Restorative Justice and Sexual Violence: An Annotated Bibliography
Methodology
Research questions
This report provides annotations of published legal and social science research and evaluations on RJ and sexual violence within the past five years (January 01, 2013 to December 31, 2017). In some cases, older articles are included when they are widely cited and have provided a significant contribution to the field.
The focus of this annotated bibliography is on legal and constitutional concerns, as well as policy and program implications, regarding the use of RJ in cases of sexual violence.
This annotated bibliography is guided by two questions:
- What are the key pieces of research and resources on RJ in cases of adult sexual violence?
- What are the RJ approaches being used in the context of adult sexual violence?
Search strategy
Searches were conducted using online computer resources including PsychINFO, HeinOnline, LexisNexis Academic, Quick Law, Scholar Portal, and internet search engines.
Additionally, searches were conducted using Google Scholar to locate scholarly information, broad programming initiatives and outcomes, and discussions on the benefits and limitations of these approaches.
Some of the key words used to inform this search included:
- Intimate partner violence
- Gender based violence
- Sex crimes
- Sexual violence
- Restoration
- Repair
- Reconciliation
- Restorative Justice
- RJ
- Sexual assault
- Sexual offences
- Violence against women
- Dating violence
- Rape
- Transformative justice
- Sexual violence against women
- Sexual abuse
- Sexual offen*
- Gendered violence
- Serious sexual violence
- Sexual violence
All of the retrieved articles were then assessed for relevance, content, and applicability based on the research questions and the focus of this project. Generally, articles were excluded if the discussion of RJ or sexual violence was trivial, transitory, or merely based on keywords. For example, mentioning RJ in passing in the context of a literature review was not sufficient for the article to be included. Articles were included if the discussion, substance, or analysis of the paper included content about the applicability, outcomes, benefits, problems, or concerns on the actual or potential use of RJ in instances of sexual violence.
After reviewing the retrieved articles, 51 were screened-in and annotated. Annotations generally include academic research, journal articles, evaluation studies, and monographs. The articles annotated include both original research and literature reviews.
For each annotation, an APA-style citation is provided, followed by the purpose, methodology, findings, and the author(s) position. The authors’ ideas are summarized. Readers interested in the nuances of the article that are beyond the scope and parameters of the annotated bibliography are encouraged to consult the original source.
Limitations
A number of limitations are present when examining the literature on RJ in instances of sexual violence:
- This annotated bibliography focuses on reports and research published in English or French. Research published in other languages was not included in the search.
- As with all evaluation and empirical research, the strength of the findings are dependent upon the method, analysis, and data.
- There are different conceptions of RJ and sexual violence that impact RJ eligibility, clientele, programming, program timing, and outcomes. Therefore, the lack of a common definition or frame of reference means that readers need to pay close attention to the particular context(s) of the research.
- RJ outcome research may be differently impacted by the willingness of victims and others to participate, and amount of available personnel and fiscal resources.
- Programming and outcome research generally focuses on females as victims and males as perpetrators. Child, GLBTQ2, and male victims are often overlooked.
- This annotated bibliography does not capture sexual trafficking and sexual violence perpetrated through communication technology.
References
Angus Reid. (2014). Three-in-ten Canadians say they’ve been sexually harassed at work, but very few have reported this to their employers.
Archibald, B., & Llewellyn, J. (2006). The challenges of institutionalizing comprehensive restorative justice: Theory and practice in Nova Scotia. The Dalhousie Law Journal, 29, 297-343.
Busch, R. (2002). Domestic violence and restorative justice initiatives: Who pays if we get it wrong? In H. Strang & J. Braithwaite (Eds.), Restorative justice and family violence (pp. 223-248). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cameron, A. (2005). Restorative justice: A literature review. Vancouver, British Columbia: The British Columbia Institute Against Family Violence.
Cormier, R. (2002) Restorative Justice: Directions and Principles – Developments in Canada. Ottawa: Public Safety Canada.
Cossins, A. (2008). Restorative justice and child sex offences: theory and the practice. British Journal of Criminology, 48, 359–378.
Cotter, A. (2016). Sexual Misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces, 2016. Catalogue no. 85-603-X. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada.
Daly, K. (2006). Restorative justice and sexual assault: an archival study of court and conference cases. British Journal of Criminology, 46, 334–356.
Daly, K., & Stubbs, J. (2006). Feminist engagement with restorative justice. Theoretical Criminology, 10(1), 9-28.
Department of Justice Canada. (2018). Restorative Justice. Ottawa, ON: Justice Canada.
Employment and Social Development Canada. (2017). Harassment and sexual violence in the workplace – Public consultations. What we heard. Employment and Social Development Canada.
Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. (2017). Submission to the House of Commons’ Standing Committee on the Status of Women: Study of Bill C-337, An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code (sexual assault).
Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working Group on Restorative Justice. (December 22, 2009). "Key Messages on Restorative Justice."
Government of Canada. (2017). 2017 Public Service Employee Annual Survey: Summary report of results for the overall public service.
Government of Canada. (2015). 2014 Public Service Employee Survey Results by Theme for the Public Service.
Hudson, B. (2002). Restorative Justice and Gendered Violence: Diversion or Effective Justice? The British Journal of Criminology, 42(3), 616-634.
Karp, D. R., Shackford-Bradley, J., Wilson, R. J., Williamsen, K. M., Llewellyn, J. J., Kallem, H., … Koss, M. P. (2016). Campus PRISM: A Report on Promoting Restorative Initiatives for Sexual Misconduct on College Campuses.
Lindsay, M. (2014). A Survey of Survivors of Sexual Violence in Three Canadian Cities. Ottawa: Research and Statistics Division, Department of Justice Canada.
Meloy, M. L., & Miller, S. L. (2011). The victimization of women: Law, policies, and politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Patel, A. (2017). 2 in 10 Canadians have been sexually harassed in the workplace: Ipsos poll. Global News.
Rotenberg, C. & Cotter, A. (2018). Police-reported sexual assaults in Canada before and after #MeToo, 2016 and 2017. Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.
Strang, H., & Braithwaite, J. (Eds.). (2002). Restorative justice and family violence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
United Nations (UN) Office on Drugs and Crime (2006) Handbook on restorative justice programmes.
Wemmers, J. (2017). Victims of Crime Research Digest No. 10 “Judging Victims: Restorative choices for victims of sexual violence,” (10), 1-5. Retrieved from
Zehr, H. (2002). The little book of restorative justice. Intercourse, PA: Good Books.
Zinsstag, E., & Keenan, M. (2017). Restorative responses to sexual violence: Legal, social and therapeutic dimensions. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
- Date modified: