as Just Deserts

Public attitudes towards law-breakers shape the tone and tenor of crime-control policy, and the desire for retribution seems to be the main motivation underpinning punitive attitudes towards sentencing. Yet, there is some confusion in the research literature over what retribution really means. In this paper we distinguish between retribution as revenge (as the desire to punish criminal offenders to retaliate a past wrong by making the offender suffer) and retribution as just deserts (as the preference to restore justice through proportional compensation from the offender). Results from an online survey (n = 176) provide evidence of two distinct dimensions of retribution. But we also show that these two dimensions have different ideological and motivational antecedents, and have different consequences in terms of the treatment of criminal offender. We find that retribution as revenge is associated with the motivation to enforce status boundaries with criminal offenders, as well as ideological preferences for power and dominance (as expressed by social dominance orientation) and in-group conformity (as expressed by right-wing authoritarianism). Endorsement of retribution as revenge also predicts the support of harsh punishment and the willingness to deny fair procedures. By contrast, retribution as just deserts is mainly predicted by a value restoration motive and by right-wing authoritarianism. After controlling for revenge, retribution as just deserts predicts support for procedural justice in the criminal courts. We conclude with the idea that beliefs about proportionality and compensation work as a buffer against the negative effects of revenge.     

Examining the Effectiveness of Restorative Justice in Reducing Victims’ Post-Traumatic Stress

Crime victimisation is a significant life event that can lead to the development of post-traumatic symptomology. Compared with the general population, victims of crime are significantly more likely to present with symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Restorative justice is an approach to criminal justice that considers the goal of the justice system to restore victims to their state pre-victimisation. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of restorative justice in reducing symptoms of post-traumatic stress that develop following victimisation. Relevant databases were searched to identify quantitative studies measuring post-traumatic symptoms in victims of crime who successfully completed either a restorative justice or customary justice intervention. A total of seven studies were identified examining one or more facet of post-traumatic symptomology. These studies provide modest support that restorative justice did produce a greater improvement on post-traumatic symptoms than customary justice procedures. However, this was only consistently evidenced for symptoms of avoidance and intrusion, whereas there were mixed findings with regard to the subscales of negative alterations in mood and cognition, and arousal and reactivity. Reasons for these inconsistencies are discussed and recommendation made for further empirical work on this subject.

     

Public support for the courts: An examination of alternative explanations

Public opinion surveys consistently show that there are generally high levels of support for the court system. While there exists general public support for the courts, the most often heard criticism is that the courts are too lenient. The purpose of this study is to describe public attitudes toward the courts and examine a number of explanations of public support for, or against, the courts. The article examines five hypotheses: (1) respondents who are pro-punishment would not be supportive of the courts; (2) respondents who are supportive of the police and the correctional system would be supportive of the courts; (3) respondents who are supportive of the police would not be supportive of the courts; (4) respondents who identify themselves as conservative would not be supportive of the courts; and (5) respondents who express fear and/or concern about crime, and/or who have experienced victimization would not be supportive of the courts. It is found that members of the public express diffuse support for the courts, but criticism center around court leniency and plea bargaining. At least partial support is found for all five hypotheses with support for strong punitive sanctions the best predictor of attitudes toward the courts.     

Framing Capital Punishment in Japan: Avoidance,Ambivalence, and Atonement

This article examines how two of Japan’s largest newspapers frame death penalty issues. Through a content analysis of 7,153 Asahi and Nikkei articles in the 66-month period from January 1, 2007 to June 30, 2012, 11 death penalty frames are identified: inevitability, atonement by dying, atonement by living, victims’ rights and emotions, human rights, miscarriage of justice, calls for discussion, life without parole, deterrence, public support, and retribution. In addition to frames, we examined who the main voices are in each article on capital punishment. We found that avoidance and ambivalence are the two main approaches taken by Asahi and Nikkei to cover death penalty issues, and the most surprising finding is the high salience of atonement as a frame for thinking about capital punishment. In Japan, atonement is used to justify (atone by dying) and oppose (atone by living) the death penalty. Although atonement by living in prison and atonement by dying at the gallows imply radically different outcomes, the flexibility of the atonement frame may suggest new possibilities for Japan’s anti-death penalty movement.     

Reasons for South Korean attitudes towards the death penalty: exploring the nexus between strong public support and history of misapplication

As of this writing, South Korea (officially, the Republic of Korea) is an abolitionist-in-practice nation; capital punishment is legal, but no death sentences have been carried out since a moratorium was enacted in 1997. Public support for the death penalty has decreased over time; however, the factors that determine support for or opposition to the death penalty of the South Korean general public are largely unknown. Using survey data from a nationwide sample of 416 respondents, this study examined the potential predictors for public attitudes towards capital punishment support. A majority of survey respondents (83%) supported the death penalty, a higher percentage than recent surveys of the South Korean general public. The deterrence and retribution perspectives were positively related to death penalty support, while crime severity, neighbourhood safety, the brutalisation effect, and innocence were negatively related. This study provides the first multivariate analysis of factors associated with South Korean attitudes towards the death penalty.     

Contesting policy that undermines restorative justice for victims of crime☆

A policy provision in the Criminal Victim Assistance Program in British Columbia excludes the offender from participating in restorative justice approaches with the victim (and other affected parties) during counseling. A historical analysis of victim responses to crime shows that the victim experience to crime is socially constructed. In this regard, this policy act that excludes offenders from the victim healing process is consistent with a traditional approach to justice, which understands the offender to have committed a crime against the state, not the victim; however, separating the offender from the healing process is problematic within a restorative framework of justice where relationality is a central premise. Using a restorative lens, this policy act is contrary to an accompanying statute that has explicit provisions for counseling support for crime victims, as well as other statutes that provide for restorative responses to crime in Canada. The way we counsel and support victims from the harms created by crime cannot be separated from our view of justice.     

Is restorative justice for sexual crime compatible with various criminal justice systems?

In addition to the more conventional approaches of the criminal justice system, this article suggests that there is a need for restorative justice as another method of addressing sexual crime. In support of this view, the present article explores the possibility of a hybrid justice system based on a complementary relationship between restorative justice and the criminal justice system. An analysis of the limits of the criminal justice system and the need for restorative justice in the contentious area of sexual crime will be followed by a detailed examination of key justice considerations when trying to marry both criminal justice and restorative justice perspectives. Such considerations include: the meaning of justice; legislation; sentencing principles; due process; victims’ rights; and the location of restorative justice within/alongside/outside the criminal justice system. The aim of this article is to determine whether it is possible to reconcile two seemingly juxtaposed methods of justice delivery in the context of sexual crime in order to create a hybrid system of justice that best protects and responds to the rights and needs of victims and offenders.     

Expanding a community's justice response to sex crimes through advocacy, prosecutorial, and public health collaboration: introducing the RESTORE program

Problems in criminal justice system response to date-acquaintance rape and nonpenetration sexual offenses include (a) they are markers of a sexual offending career, yet are viewed as minor; (b) perpetrators are not held accountable in ways that reduce reoffense; and (c) criminal justice response disappoints and traumatizes victims. To address these problems, a collaboration of victim services, prosecutors, legal scholars, and public health professionals are implementing and evaluating RESTORE, a victim-driven, community-based restorative justice program for selected sex crimes. RESTORE prepares survivors, responsible persons (offenders), and both parties' families and friends for face-to-face dialogue to identify the harm and develop a redress plan. The program then monitors the offender's compliance for 12 months. The article summarizes empirical data on problems in criminal justice response, defines restorative justice models, and examines outcome. Then the RESTORE program processes and goals are described. The article highlights community collaboration in building and sustaining this program.     

Where Do They Belong? Giving Victims a Place in the Criminal Justice Process

Historically, victims once had an active participatory role in the criminal justice process and were responsible for not only initiating but also for prosecuting offenders. In common law countries, victims were gradually sidelined and by the 20th century, their role was reduced to that of a witness to a crime against the state. The exclusion of victims from the criminal justice process is a major source of dissatisfaction for victims as many of them want to participate in the criminal justice process. This has fuelled initiatives with restorative justice that claim to more fully include victims than conventional criminal justice. This paper examines three different approaches found in the literature on how to let victims participate. One view is that victims should leave the criminal justice system and that criminal justice should be replaced by alternative, restorative justice schemes in which victims are granted full recognition and respect for their dignity. A second approach is to integrate restorative practices such as victim-offender mediation in the criminal justice process. The third approach is to integrate victim participation and respect (so-called restorative values) in the criminal justice system. These three approaches are discussed and compared with one another. The paper closes with recommendations for criminal law reform.     

Revisiting Informal Justice: Restorative Justice and Democratic Professionalism

Restorative justice is a form of informal justice growing rapidly among criminal justice practitioners. It decenters the focus of criminal justice from the offender breaking a law of the state to the harm caused the victim and community. Resolution is said to come from offenders taking responsibility and making amends for the harm done and from communities supporting the victim and providing offenders with opportunities and skills to reintegrate as contributing members.
Restorative justice theory largely ignores the role of professionals in the criminal justice process, and yet professionals have played a dominant part in initiating many restorative justice programs. Several theoretical traditions recognize professionals as being important intermediaries between citizens and the state. The theory of democratic professionalism argues that professionals can play crucial roles in increasing and improving democratic participation in public affairs. This article examines two functioning restorative justice programs to flesh out what democratic professionalism might look like in operation—what tasks professionals perform and what citizen involvement means to the professionals. We argue that restorative justice cannot get along without professionals and that democratic professionalism may help restorative justice to avoid some of the problems associated with other approaches to informal justice by increasing true community participation but balancing it with concern for individuals' rights.     

Effects of face-to-face restorative justice on victims of crime in four randomized,controlled trials

The growing use of restorative justice provides a major opportunity for experimental criminology and evidence-based policy. Face-to-face meetings led by police officers between crime victims and their offenders are predicted to reduce the harm to victims caused by the crime. This prediction is derived not only from the social movement for restorative justice, but also from the microsociology of interaction rituals (Collins, 2004). Four randomized, controlled trials of this hypothesis in London and Canberra, with point estimates disaggregated by gender, tested the prediction with measures of both successful interaction ritual (apologies received and their perceived sincerity) and the hypothesized benefits of the ritual (on forgiveness of, and reduced desire for violent revenge against, offenders, and victim self-blame for the crime). The meta-analyses of the eight point estimates suggest success (as victims define it) of restorative justice as an interaction ritual, and as a policy for reducing harm to victims.     

Restorative Sentencing: Exploring the Views of the Public

Within the past decade, restorative justice has emerged as a truly global phenomenon. Although retributive justice has dominated the penal landscape, more recently, restorative principles at sentencing have attracted increased attention. Restorative sentencing emphasizes the importance of compensation and reconciliation between victims and offenders and pays less attention to establishing proportionality between the seriousness of the offense and the severity of the sentence imposed. Although voluminous (and proliferating), the scholarly literature on restorative justice has to date neglected one critical issue: public opinion with respect to this justice paradigm. Public opinion researchers too, have generally overlooked this topic. The goal of this paper is to determine which elements of the new paradigm generate public approval, and which features are likely to encounter or provoke public opposition, drawing upon related international research published in English over the past 20 years (1982–2002). The review reveals widespread support for restorative sentencing options, such as community service, compensation, and restitution, particularly when applied to young offenders. However, it also seems clear that public support for these alternatives to punitive sentencing options declines as the seriousness of the offence increases, suggesting strong public adherence to the retributive principle of proportionality in sentencing.