Repairing the rupture: Restorative justice and the rehabilitation of offenders

Restorative justice is a social justice movement that aims to deal with consequences of crime through repairing and restoring relationships of three key stakeholders: victims, offenders, and communities. Unfortunately, it is often unclear where offender rehabilitation fits within the constructs of repair and reintegration that drive this justice paradigm. An analysis of the relationship between restorative justice theory and offender rehabilitation principles reveals tensions between the two normative frameworks and a lack of appreciation that correctional treatment programs have a legitimate role alongside restorative practices. First, we outline the basic tenets of the Risk–Need–Responsivity Model and the Good Lives Model in order to provide a brief overview of two recent models of offender rehabilitation. We then consider the claims made by restorative justice proponents about correctional rehabilitation programs and their role in the criminal justice system. We conclude that restorative justice and rehabilitation models are distinct, although overlapping, normative frameworks and have different domains of application in the criminal justice system, and that it is a mistake to attempt to blend them in any robust sense.     

Repentance Rituals and Restorative Justice

For most of this century, debate over how criminal justice should be transacted has alternated between an emphasis on retribution versus rehabilitation. Restoration has emerged in the 1990s as a credible third alternative. The most influential definition of restorative justice is by Tony Marshall in the context of a Delphi process conducted by Paul McCold: 'Restorative justice is a process whereby all the parties with a stake in a particular offence come together to resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future'. Restorative justice means restoring victims, restoring offenders and restoring communities. Among the losses victims, offenders or communities might want restored are property loss, injury, a sense of security, dignity, a sense of empowerment, voice, harmony based on a feeling that justice has been done, and social support.     

Denial and minimization among sex offenders

A review of empirical studies of offenders—particularly sex offenders, and more particularly those who offend against children—demonstrates that denial of offenses and minimization of offending behavior are quite common at every stage of the criminal justice process. This is true during police interviews, during pretrial and presentencing mental health evaluations, among incarcerated offenders, among offenders seeking treatment, among offenders facing parole review, and among offenders already released into the community. This review highlights gaps in the research literature arising from inconsistencies in the definitions and measurement of denial and minimization, from the stage of adjudication or treatment at which measurements are made, and from the use of polygraphy to increase disclosures. Despite these limitations on the generalizability of empirical findings, it appears beyond dispute that many sex offenders maintain their innocence in the face of evidence to the contrary or even criminal conviction, and that many are able to recite additional crimes they have committed when they believe it is in their self-interest to do so.     

When and how forgiving benefits victims: Post‐transgression offender effort and the mediating role of deservingness judgements

For all the well‐established benefits of forgiveness for victims, when and how is forgiving more likely to be beneficial? Three experimental studies found that forgiving is more likely to be beneficial when victims perceived reparative effort by offenders such that offenders deserve forgiveness. Deservingness judgements were elicited by manipulating post‐transgression offender effort (apology/amends). When offenders apologized (Study 1; recall paradigm) or made amends (Study 2; hypothetical paradigm) and were forgiven—relative to transgressors who did not apologize/make amends but were still forgiven—forgiving was beneficial. These findings—that deserved forgiveness is more beneficial for victims than undeserved forgiveness—were replicated when forgiving itself was also manipulated (Study 3). Moreover, Study 3 provided evidence to indicate that if a victim forgives when it is not deserved, victim well‐being is equivalent to not forgiving at all. Of theoretical and practical importance is the mediating effect of deservingness on relations between post‐transgression offender effort and a victim's personal consequences of forgiving.     

A Moral Predicament in the Criminal Law

Abstract

This essay is about the difficulties of doing criminal justice in the context of severe social injustice. Having been marginalized as citizens of the larger community, those who are victims of severe social injustice are understandably alienated from the dominant political institutions, and, not unreasonably, disrespect their authority, including that of the criminal law. The failure of equal treatment and protection and the absence of anything like fair and decent life prospects for the members of the marginalized populations erode the basis for its allegiance to demands of the political community. The criminal law thus occupies a problematic normative position with respect to lawbreakers in this population; in many cases, it finds itself in the position of convicting them for crimes for which the political community itself bears some significant responsibility. The attempt to administer criminal justice therefore faces a serious moral predicament; on the one hand, criminal law has a right and an obligation to protect citizens against serious crimes; on the other hand, because of its responsibility for the plight of many defendants, the dominant society is itself implicated in the wrongdoing in question. This paper tries to characterize the predicament in a perspicuous way and to suggest ways of proceeding in its face.     

An integrative review of South Africa’s approach to victim support

This integrative review seeks to consider the evidence on how crime victims’ rights are served within South Africa’s criminal justice system. Victims view criminal proceeding as the means through which justice for the harms they suffered can be obtained. Such aspirations are often misplaced since criminal proceedings are a legal process between the state and accused with the sole purpose of determining guilt or innocence. As such, the concerns of victims are secondary. Victim’s rights in South Africa was only truly acknowledged during the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in 1995. South Africa’s victim empowerment policy is underpinned by restorative justice principles. Contradictory to legal procedures, restorative justice is not offender-driven, but aims to elevate the role of crime victims in the criminal justice system.     

如何道歉更有效:调节聚焦与信息框架的作用

本研究结合调节聚焦理论探讨了如何道歉更有效。两个实验通过启动不同调节聚焦,创设冒犯情境并呈现不同框架的道歉信息,考察调节聚焦与道歉框架对道歉效果的影响。结果表明,向促进聚焦的受害者呈现积极框架的道歉信息、向防御聚焦的受害者呈现消极框架的道歉信息能改善受害者对冒犯者的评价,降低交往回避倾向,获得较好的道歉效果,且正确感是此种影响发生的内在机制。     

Social support and recovery from sexual assault: A review

This article reviews empirical studies of social support and sexual assault in order to evaluate the empirical evidence for the role of support in recovery from mental health and physical health consequences of this crime. Evidence is mixed with regard to the effect of social support, with some studies showing no significant effect and others showing positive effects of support on postassault recovery. Negative aspects of social relations (e.g., negative social reactions), while less studied, show consistent and strong negative effects on sexual assault victims. Factors that may modify the relationship of support and sexual assault outcomes are reviewed, including: assault characteristics, specific support provider factors, victim coping and functioning, preassault support network, and other postassault experiences, such as criminal justice system involvement. Limitations of existing research are noted. Suggestions for future research on the relationship of social support and sequelae of sexual assault are provided, with a focus on development of support network interventions for victims.     

An examination of the assumptions of specialization, mental disorder, and dangerousness in sex offenders

Sex offenders have been singled out for differential treatment by the legal and mental health systems. This article attempts to inform law reform efforts and criminal justice mental health policy by examining the assumptions underlying differential legal and mental health treatment of sex offenders. These assumptions include the theories that sex offenders are mentally disordered and in need of treatment, specialists in sex crimes, and more dangerous than other criminal offenders. Empirical findings demonstrate that sex offenders are not specialists in sex crimes and are not mentally disordered. Examination of past research suggests that sex offenders are not at more risk than other criminal offenders to commit future sex crimes. Implications of research findings for selective prosecution of sex crime cases, mental health policy, sex offender legislation, and predictions of future dangerousness are discussed. Proposals for future research needs and law reform are presented.     

Hegelian restorative justice

In the Philosophy of Right, Hegel claims that crime is a negation of right and punishment is the “negation of the negation.” Punishment, for Hegel, “annuls” the criminal act. Many take it that Hegel endorses a form of retributivism—the theory that criminal offenders should be subject to harsh treatment in response and in proportion to their wrongdoing. Here I argue that restorative criminal justice is consistent with Hegel's remarks on punishment and his overall philosophical system. This is true, in part, because restorative justice integrates Hegel's instructive discussion of confession and forgiveness in the Phenomenology of Spirit. Hegel claims that true moral relationships allow space for persons to confess their moral shortcomings and forgive the shortcomings of others. Restorative criminal justice brings the perpetrators and victims of crime together to offer confessions and forgiveness and to work to heal the various wounds caused by crime. I do not claim that Hegel must be read as advocating restorative justice. While Hegel tells us what punishment does, he does not commit himself to any form of punishment. What I offer here is a rational, progressive reconstruction and extension of Hegel's conception of crime and punishment.     

The response to domestic violence in a model court: some initial findings and implications

This study utilized a non-experimental design to obtain information on a full range of domestic violence incidents brought before the Quincy, Massachusetts District Court, a model court. One limitation of previous research on spouse assaults using more sophisticated designs is that the target population has been restricted to specific subgroups of cases thereby limiting subsequent discussions of policy/practice implications of the findings vis-a-vis all spouse assault cases. To address this research “shortfall”, we obtained permission from the Quincy District Court to examine all the spouse assault cases brought before the court during a 7-month period (June, 1995, through February, 1996). The findings show that in a full enforcement environment, victims took out restraining orders only against the most violent, criminally abusive men. Most men who were arrested for domestic violence had prior criminal histories for a variety of offenses. Domestic violence offenders appeared to be of two types: those with extensive and diverse criminal histories and those with little or no such involvement. However, active criminal justice intervention against domestic violence offenders appears to be primarily directed toward offenders already active in the criminal justice system. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Law enforcement and criminal justice personnel interactions with transgender people in the United States: A literature review

This literature review examines research exploring the interactions between transgender people and law enforcement and criminal justice (LECJ) personnel in the U.S. to better understand the experiences of transgender people who come into contact with the criminal justice system. A search of existing academic literature, public health reports, and advocacy group publications revealed 33 studies that contained information about transgender people's interactions with LECJ personnel. Results highlight how large percentages of transgender people experience arrest and incarceration, unjustified stops and arrest, disrespect and poor case handling, and abuse and violence from LECJ personnel while in their communities. Large percentages of transgender people in institutional settings also reported abuse committed by criminal justice personnel, including harassment, assault, and a lack of protection from other inmates. This review also highlights evidence of discriminatory and abusive treatment when transgender victims seek assistance from the legal system. Taken together, this study suggests a need for further work to de-stigmatize the legal and criminal justice systems.     

Restorative Justice: New Horizons in Juvenile Offender Counseling

Treatment strategies of the juvenile justice system focus singularly on rehabilitation of offenders, and victims and communities are excluded from the rehabilitative process. Restorative justice views victims and communities as essential components in rehabilitative efforts. Implications for juvenile offender counselors are discussed.     

Offenders’ claims of taking the victims’ perspective can promote forgiveness,or backfire! The moderating role of correctly voicing the victims’ emotions in collective apologies

In the context of collective apologies, we investigate whether offenders’ claim to have taken the victims’ perspective enhances victims’ conciliation. We argue this depends on whether offenders acknowledge emotions in victims that match victims’ emotional experience. In Studies 1 and 2 (Ns = 152 and 171), using scenarios, we experimentally manipulated offenders’ claim and the qualitative or quantitative match of acknowledged emotions. When acknowledged emotions matched victims’ experience, claimed perceptive‐taking increased conciliatory victim responses; but when emotions did not match, the offenders’ claim reduced conciliatory victim responses. In Study 3 (N = 138), African‐Americans were presented with the U.S. government's apology for slavery. We manipulated the perspective‐taking claim and measured the similarity of the emotion profile expressed in the apology to that experienced by African‐Americans over their enslavement. With greater mismatch, the perspective‐taking claim backfired, reducing conciliatory responses. Correct acknowledgment of emotions is key for victims perceiving perspective‐taking and responding conciliatorily.     

The Reality and Myth of Rape: Implications for theCriminal Justice System

This article sets out to evaluate the researchevidence for rape myths and the extent to which theyare causally related to rape proclivity; negativeattitudes towards rape victims; and the reporting ofsexual assault incidents to the police. In reviewingthis literature, we provide an evaluation of theimpact of this research on the criminal justice systemand possible future developments. We argue that thisresearch, while failing to provide conclusive evidenceof a causal relationship, has nevertheless played animportant part in shaping more sympathetic approachestowards rape victims in the criminal justice system.However, we also argue that the current research fallsshort of the level of proof required for it to beadmitted as evidence in criminal trials. We considera number of alternative uses including AmicusCuriae briefs, and the training of juries and judgesprior to hearing rape cases.     

Moving Beyond the Individual: Examining the Effects of Domestic Violence Policies on Social Norms

To be effective, criminal justice policies should affect the underlying social norms for which the policies were enacted. This study sought to determine whether public perceptions of criminal justice policies on domestic violence affected social norms. Two waves of data were collected via a telephone survey where a random probability sample of 973 residents was drawn from 4 communities. A structural equation model was tested and confirmed. Results provided strong support for the hypothesis that perceptions of criminal justice policies have direct effects on attitudes toward criminal justice response, and indirect effects on victim-blaming attitudes, both underlying social norms related to domestic violence. The enactment of criminal justice policies, therefore, may have an impact beyond victims and perpetrators and lead to a transformation of the community through the emergence of new social norms. Public awareness campaigns designed to disseminate criminal justice policies may be instrumental in provoking social change.     

Challenges in implementing evidence-based treatment practices for co-occurring disorders in the criminal justice system

The presence of adults with mental health and substance abuse disorders within the criminal justice system has become increasingly evident over the past decade. Interventions and treatment services have been designed and research conducted in an effort to establish evidence-based practices that effectively address the complex needs of this population. However, adopting and implementing these evidence-based interventions and practices within the real-world setting of criminal justice environments is challenging. This article reviews the research literature related to evidence-based treatment practices for offenders with co-occurring mental health and substance abuse disorders and explores the inherent challenges of fitting these interventions and services within criminal justice settings.     

Empowerment and Advocacy for Domestic Violence Victims

Empowering women victims of domestic violence has been a goal of advocacy since its inception. The concept of empowerment is also widely shared in social science disciplines where the goal of applied research is to address the lived effects of social injustice. While in some fields, such as community psychology, there has been a long history of engaging theoretically with the concept of empowerment, elsewhere theory has received less attention. In the case of addressing domestic violence, victim advocacy has often been assumed to be empowering. Advocates worked to establish support services for individual women and participate in coordinating community responses to domestic violence that included the criminal justice system so as to improve women's safety. The question of whether this kind of social action is empowering domestic violence victims has been discussed in the literature for almost a decade. In this paper, we consider a proposed theory of empowerment and recommendations of advocacy practices by Kasturirangan (2008) to consider how her conceptualisation of empowerment processes has influenced the field and whether it provides a scaffold for bridging the theoretical gaps that have been identified.     

(Neuro)predictions,Dangerousness, and Retributivism

Through the criminal justice system so-called dangerous offenders are, besides the offence that they are being convicted of and sentenced to, also punished for acts that they have not done but that they are believe to be likely to commit in the future. The aim of this paper is to critically discuss whether some adherents of retributivism give a plausible rationale for punishing offenders more harshly if they, all else being equal, by means of predictions are believed to be more dangerous than other offenders. While consequentialism has no problem, at least in principle, with this use of predictions most retributivists have been opponents of punishing offenders on the basis of predictions. How can an offender deserve to be punished for something that he has not done? But some retributivists like Anthony Duff and Stephen Morse have argued in favor of punishing offenders who are considered to be dangerous in the future more harshly than non-dangerous offenders. After having reconstructed their arguments in detail, it will be argued that both Duff’s and Morse’s attempts to give a retributivistic justification have several shortcomings.