After the Crime: The Power of Restorative Justice Dialogues between Victims and Violent Offenders

Appendix A: Restorative Justice: Theoretical and Empirical Studies

| 203 Appendix A Restorative Justice: Theoretical and Empirical Studies This appendix provides a fuller overview and discussion of the theoretical issues that pertain to restorative justice, as well as a brief summary of research findings. The formal, retributive justice system represents the state against the offender such that the victim serves as a component of the evidence but not as an equal partner. The victim is not a key stakeholder in the adversarial justice system. In contrast, RJ programs share common assumptions: victims and offenders should be personally and integrally involved in the process; crimes happen within particular social contexts which necessitate different kinds of responses, depending on the crime and parties involved; and problem -solving should be the goal, not just punishment.1 Many people believe RJ offers great potential for addressing victims’ needs and facilitating offenders ’ responsibility because of its more relational approach to resolving conflict and responding to crime.2 RJ programs encompass a wide range of forms, with the four most common being victim-offender mediation (VOM) or dialogue (VOD), community reparative boards, family group conferencing, and circle sentencing.3 All share the goal of involving victims, offenders, and the community in a process in which the impact of crimes is communicated differently to offenders so that they can better understand the harm their actions caused, giving victims the chance to participate more fully in the process and to receive answers to their questions and shaping appropriate responses to crimes. Programs that fall under the umbrella of restorative justice have a long history and can be found around the globe. In North America, the first victim -offender mediation program began in 1974 in the Mennonite community in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, with the first U.S.-based program established in 1978 in Elkhart County, Indiana.4 Conservative estimates suggest 204 | Appendix A that VOM programs number at least seven hundred in Europe, three hundred in the United States, and twenty-six in Canada. The first large-scale American RJ effort, launched in the 1980s, involved victim-offender mediation programs, sometimes known as alternative dispute mediation or resolution programs (typically referred to today as dialogues ). These mediation programs are diversionary—they circumvent the formal justice process. They are outcome driven, with criminal cases diverted to mediation proceedings in lieu of processing in the formal criminal justice system. They often result in offenders apologizing to and achieving reconciliation with victims in addition to other possible outcomes such as restitution or community service. Geared to handle minor offenses (such as schoolrelated offenses and general property crimes) that mostly involve juvenile offenders, VOM and VOD rarely address more serious felony cases.5 Though these programs were initially conceived as a way to better handle offenders, more recent restorative justice efforts aim to give victims a greater voice in the criminal justice process while preventing further miscarriages of justice against them, offenders, and the community. Most diversionary RJ programs rely on practices such as victim-offender mediation or conferences and sentencing circles that bring together stakeholders such as family and community members.6 In the United States, most RJ programs are run by private nonprofit organizations (about 40 percent) or religious organizations (about 25 percent) outside the purview of the criminal justice system.7 Offenders often have to meet stringent criteria to participate: in about 20 percent of the programs reviewed in a 1999 survey, offenders had to participate if so desired by their victims; in 65 percent of the programs offenders had to admit guilt before they could participate;8 and about 33 percent of offenders participated as a condition of diversion before a determination of guilt or innocence.9 Empirical evaluations of diversionary RJ dialogue-based programs reveal some evidence of success. For instance, one early study, conducted by Mark Umbreit in 1984, found that juveniles who participated in mediation, rather than going through the formal justice system, committed fewer and less serious offenses than a control group of their peers during a one-year follow-up period.10 Umbreit published another study in the same year that examined four juvenile mediation programs; findings revealed high levels of satisfaction : almost 80 percent of victims and almost 90 percent of offenders felt the process was fair, and victims’ fear for their safety markedly decreased after mediation. About 80 percent of juveniles fulfilled restitution obligations , compared to 58 percent of their peers ordered to pay restitution by Appendix A | 205...