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

| 185 14 Conclusion Restorative justice means many different things. Its position in the cultural lexicon demonstrates its versatility, with restorative justice practices operating under many different models as part of conflict-resolution strategies in schools, workplaces, and juvenile and adult criminal proceedings. On the larger political stage, restorative justice methods played a central role in South Africa’s postapartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission, in negotiations in postgenocide Rwanda, and in postsectarian Northern Ireland .1 The popularity of such programs demonstrates a widespread interest in more fully incorporating the needs and voices of victims into justice-system processes as well as fostering greater accountability by offenders. Restorative justice has also been bolstered by a movement to shrink government involvement in social problems and the hope that movement away from a retributive , punitive response to crime will yield more long-term positive effects for communities.2 Restorative justice practices have made significant inroads in providing alternative ways to address crime and victimization. Criticisms voiced by victims about their minimal inclusion in their own cases paved the way for a reexamination of how victims could be better served. The victims’ rights movement, from its inception in the 1970s, has created a space for victims to play a larger role in the formal criminal justice system by inviting their input, if not also their presence, at various points in case decision-making processes. Victims’ forays into this terrain reflected their growing and vociferous dissatisfaction with their limited involvement in cases addressing crimes that created such disruption and trauma in their lives; victims harshly criticized a system that seemed inherently unjust and imbalanced in favor of offenders’ rights. Study after study documented victims ’ frustration, marginalization, and exclusion from the criminal justice system. In response to this pressure by victims, states and other jurisdictions implemented various reforms, most of which involved welcoming victims’ input at various stages of the court decision-making process. However, 186 | Conclusion despite reform efforts, including the addition of victims’ rights amendments to most state constitutions, research reveals that the level of victims’ involvement in criminal cases is much lower than anticipated. Researchers and advocates attribute victims’ absence to a lack of information about policies that facilitate their involvement.3 Some research has also found that victim impact statements, one of the signature reforms of the victims’ rights movement , have little effect on rigid sentences often already set by determinate sentencing guidelines.4 One well-known study compared two states with strong victim protections to two states where victims’ rights were more limited ; the researchers found that although victims fared better overall in the states with provictim legislation, more than 60 percent of interviewed victims in those states were not notified when the defendant in their case was released on bail, almost 40 percent were not informed about their right to file an impact statement at the parole hearing (72 percent of those who were told in time did participate at hearings),5 and approximately 40 percent of local officials surveyed were unaware of the new victims’ rights laws.6 These disappointing findings and victims’ frustrations reveal that rhetoric fails to match reality, a disconnect that has spurred activists to move away from reform efforts and toward more informal venues for dispute resolution. Some victims of severe violence seize the opportunity to play a significant part in their cases from their earliest points, whereas for others a reluctance to participate often reflects the fact that they are simply not ready to tackle an emotionally draining and often public presentation in the relatively close aftermath of a serious crime. Their wounds may be too fresh, or they are unaware that their right to offer input is guaranteed. When victims do make initial statements , they are emotional and usually extreme, reflecting the immediate horror of the crime. At that point in their lives victims are still reeling from pain and loss, and they may not have had the opportunity for therapy or enough time to reflect and have space to heal. Of the victims/survivors of severe violence followed in this book, only two presented information in the form of a victim impact statement at sentencing hearings, and both of these were the family members of loved ones killed by drunk drivers. These victims/survivors requested the maximum punishment and found it impossible to accord the offenders any humanity during the processing of their cases. Over time, however ,theirretributivenessdiminishedasotherconcernsrosetoprominence—a shift experienced by the other victims portrayed in this book as well. This is...

Share