24/7 Customer support here

Impact of Restorative Justice on Victims of Crime

   Tony Marshall tried to explain the meaning of restorative justice in the following manner : ‘Restorative justice is a process whereby parties with a stake in a specific offence collectively resolve how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future’, (Johnstone, 2002:164).

   Conceptually, restorative justice sees crime as fundamentally a violation of people and interpersonal relationships, and the point of action is to seek to heal and put right the wrongs (Zehr, 1990: 52). The emphasis is on reparation of harm to the victims, addressing the offenders needs and competencies, and sending offenders a message of disapproval about the impact of the crime. Some of the programmes and outcomes typically identified with restorative justice include; victim/offender mediation, conferencing, sentencing circles, and restoration. Generally speaking, model tends to focus on the ‘victim’, the ‘offender’, and the ‘community’. (Walgravge, 2002: 133).

   Victim-offender mediation is often seen as central to restorative justice. It is a process through which a neutral person assists the parties to communicate with each other. In some cases it will take the form of face-to-face meetings, alternatively parties can choose to use shuttle mediation. Although mediation has obvious attractions, sceptics have questioned whether it can really operate ‘in the shadow of the court’. Some sceptics have warned of additional burdens on victims in terms of time, delays, goodwill, energy, costs, further emotional strain and exhaustion, (Hirsch and Roberts et al, 2003:39). According to Heather (2000:21), mediation is a credible means by which issues can be resolved. Firstly, it can be argued that mediation is beneficial to the victim than the uncertainty and dissatisfaction often experienced in court where the victim has little choice but to accept the judgement made. The majority of victims honour most agreements or resolutions reached within mediation, simply because the victim has worked hard with the offender to achieve the settlement and upon terms that were always within the victim’s control, unlike an imposed court decision. It is worth stressing too, that in most restorative justice practices, victims have a veto over the acceptability of the proposed sanction. It can further be argued that mediation is less time consuming than the court process as it resolves disputes faster than the criminal justice system. A case being resolved through mediation however intractable it may seem, can be settled quickly at a fraction of the cost of going to court, (Marshall and Merry, 1990: 52-56).

   Walgrave, (2002:168-72) suggests that it is very doubtful whether mediation could substitute for formal adjudication in serious crime cases. Referring to Johnstone (2002) he states that the state has stolen disputes from the hands of victims and offenders and in doing so has usurped the rights of victims to seek recompense for the harms suffered. In Restorative Justice-Philosophy to Practice, Heather has argued that mediation is a difficult and painful process for the victim and can put the victim under considerable pressure. However, it is for this very reason that mediators are fully trained to deal with victims. It is understandable that victim’s emotions can run very high but the mediator is tasked with dealing with people who are under considerable pressure, (McLaughlin and Fergusson et al, 2003: 54-62). Writing in 2002, Adam Crawford argued that because mediators help victims to resolve problems, victims are left better equipped to tackle such problems in the future, (Crawford and Goodey, 2000: 37-40). It is also worth mentioning that mediation is arranged at a convenient time for the victim, unlike court hearings it is not limited to ordinary working days or hours, if it suits the victim to negotiate at weekends this is what happens.

   The following case illustrates the benefits of restorative justice practices, in relation to victim’s needs. A masked intruder confronted a woman in the night, who grabbed her. To her horror she found it was her neighbour. He was charged and convicted of rape. The women had suffered painful injuries to her body but the mental suffering was much worse. A victim liaison officer visited the women to ask her if she would consider mediation between herself and her neighbour. She felt that mediation might help her answer a number of questions that were worrying her. Did he blame her for his arrest? Was he going to come after her? Where was he going to live? She also wanted to know whether he understood how awful the experience had been for her, and how angry she was with him. He told her that he was sorry, and that he knew it was his fault and didn’t blame her. He would be living in another town and would not be coming near her home. He wanted her to understand him and forgive him. The women was pleased with the outcome, and much less afraid, she felt that mediation had made her feel confident enough to get on with her life, (www.Mediationuk.org.uk: 2003).

   This case above clearly demonstrates that victims can benefit from restorative justice practices. It gives them a chance to tell their side of the story, when they are listened to they can feel supported. They can also express how upset they are; many victims try and cope with events by pretending they do not care. By ignoring situations or not addressing the conflict the whole scenario can become very frightening. It also helps the victim to decide the course of action they want to take next. It can be argued that victims feel much better when they hear the offenders side of the story, in many cases a simple apology from the offender is all that is required to put the situation right, (Strang, 2002: 32-45).

   It can be argued that compared to courtroom interactions, victims can benefit more from using restorative justice practices. I refer here to the recent Soham case and the murdered schoolgirls, Holly and Jessica. Ian Huntley, 29, denies murdering the schoolgirls, despite the fact that he had keys to the hangar where the girl’s burned clothes were found. Furthermore, he often went plane spotting close to the ditch where the bodies were found and a co-worker said that Huntley’s car had a, ‘sickly sweet smell like body filler’ in the days following the disappearance of Holly and Jessica (Daily Mail, Nov 14 2003:5). Some people may argue that restorative justice is not the best option for the murdered schoolgirl’s parents who are the victims of this crime. However, it can be argued that despite all the evidence to prove that Huntley is guilty the CJs does not encourage him to plead guilt, rather he is encouraged to plead ‘not guilty’ because this is in his best interest. The current system minimises the harm done to the victims, by denial on behalf of the offenders. However, this conflicts with restorative justices practices, they attempt to put right the harm encountered. Offenders are also more likely to admit the wrong they have done and take responsibility for their actions, instead of lying they attempt to make amendments and repair the harm done to the victims, (Marshall, 2001: 34-41).

   It can also be argued that if offenders recognise the personal liberties of the victims they can help restore the victim’s status. Unlike the CJs, the parents can also have a voice they can describe how they feel and describe the effects of the harm caused by the consequences of the actions. In criminal justice processes, lawyers and advocates speak on behalf of the offenders and victims. Lawyers discourage the offender from directly speaking to the victim; the effects of offences are communicated through a victim impact statement presented by the prosecutor in written form. This differs from the processes of restorative justice practices, offenders and victims speak for themselves, and dialogue takes place between them. Meeting with the offenders may mean that some of the victim’s emotional needs are met; for example, they may be provided with the opportunity for some healing, for some understanding of what happened and why, and for some closure, (Finer and Nellis, 1998: 46-48). Furthermore, Walgrave (2002) asserts that the current system sees the offence as one against the state and shuts the victim out. The criminal Justice system almost totally neglects and disempowers the victim, which amounts to secondary victimisation. This has become very clear from the feminist critique of the way in which the judiciary deals with victims of sexual offences, but it is too often true in general, (Maguire and Morgan et al, 2002: 566-9). In Restorative Justice and the Law, Walgrave argues that victims are often used in the criminal justice system, or even misused, as witnesses in the criminal investigation, and then left alone with their grievances and losses.

1  2

BACK TO CRIMINOLOGY