Justice through consensus: Shared identity and the preference for a restorative notion of justice

We propose a concept of restorative justice as a sense of justice deriving from consensus about, and the reaffirmation of, values violated by an offence (in contrast to punishment‐based retributive justice). Victims should be more likely to seek restorative justice (and less likely retributive justice) when they perceive to share a relevant identity with the offender. In Study 1, when the relevant identity (university affiliation) shared with the offender was made salient (vs. not), participants found a consensus‐based response more justice‐restoring. In Study 2, when the group (company) shared with the offender was cohesive (vs. not), participants more strongly endorsed a restorative justice philosophy and, mediated by this, responded in consensus‐restoring ways. In Study 3, when the offender was an ingroup (vs. outgroup) member, participants more strongly endorsed a restorative justice philosophy, fully mediated by sadness emotions. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Rethinking justice

Changes in the way people marry, bear children and live together, combined with the changing nature of support for families, has put pressure on the justice system to adjust to new family and community realities in order to accomplish justice goals. Although the entire legal system is implicated by the changing nature of families and communities, most scholars and practitioners have focused on the judicial system and those courts most relevant to family issues: namely, the juvenile, family, and criminal courts. As scholars and practitioners began to 'rethink justice,' whole new reform movements of therapeutic jurisprudence, restorative justice, and community justice (among others) have emerged to offer new paradigms for the administration of justice. In this essay we discuss ways in which families and the justice system interact to strengthen and weaken each other to accomplish justice goals.     

Apology in the criminal justice setting: evidence for including apology as an additional component in the legal system

The criminal justice system has reached unprecedented scope in the United States, with over 6.4 million people under some type of supervision. Remedies that have the potential to reduce this number are continually being sought. This article analyzes an innovative strategy currently being reconsidered in criminal justice: the apology. Despite a legal system that only sporadically acknowledges it, evidence for the use of apology is supported by social science research, current criminal justice theories, case law, and empirical studies. Social psychological, sociological and socio-legal studies pinpoint the elements and function of apology, what makes apologies effective, and concerns about apology if it were implemented in the criminal justice system. Theoretical evidence is examined (including restorative justice, therapeutic jurisprudence, crime, shame, and reintegration) to explore the process of apology in the criminal justice context. Attribution theory and social conduct theory are used to explain the apology process specifically for victims and offenders. A brief examination of case law reveals that though apology has no formal place in criminal law, it has surfaced recently under the federal sentencing guidelines. Finally, empirical evidence in criminal justice settings reveals that offenders want to apologize and victims desire an apology. Moreover, by directly addressing the harmful act, apology may be the link to reduced recidivism for offenders, as well as empowerment for victims. This evidence combined suggests that apology is worthy of further study as a potentially valuable addition to the criminal justice process.     

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.     

Retribution and Restoration as General Orientations Towards Justice

We proposed two distinct understandings of what justice means to victims and what its restoration entails that are reflected in individual‐level justice orientations. Individuals with a retributive orientation conceptualize justice as the unilateral imposition of just deserts against the offender. In contrast, individuals with a restorative orientation conceptualize justice as achieving a renewed consensus about the shared values violated by the offence. Three studies showed differential relations between these two justice orientations and various individual‐level values/ideologies and predicted unique variance in preferences for concrete justice‐restoring interventions, judicial processes and abstract justice restoration goals. The pattern of results lends validity to the understanding of justice as two distinct conceptualizations, a distinction that provides much needed explanation for divergent preferences for injustice responses. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A social categorisation approach to distributive justice

In this chapter, I put forward an approach to distributive justice in terms of categorisation processes. It is assumed that a hierarchical set of social categorisations determine the identity of those individuals or groups considered for an allocation in a given situation, and whether or how these potential recipients are subcategorised and differentiated for decisions on their relative entitlement. I review empirical evidence for the approach and its predictions that (1) the salience of a shared inclusive identity enhances perceptions of equal entitlement, whereas (2) perceptions of different entitlements are based on the perceived defining values of the relevant inclusive category. Following from either process, (3) people are more justice motivated when they identify with the relevant inclusive category. Further, (4) subgroup identities influence the representation of the inclusive categorisation and/or the target of one's justice concerns, and thus the meaning of justice.     

Pride and punishment: Entitled people's self‐promoting values motivate hierarchy‐restoring retribution

What is the purpose of punishment? The current research shows that for entitled people—those with inflated self‐worth—justice is about maintaining societal hierarchies. Entitled people more strongly hold self‐enhancing values (power and achievement; Studies 1 and 3). They are also more likely, when thinking about justice for offenders, to adopt a hierarchy‐based justice orientation: Perceptions that crime threatens hierarchies, motives to restore those hierarchies, and support for retribution (Studies 2 and 3). Further, the relationship of entitlement to justice orientation is mediated by self‐enhancing values when entitlement is measured (Study 3) and manipulated (Studies 4, 5 and 6). Together these studies suggest that entitlement—and the resultant preoccupation with one's status—facilitates a view of justice as a hierarchy‐based transaction: one where criminal offenders and their victims exchange power and status. These findings reveal the self‐enhancing and hierarchy‐focused nature of entitlement, as well as the roots of retribution in concerns about status, power, and hierarchies.     

Retributive justice, restorative justice, and forgiveness: An experimental psychophysiology analysis

This experiment assessed the emotional self-reports and physiology of justice outcomes and forgiveness responses to a common crime, using a three Justice (retributive, restorative, no justice) × 2 Forgiveness (forgiveness, none) repeated-measures design. Participants (27 males, 29 females) imagined their residence was burglarized, followed by six counterbalanced justice-forgiveness outcomes. Imagery of justice—especially restorative—and forgiveness each reduced unforgiving motivations and negative emotion (anger, fear), and increased prosocial and positive emotion (empathy, gratitude). Imagery of granting forgiveness (versus not) was associated with less heart rate reactivity and better recovery; less negative emotion expression at the brow (corrugator EMG); and less aroused expression at the eye (lower orbicularis oculi EMG when justice was absent). When forgiveness was not imagined, justice-physiology effects emerged: signs of cardiovascular stress (rate pressure products) were lower for retributive versus no justice; and sympathetic nervous system responding (skin conductance) was calmer for restorative versus retributive justice.     

Shared identity content between leader and follower influences intentional mobilization and challenge and threat states

ObjectivesResearchers have examined how leaders' representation of shared identity content allows them to mobilize group members towards success in competitive tasks. However, research is yet to determine the psychological and physiological implications of shared identity content with a leader when approaching competitive tasks. The present research addresses this gap within a two-phase experimental study, examining the effect of shared identity content on follower intentional mobilization, self-efficacy, perceived control, approach and avoidance goals, cardiovascular challenge and threat and motor performance within a competitive task.DesignA 2 × 2 between-participants two-phase experimental design, with two shared and two non-shared conditions.MethodWithin phase one, 220 sport and exercise undergraduate students imagined themselves in one of four scenarios and responded to measures of mobilization (e.g., willingness to invest time on a task). Then, a pre-screening questionnaire was used to evidence the students' authentic identity content when competing in sport, which informed condition within phase two. Of those who consented to phase two, a laboratory experiment with 120 undergraduate sport and exercise students was used. Within this experiment, the sharedness of identity content between leader and follower was manipulated through the students' authentic pre-screening questionnaire responses. Within phase two, competition related self-efficacy, perceived control, approach and avoidance goals, cardiovascular challenge and threat and motor performance was assessed.ResultsPhase one results indicated that when identity content is shared (vs. non-shared) between leader and follower, group members' willingness to invest time on a task is increased within a hypothetical scenario. In phase two, it was evidenced that when identity content is shared (vs. non-shared) between leader and follower, followers reported greater intentional mobilization, self-efficacy and perceived control when approaching a competitive task. Shared identity content with a leader did not predict cardiovascular challenge states nor greater motor performance (relative to non-shared identity content).ConclusionThe present research provides evidence that a leaders' capacity to mobilize effort of group members and enhance psychological appraisal of competitive events is dependent on their ability to build shared identity content.     

Restorative justice and the human rights of offenders: Convergences and divergences

Restorative justice has gained significant momentum as a justice reform movement within the past three decades, and it is estimated that up to one hundred countries worldwide utilize restorative justice practices. Although claims about the role of restorative justice in protecting human rights are repeatedly made in the restorative justice literature, they are seldom supported by empirical evidence or a thorough analysis of human rights and their justification. In this paper, we discuss how the assumptions underpinning restorative justice practices impact on offenders' human rights, and their points of convergence and divergence. We argue that while these assumptions can protect certain offender rights, they may violate others. We finish with some suggestions about how to reconcile the tensions between human rights and restorative justice, focusing in particular on the relationship between community needs and individual well-being.     

同事公正氛围：构念、测量、效能与展望

以往对公正氛围的探讨主要集中于源自权威的公正氛围上,而对来自同事的公正氛围关注较少。同事公正氛围是指团队成员对团队内同事之间相互对待公正性的共同知觉。本文首先对比总结界定了同事公正氛围的概念,明晰了其结构维度与测量工具,然后着重梳理评价了同事公正氛围的影响效能。未来研究应致力于：加强探讨同事公正氛围的前因变量,探讨同事公正氛围影响效能的内在机制和边界条件,运用纵向设计研究同事公正氛围的形成机制及影响效能,以及探索同事公正氛围研究的本土化。     

The roles of retribution and utility in determining punishment

Three studies examined the motives underlying people’s desire to punish. In previous research, participants have read hypothetical criminal scenarios and assigned “fair” sentences to the perpetrators. Systematic manipulations within these scenarios revealed high sensitivity to factors associated with motives of retribution, but low sensitivity to utilitarian motives. This research identifies the types of information that people seek when punishing criminals, and explores how different types of information affect punishments and confidence ratings. Study 1 demonstrated that retribution information is more relevant to punishment than either deterrence or incapacitation information. Study 2 traced the information that people actually seek when punishing others and found a consistent preference for retribution information. Finally, Study 3 confirmed that retribution information increases participant confidence in assigned punishments. The results thus provide converging evidence that people punish primarily on the basis of retribution.     

The varying meaning of forgiveness: Relationship closeness moderates how forgiveness affects feelings of justice

Psychological research has repeatedly shown that victims are more likely to forgive socially close than distant others, but little research has addressed the question whether forgiveness in these two cases actually has the same psychological meaning. As one approach to this issue, the present research investigates how acts of forgiveness aid the restoration of victims' justice feelings through different processes, depending on the closeness of their relationship to the offender. In two studies (Study 1 using a scenario method, Study 2 an autobiographical recall), the victim's perceptions of value consensus with the offender mediated justice‐restoring effects of forgiveness expressed towards a close offender, whereas feelings of status/power mediated justice‐restoring effects of forgiveness expressed towards a distant offender. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Rehearsing for confrontation

Social confrontation is a particular kind of communication episode which may be initiated when one actor signals another actor that his or her behavior has violated (or is violating) a rule or expectation for appropriate conduct within the relationship or situation (Newell & Stutman, 1988). This paper explores the decision, structure and process of rehearsing for confrontation. Intensive interviews with 75 actors followed by a questionnaire administered to 99 others revealed that confronters maintain two strands of confrontative goals: strategic and performance goals. Strategic goals for confronters include (a) influence, (b) catharsis, (c) relational maintenance, (d) retribution, and (e) enhanced understanding of the other. While these goals lead to different tactical outcomes, actors also hold intentions related to performance goals. Two performance goals are of central concern to some actors: (a) the desire to be argumentatively complete, and (b) the desire to maintain the position of the confronter rather than the confrontee. An analysis of the data revealed that differences in goal configurations guided both the decision to rehearse and the process of this rehearsal.     

Punitive Reactions to Completed Crimes Versus Accidentally Uncompleted Crimes1

Previous studies have shown that the harm caused by crime affects punitive reactions even if differences in the degree of harm are merely accidental. However, it remains unclear whether the effect is direct or whether it is mediated by attributed responsibility or blame. Participants were 303 university students who listened to 4 case vignettes (between‐subjects design). Half received information about a completed crime and half about an accidentally uncompleted crime. Crime type was either fraud or rape. The results suggest that individuals consider the actual harm to a significantly greater extent than attribution theory would predict. Moreover, the link between harm and punishment was virtually not mediated by attributed blame and not moderated by individual differences in morality. Future studies should investigate whether the harm‐punishment link is a result of an automatic act of retaliation or a desire to compensate for the harm done to the victim (restorative justice).     

On the assignment of punishment: the impact of general-societal threat and the moderating role of severity

This article reports experiments assessing how general threats to social order and severity of a crime can influence punitiveness. Results consistently showed that when participants feel that the social order is threatened, they behave more punitively toward a crime perpetrator, but only when severity associated with a crime was relatively moderate. Evidence is presented to suggest that people can correct-at least to a degree-for the "biasing" influence of these inductions. Finally, threats to social order appear to increase punitiveness by arousing a retributive desire to see individuals pay for what they have done, as opposed to a purely utilitarian desire to deter future wrongdoing. The authors suggest that individuals sometimes act as intuitive prosecutors when ascribing punishment to an individual transgressor based on their perception of general societal control efficacy.     

Intelligence is associated with criminal justice processing: Arrest through incarceration

Findings flowing from empirical research consistently indicate that IQ is associated with criminal involvement, with persons of relatively lower IQ being more likely to engage in various types of crime when compared with persons of relatively higher IQ. As with all research, however, there are a number of limitations with the existing literature that may bias the IQ–crime connection in unknown ways. Specifically, previous research has generally analyzed sub-samples drawn from non-nationally representative samples, has relied on a narrow range of criminal justice measures, has not fully examined whether the IQ–crime link is observed across demographic subgroups, and has not always ruled out the effects of potential confounds. The current study is designed to overcome the most serious of these limitations and offer new evidence of the link between IQ and criminal involvement. Analysis of data drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) provides strong evidence indicating that IQ and crime are linked even after addressing various shortcomings of previous research. Limitations of the study are discussed and directions for future research are offered.