In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

| 159 13 The Importance of Storytelling for Restorative Justice It has become common for advocates of restorative justice programs to highlight emotionally gripping stories of transformation to demonstrate its qualitatively distinctive approach to healing and justice.1 Like the pairings provided in this book, the stories are compelling. They are powerful and evoke fascination and curiosity. They also reassure us that the justice system is not inherently flawed but that justice can be cause for celebration when healing and growth occur for victims and offenders. To fully explore the potential of RJ programs for responding to crimes of severe violence, however, one must move beyond the powerful storylines toward an analysis of what they mean in a larger sense. This chapter draws on the themes and patterns that emerged in the multiple data-collection sites—the interviews with participants, the case files, the interviews with the facilitator(s), and the dialogue videos—to offer insights into the potential successes and limits of postconviction therapeutic RJ programs in general. Reconciling Retributive and Restorative Justice Often restorative justice approaches are described as alternatives to a retributive criminal justice: the claim is that that RJ programs will offer a kinder, gentler approach for victims and also for offenders. Advocates also argue that the community will benefit from more benevolent treatment of offenders, most of whom will return to society after prison, and that the victims will benefit too, because they deserve a voice in the process. At the same time, RJ proponents describe the criminal justice system as overly punitive, as discriminatory , and as prioritizing offenders’ rights at the expense of victims’ rights. In this comparative context, RJ is presented as a way to correct all these problems inherent in the formal justice system. RJ’s focus is on correcting a harm, whereas retributive justice strives for proportionate punish- 160 | The Importance of Storytelling for Restorative Justice ment to teach an offender a lesson through some kind of suffering. Instead of a focus on adversarial relations—as in a retributive justice model—restorative justice favors dialogue and negotiation.2 But is it really correct—or even helpful—to set up this contrast as a zero-sum game? Postconviction therapeutic restorative justice programs combine elements of both retributive and restorative justice. All the victims/survivors discussed in this book (and friends and family members closest to them) fully desired the offenders to receive punishment. Many were frustrated, disappointed, or flabbergasted at sentencing hearings that yielded light sentences for offenders . The victims were united in favoring an initial punitive response, conveying their unqualified support for punishment. Those victims/survivors who were unable to or were not asked to or did not know they could participate in their cases harbored similar feelings of vengeance and a need for retribution . Many victims saw offenders as animals who committed unspeakable, inhumane acts of aggression. Severe and certain punishment seemed the least that could be done to restore the balance disrupted by their cruelty. The victims’ retributive feelings are consistent with Kathleen Daly’s belief that “fundamentally, victims want a sense of vindication for the wrong done to them, and they want the offender to stop harming and hurting them or other people” and that, as Cretney and Davis note in their research on violence, a “victim has an interest in punishment” because it “can reassure the victim that he or she has public recognition and support.”3 Yet ultimately, these victims’ quest for vengeance did not fulfill them. Although punishment for the sake of punishment conveyed that the individual committed a terrible wrong, it did not allay victims’ fears, their bewilderment, or their struggles with memories about the incidents themselves. Healing was elusive for the victims described in this book, regardless of whether they participated in the trials of their offenders or spoke out at the sentencing hearings. The passage of time changed victims’ feelings about punitiveness, tempering their initial support for severe penalties. Victims did not believe punishment was any less deserved; however, many felt hollow, as though the satisfaction they were supposed to feel by participating in the formal criminal justice process or knowing their offenders were behind bars was not enough. Over time, victims’ desires for retribution were eclipsed, but not completely replaced, by the need to find answers and be heard. The case notes taken by the dialogue facilitators during the VVH processes followed in this book indicate that even as the victims’ understandings of their own feelings and about the crimes and the...

Share