Critical Criminology 20(1)

Critical Criminology, March 2012: Volume 20, Issue 1

A special issue on restorative justice: unravelling the mystery
Diane Sivasubramaniam

Restoring the Victim: Emotional Reactions, Justice Beliefs, and Support for Reparation and Punishment
Dena M. Gromet

Psychological responses to criminal wrongdoing have primarily focused on the offender, particularly on how (and why) offender punishment satisfies people’s need for justice. However, the restoration of the victim presents another way in which the “psychological itch” that injustice creates can be addressed. In the present article, I discuss two lay theories of how crime victims can be restored: a belief that the harm caused to crime victims should be directly repaired (a restorative justice approach) versus a belief that victim harm should be addressed via the punishment of the offender (a retributive justice approach). These two lay theories are discussed with regard to their emotional and ideological determinants, as well as situational and chronic factors that can affect whether people adopt a reparative or punitive “justice mindset” in dealing with victim concerns (and crime in general).

Do Retributive and Restorative Justice Processes Address Different Symbolic Concerns?
Michael Wenzel, Tyler G. Okimoto and Kate Cameron

In support of a unitary conceptualization of retributive justice (justice through the imposition of punishment) and restorative justice (justice through dialogue aimed at consensus), three studies using hypothetical and recalled experiences of victimization found that people’s endorsement of, and satisfaction with, either justice notion depends on the symbolic meaning of the transgression. In Study 1, perceiving the transgression as a status/power violation was uniquely related to the endorsement of retributive justice, whereas perceiving it as a violation of shared values was uniquely related to restorative justice. In Study 2, motivation to restore status/power was related to retributive responses, whereas motivation to restore value consensus with the offender was uniquely related to restorative responses. In Study 3, a scenario experiment, respondents called for greater additional sanction when the applied justice process (retributive vs. restorative) did not fit the salient meaning of the transgressions compared to when it did (status/power vs. values).

Offer and Acceptance of Apology in Victim-Offender Mediation
Mandeep K. Dhami

Past research on restorative justice (RJ) has highlighted the importance of apology for both victims and offenders and the prevalence of apology during the RJ process. The present study moves this work further by examining the nature of the apologies that are offered during victim-offender mediation, as well as the individual-, case-, and mediation-level factors that can affect the offer and acceptance of apology. In addition, we measure the implications that the offer and acceptance of apology can have on satisfaction with the mediation outcome. We conducted a content analysis of 57 records of mediations occurring between 2008 and 2010 at a UK mediation centre. Perpetrators said “I’m sorry” in over one-third of cases, and full apologies were offered in nearly one-fifth of cases. Apologies were accepted in over 90% of cases, although forgiveness was much less common. The offer of apology was most closely associated with the type of incident/offence, and number of previous mediations in a case. There was also some support for the relationship between the offer of apology and victim age, perpetrator gender, formal sanction, and the number of participants attending the mediation meeting. None of the factors studied were associated with the acceptance of apology. The offer of apology was associated with satisfaction with the mediation outcome, and in all of the cases where the apology was accepted, the victim was satisfied with the mediation outcome. The findings thus shed light on the role that apology can play in the effectiveness of RJ.

Restorative Justice: The Ideals and Realities of Conferencing for Young People
Jane J. Bolitho

This paper is concerned with the nature and complexities of restorative justice. It uses Braithwaite’s (Br J Criminol 42:563–577, 2002a) framework of constraining, maximising and emerging restorative standards to understand the interactions that underpin success and failure in practice, i.e., ‘restorativeness’. Using qualitative data from observations of youth justice conferences in New South Wales, Australia, the roles of empowerment (as an example of a constraining standard), restoration of communities (as an example of a maximising standard) and remorse over injustice (as an example of an emergent standard) are examined. Findings confirm that restorative justice is best conceived as a continuum of dynamic process and outcome related values. Non-domination is paramount to achieving restorative justice. However, the presence, absence, and nature of other values such as storytelling, respectful listening, victim and support attendance, and apology are also important. They affect where a restorative event falls on the restorative continuum, and they affect the likelihood of other standards being met.

Learning to Manage Shame in School Bullying: Lessons for Restorative Justice Interventions
Eliza Ahmed and Valerie Braithwaite

Shame management is purported to be part of the healing process that is a goal of restorative justice. However, the development of shame management capacities and how they are engaged in conflict resolution remains a relatively understudied phenomenon. This study examines how shame management (acknowledgment and displacement) is employed by children as they move into and out of cultures of school bullying. The analysis is based on self-reported changes in bullying experiences of 335 Australian children over a three-year period. Children were classified into bully, victim, bully-victim, nonbully-nonvictim, or residual conflict groups. Shame displacement and bullying tolerance accompanied transition into bullying. Shame acknowledgment and control of bullying marked desistence from bullying. Effects of shame management and social control were not uniform across groups. Findings indicate that interventions to change behaviour need to be flexible and responsive to prior bullying experiences so specific risk and protective factors can be targeted. This study demonstrates that responsiveness to context, building socially responsible relationships, and adaptive shame management are all integral to behaviour change, supporting the use of restorative justice as a way of dealing with school bullying as well as other forms of harm.

Laboratory Experiments: A Meaningful Contribution to Restorative Justice Research?
Alana Saulnier, Kiri Lutchman and Diane Sivasubramaniam

Advocates of restorative justice (RJ) argue that the process offers a more effective means of responding to crime than the formal criminal justice system, and many studies have evaluated RJ positively across a variety of outcome measures, particularly in comparison to court based procedures. However, the RJ literature contains few studies that directly test the factors affecting RJ participants’ behaviours and experiences, so little is known about the specific factors that influence how, and for whom, RJ works. In this paper, we argue that the expanded use of experimental laboratory methodologies will broaden and strengthen our understanding of the basic mechanisms by which RJ operates. We describe some ways in which experimental laboratory research may enhance understandings of apology in restorative settings as well as public support for RJ, and we emphasise the need and the potential to overcome barriers of artificiality in laboratory settings. This analysis of laboratory methodologies and the field of RJ research indicates that creative and well-designed experimental laboratory studies can advance knowledge in this area, allowing researchers to investigate how particular components of RJ contribute to the success or failure of RJ processes.