Restorative Justice and Sexual Violence: An Annotated Bibliography

• Previous page
• Table of Contents

Critical commentary and discussions: Debating, justifying or criticizing the use of RJ in instances of sexual violence, important considerations, and best practices

Peer-reviewed

Al’Uqdah, S. N., Maxwell, C., & Hill, N. (2016). Intimate partner violence in the African American community: Risk, theory, and interventions. Journal of Family Violence, 31(7), 877-884.

Purpose:

• This paper explores intimate partner violence within African American families, while looking at the risk factors of intimate partner violence.
• The article aims to understand intimate partner violence through psychoanalytical theory and discuss treatment approaches in a multicultural framework.

Methodology:

• The authors review and summarize literature on partner violence in African American families. The analytical strategy involves several elements such as examining the rates, impacts, and risk factors of intimate partner violence.

 Findings:

• African Americans experience intimate partner violence more than other ethnic groups.
• Intimate partner violence is the number one health issue for African American women due to psychological and physiological outcomes. Intimate partner violence is costly due to hospitalizations.
• Children are also impacted by intimate partner violence; they blame themselves and have negative behaviours associated with exposure to intimate partner violence which can delay a child’s development.
• Risk factors are different for the African American community. Risk factors for men engaging in intimate partner violence include: concentrated poverty, high levels of unemployment and inadequate education, exposure to community and family violence, internalized and institutional racism, and sexist or misogynistic cultural attitudes. Risk factors for women experiencing intimate partner violence include: poverty, inadequate education, under- or unemployment, and substance abuse.
• There is a need to look at the historical impact of slavery, past abuse, masculinity and dominance to be able to understand intimate partner violence in the African American community. When treating African American couples, there is a need to look beyond traditional methods and towards cultural methods. RJ is an approach that includes cultural competency, thus is encouraged when dealing with African-American couples involved in intimate partner violence.

Authors’ position:

• The authors reject traditional methods used to heal intimate partner violence, and encourage professionals to have cultural competency training and awareness when dealing with this issue. They recommend using RJ as it incorporates culture within the healing process.

Anderson, P. S. (2016). When justice and forgiveness come apart: A feminist perspective on restorative justice and intimate violence. Oxford Journal of Law and Religion, 5(1), 113-134.

Purpose:

• This article examines how forgiveness can be an issue for RJ from a feminist perspective.

Methodology:

• This review of articles examines 41 publically available articles on feminism and RJ.

Findings:

• Forgiveness can be problematic for RJ.
• Forgiveness is part of a “patriarchal hierarchy of stereotypes” that casts women as peaceful and loving.
• By forgiving, women are taught to internalize their feelings, rather than fight against them.
• Forgiveness perpetuates inequalities that feminist have long fought against. Withholding forgiveness is done “in the name of self-respect”.
• In religious and cultural traditions, justice comes from forgiveness. We need to consider other ethical responses to injustice that are less forgiving to stop violence against women.
• Forgiveness should be withheld so that justice can be served and to help make offenders accountable for their actions. By immediately forgiving an abuser, it is less likely to allow emotions like hate to change.
• Forgiveness only achieves justice and fairness for the “sinner” and ignores cognitive emotions of the victim.
• The victim needs to be given time to heal, whereas the abuser needs to be given time to change.

Author’s position:

• The author takes a feminist perspective and supports the notion of offenders taking responsibility for their actions but rejects the idea of forgiveness. The author is not supportive of using a RJ approach to heal sexual violence against women. The author looks towards a more retributive justice where offenders take responsibility for their actions, to acknowledge the harm caused, rather than forgiving the offender right away.

Beck, M., Bolívar, D., & Vanseveren, B. (2017). Responsibility, care and harm: The involvement of the community in cases of child sexual abuse. In E. Zinsstag & M. Keenan (Eds.), Restorative responses to sexual violence: Legal, social and therapeutic dimensions (pp. 229-247). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Purpose:

• The aim of this book chapter is to reflect on child sexual abuse and the ways that victims’ and offenders’ closest social relationships can participate in RJ interventions.
• The chapter seeks to address the concept of community responsibility, as it is argued that this is a neglected issue in the extant literature.

Methodology:

• The authors present two case studies of victim-offender mediation experiences in Belgium that involve child sexual violence.
• The cases are analyzed and reflected upon in relation to the literature on RJ and child sexual violence.

Findings:

• In cases of child sexual abuse, participants are not asked to describe details of what happened; rather, processes focus on the consequences of the offence.
• Whereas in traditional victim-offender interventions parties must take one side, participants in these case studies had the potential to be involved from one of three positions—from the harmed community, the community of care, and a member of the responsible community.
• In RJ, responsibility can be understood as an active process whereby the offender acknowledges the harm that was caused and comes to understand the origin of the problem in order to prevent reoccurrence.
• Active responsibility on behalf of the community is required in order to restore the harm experienced by the victim.
• Addressing child sexual violence requires a holistic view and holistic intervention.

Author’s position:

• In RJ, responsibility is an active process, which, in cases of child sexual violence specifically, is not only an offender’s task but may include family members or others.
• Responsibility is an action that must involve ensuring the future well-being and restoration for victims, offenders, and other members of the community.

Cheon, A., & Regehr, C. (2006). Restorative justice models in cases of intimate partner violence: Reviewing the evidence. Victims & Offenders, 1(4), 369-394.

Purpose:

• This study analyzes the use of RJ as an alternative to the criminal justice system in cases of intimate partner violence.
• The review focuses on the appropriateness of using RJ in cases of intimate partner violence and its ability to address the concerns of those affected by intimate partner violence.

Methodology:

• This paper reviews literature supporting the use of RJ with various populations and how they address the particular concerns of those affected by intimate partner violence.
• The review contrasts criminal justice approaches with RJ approaches in the context of intimate partner violence, the role of trauma in mediation, the evidence on treatment for violence and abuse, concerns/reservations, and promising practices.

Findings:

• RJ is moving beyond property crimes and youth offending. For instance, since 1998 the Mediation and Restorative Justice Centre in Edmonton, Alberta has been conducting RJ dialogue sessions in cases of intimate partner violence or domestic assaults.
• RJ models show promise but there is insufficient evidence to support its use in all intimate partner violence cases.
• There are definitional issues in the RJ literature. Some literature views RJ as a philosophy/way of looking at crime, others as a practice or process, and for others, RJ is defined in terms of its outcomes.
• Research tends to focus on participants’ experiences, rather than an assessment of RJ’s effectiveness as an intervention.
• Research findings are mixed when it comes to victim satisfaction of RJ when used in the context of intimate partner violence.
• There are many RJ strategies and these may be differently suited for different types of victims, offenders, and relationships.
• RJ can help build communities and mobilize resources. RJ is able to support victims and offenders to create conditions for relationship change and offer approaches that are not available in the traditional criminal justice system.
• Approaches or strategies to address intimate partner violence need to increase collaboration and learning between different fields involved with intimate partner violence.
• There is a need for research and practice to engage the knowledge and experience of all involved to assess how perpetrators of violence change and how victims recover.
• RJ professionals and facilitators should be well trained on: the impact of abuse, trauma (for both the victims and offenders), relationship dynamics, and the various forms of abuse.

Authors’ position:

• The authors see RJ as a set of core beliefs, principles, and objectives. They see RJ as an alternative model worth exploring to address intimate partner violence due to inadequacies of the conventional criminal justice system. However, using alternative justice models or RJ models must ensure that it does not create new risks for participants.
• The suite of criticisms of criminal justice approaches highlight the need to investigate and study alternatives.
• The authors conclude that RJ should be viewed as one step in a longer and broader process of transformation. The transformation is one of changing an abusive relationship into a safe and respectful one.

Coker, D. (2016). Crime logic, campus sexual assault, and restorative justice. Texas Tech Law Review, 49(1), 147 -210.
Purpose:

• This paper summarizes social science research, political efforts, and priorities in addressing campus sexual assault.

Methodology:

• A literature review of campus sexual assault and restorative policy and programs.

Findings:

• There are limitations to the Department of Justice and Department of Education models to address campus sexual assault as they do not pay enough attention to forms of subordination, experiences, and race, class, sexual identity, and gender dynamics.
• According to research on campus sexual assault, sexual offenders are more likely to report that their peers support sexual aggression towards women, hold hostile attitudes towards women, and engage in problematic drinking.
• Campus sexual assault of men is far less researched than assault of women, but what research exists suggests that problematic drinking is correlated with assaults on men, as is the case for assaults on women.
• RJ processes can be used to respond to sexual violence on campus. Ideally, this includes an intersectional awareness and public health initiatives to inform the response to campus sexual violence.
• “Feminist/ Restorative Justice” models and “Transformative/Anti-Subordination” RJ models provide alternative responses to instances of sexual misconduct that can better meet the needs of some victims. They are also more likely to result in changes to the social environment on campus.
• There are challenges to using RJ in campus contexts. First, the Department of Education prohibits use of mediation in sexual assault cases and some schools reject RJ because of a fear of violating this policy. Second, there is a risk of statements becoming admissible in court.
• Integration of RJ into larger public health and intersectional responses to campus sexual assault can provide a better alternative for victims, contribute to changes in the behaviour of perpetrators, and change campus life.

Author(s) position:

• The author argues that schools should adopt, and feminists should support, public health approaches and look to change social structures and conditions that encourage sexual assault. This includes abandoning crime-logics to respond to sexual assault.
• When there are safeguards, RJ can be useful. The integration of RJ into the bigger public health and intersectional response to campus sexual assault may provide a better alternative for victims, which can lead to a change in behaviours and campus life.

Daly, K. (2017). Sexual violence and victims’ justice interest’. In E. Zinsstag & M. Keenan (Eds.), Restorative responses to sexual violence: Legal, social and therapeutic dimensions (pp. 108-140). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Purpose:

• The focus of the chapter is to systematically assess and compare the varying justice mechanisms available to respond to sexual violence and violent victimization more broadly.
• The author’s aim is not to demonstrate how RJ works for individuals and the relevant consequences for victims, offenders, and others, nor to assess whether RJ is appropriate for sexual violence cases.

Methodology:

• In order to achieve the goals set out, Daly develops a model called the Victimization and Justice model, comprised of three components: (1) contexts of victimization, (2) justice mechanisms, and (3) victims’ justice interests.
• This model concisely compares and assesses different justice mechanisms by naming and organizing the existing literature that examines components of RJ in different contexts and by presenting her analysis in the form of a matrix.
• The matrix is comprised of a vertical list of research to analyze and a horizontal list that breaks down the three components of the model

Findings:

• The first two legs of the model are explored (contexts of victimization and justice mechanisms):
  • In the chart/matrix presented, Daly names and organizes what is known about varying contexts of victimization and offending (among families, in workplaces, closed institutions, etc.) including the types of offences committed and who is involved
  • A justice mechanism is a response, process, activity, measure or practice related to justice and can be conventional or innovative (she notes that RJ is a justice mechanism). Also on the chart, Daly assesses whether different justice mechanisms were used for each different research listing.
• The third component of the author’s model, victims’ interests, is explored in more detail than the previous two. Elements of ‘victim’s justice needs’ include: participation, voice, validation, vindication and offender accountability-taking responsibility
• Defining victims’ justice interests – here the author provides explanations for each element of the third component of her model. She conceptualizes her own definitions and reflects on those of others.
  • Participation – victims are informed of the options and different aspects of a case (including different justice mechanisms); asking questions and receiving information; having a say in shaping redress; understanding the process.
  • Voice – receiving public recognition and acknowledgement for the telling of what happened and its impact in a significant setting; also called truth-telling.
  • Validation – ensuring that the victim and their story is believed by acknowledging that harm occurred, with key actions being believing and acknowledging the wrongs.
  • Vindication – affirming, both morally and legally, that the act was wrong and that the offender’s actions were wrong; can be expressed symbolically and/or materially and vary by graveness of the offence; when communities take a clear stand against an offence; “public condemnation and censure and actions prescribed by a polity for an offender to make up for the wrong” (p. 118).
  • Offender accountability-taking responsibility – two aspects of accountability are distinguished between: calling out a wrong-doer and holding them accountable; one who has committed harms must be called to account and held to account for their actions; the expectation is that they will take active responsibility for the wrongs committed (by sincere apologies, expressions of remorse, or completing mandated justice requirements).
• In the analysis of the term accountability, Daly investigates the relationship of punishment to vindication and accountability and declares that punishment is not part of accountability but is part of vindicating the crime and the victim.
  • The author compares how some analysts consider accountability:
    • Herman (2005), for example, equates punishment with vindication and offender accountability; however, these terms should not be synonymous.
    • The Law Commission of Canada (2000), another example, conflates accountability with the finding of criminal guilt; while holding people to account is one aspect of accountability, guilt-finding is an element of vindication.
    • Clark (2015) also equates accountability as punishment by asserting that accountability implies vindication; Daly argues that this is incorrect.
    • Jülrich et al. (2010) comes close to Daly’s definition of accountability-taking responsibility – accountability implies that an individual must carry out an action plan that takes the victim’s psychological safety into consideration

Author’s position:

• RJ practices in cases of sexual violence are appropriate when good practice protocols are used and when the process is adjusted according to the dynamics and complexity of gendered violence.
• Through a victim’s perspective and in order to advance the evidence base and potential of innovative approaches to justice, Daly argues that it is essential to go beyond satisfaction as the sole measure of victims’ experiences and judgments of justice, and of reoffending as the only measure of change in offender behavior. She asserts that it is crucial to systematically examine the strengths and limitations of different justice mechanisms.
• RJ is not a type of justice, it is a justice mechanism that exists under the innovative justice umbrella.

Dickson-Gilmore, J. (2014). Whither restorativeness? Restorative justice and the challenge of intimate violence in aboriginal communities. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 56 (4), 417-446.

Purpose:

• The author adds her thoughts and experiences to debates about whether restorative approaches can be effectively and safely implemented to address intimate partner violence in Indigenous communities.
• The author analyses the challenges of partner and family violence for Indigenous families and communities, the role of RJ in addressing these issues, and the barriers impeding responses to intimate partner violence, especially in remote communities.

Methodology:

• Drawing upon work with Cree communities, this article explores the realities of intimate violence and restorative responses.
• The questions posed in the article include:How might one effectively and safely engage in restorative processes, when trust is largely absent, and apology is a critical tool of abusers? And, where might such cases enter into restorative or community justice processes, when the risk/need profiles of many Indigenous offenders suggest that the risks of RJ may greatly outweigh the qualified benefits of traditional criminal justice responses?

Findings:

• In the Indigenous context, violence is a family experience that affects partners, parents, children, the extended family, and dependent elderly. The impacts are inter-generational and affects health, well-being, and self-determination.
• Some well-established arguments challenge restorative approaches in the intimate partner violence context. Notably, critics are concerned about coercion, normative problems related to the ability for communities to understand intimate partner violence, the possible ambivalence towards intimate partner violence, and the “cheap justice” criticism.
• The challenging dynamics of restorative processes may pressure survivors to accept apologies and risk re-victimization.
• There are many challenges and limitations when implementing RJ approaches in the context of intimate partner violence, including complications related to cultural context and communities.
• There are also limitations to criminal justice system processing through zero tolerance, mandatory charging, and prosecution. Another limitation rests in assuming dissolution of the family as both prevention and cure. This gives rise to the urgent need to address, stop, and heal violence among aboriginal families and communities.
• Resources are important, notably because safety and healing are important considerations. Safety in rural and isolated communities may be challenged because of the lack of access to shelters, crisis centres, or other supports.
• The best and most effective interventions will include community responsibility and accountability.

Author’s position:

• The author notes the complexity of intimate violence in Indigenous communities and how these communities are implicated in retributive and restorative solutions.
• Additional work and research needs to be done before restorative processes can be applied to intimate violence in Indigenous communities. Resources are needed to successfully implement RJ in intimate partner violence cases in remote communities.
• While the author doubts the use of restorative responses to partner violence, she argues that there must be a better way to deal with this crime to support survivors of intimate partner and family violence.

Godden-Rasul, N. (2017). Repairing the harms of rape of women through restorative justice. In E. Zinsstag & M. Keenan (Eds.), Restorative responses to sexual violence: Legal, social and therapeutic dimensions (pp. 15-27). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Purpose:

• The focus of this article is on the harms of rape and analyzing the critiques of RJ. The hope is to provide a platform from which to develop evaluations of RJ in rape cases.

Methodology:

• Begins by discussing key debates around the conceptualization of rape and different theories about the harm of rape. Then assesses the feminist critiques of RJ in light of the conceptualization of rape as damaging the personhood of the female subject.

Findings:

• According to the author, the best way to understand the harm of rape is as something that damages the personhood of the victim/survivor.
• People can be “remade” through building connection with others.
• RJ offers the victims and survivors the opportunity to speak of their experiences which can contribute to a remaking or rebuilding of “the self”, providing validation of the wrong and recognition of the harm, and providing reparations to repair the harm.
• RJ can help survivors incorporate the violent experience into their own self-constructed narrative.
• However, sharing the experience exposes the survivor to the risk of being disbelieved or rejected, or having the harm minimized, which could impede the recovery process if the RJ process is not done carefully. This risk also exists in the conventional criminal justice system.
• In order for harm to be restored, victims need to feel safe again, which requires more than individual accountability on the part of the perpetrator and involves addressing the material, political and social conditions of women’s lives and experiences of violence.

Author’s position:

• RJ should be evaluated on its capacity to restore the victims’ sense of self and the risks of entrenching the harm or causing further harm.
• The risk of causing further harm through poorly handled RJ is “greater than has typically been conceived.”
• The involvement of sexual violence specialists to participate in RJ in order to guarantee the recognition of the harms to the survivors’ personhood is important to the survivors’ recovery.

Hanan, M-E. (2016). Decriminalizing violence: A critique of restorative justice and proposal for diversionary mediation. New Mexico Law Review, 46(1), 123.

Purpose:

• This article discusses the feasibility and desirability of resolving violent crimes outside of the criminal justice system; the limits of RJ as an alternative approach to violent crimes; and the possible criticisms to alternatives to prosecution in cases of violent crime.

Methodology:

• This article reviews and critiques the literature.

Findings:

• Diversionary dispute resolution is framed as quasi-decriminalization.
• There are two central concerns of diversion:
  • Fear that prosecution has a coercive effect on the defendant participating in a diversionary program.
  • Fear of the potential increased involvement with the criminal justice system by mandating more onerous requirements than the defendant might otherwise face.
• Out of court dispute resolution could be beneficial when there are procedural safeguards in place.
• RJ’s therapeutic agenda limits the potential for dispute resolution.
• The mediator is not neutral because the focus of the discussion is on an apology and forgiveness.
• RJ focuses on the healing and the needs of the victims, as well as offender accountability. Therefore, RJ is not applicable where the accused’s culpability is uncertain.
• RJ’s claim that it is independent from the criminal justice system masks its role as part of a state system of crime control, punishment, and public prosecution.
• In criminal mediation, the undervaluing of safeguards built into the criminal justice system including the right against self-incrimination, the right to a trial by jury, to confrontation and to cross-examination of witnesses, to appeal in the event of a verdict of guilty, and to be represented by counsel for constitutional purposes.
• If the RJ process takes place post-adjudication, as part of sentencing, the defendant's liberty and property interests are implicated.
• The elements of an alternative to RJ include a neutral form of mediation and the involvement of due process professionals in the design and implementation of criminal mediation programs. This would help meet the goals of reducing overall contact with the criminal courts and providing procedural safeguards.
• There are possible objections to mediation. Mediation procedures are solitary and private; it does not address systemic problems or advance social justice. Therefore, the rights of the offender may be compromised.
• There are safety concerns for victims of serious crimes and domestic violence including where the offender manipulates, frightens and further injures the victim. Therefore, the rights of the victim may be compromised.

Author’s position:

• RJ’s emphasis on therapeutic healing and offender accountability raises several concerns, including due process concerns and coercive power differentials. Diversion efforts, in cases of violent crimes, should be refocused towards neutral mediation, procedural protections, reducing contact with the criminal court system, and the engagement of due process professionals.

Johnsen, P., & Robertson, E. (2016). Protecting, restoring, improving: Incorporating therapeutic jurisprudence and restorative justice concepts into civil domestic violence cases. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 164(6), 1557-1585.

Purpose:

• The article examines the challenges with the civil protection order process and looks at a more holistic and less adversarial approach to disputes. Specifically, the authors advocate for an alternative approach to protection order proceedings that draws on two legal theories, therapeutic jurisprudence and RJ.

Methodology:

• The authors used the Pennsylvania Protection from Abuse Act (PPAA) and the Philadelphia Family Court Division as a template to highlight the shortcomings of current family court systems before offering a solution to supplement and improve the current civil protection order process.

Findings:

• The article provides background information related to the traditional civil remedies for domestic violence cases. The authors also highlight the challenges and ineffectiveness of Pennsylvania Protection from Abuse Act in court, such as: congested court dockets and inadequate resources; unrepresented litigants; challenging subject matter; and courts’ mishandling of civil domestic violence cases.
• The comprehensive law movement has two main goals:
  • Maximizing the emotional, psychological, and relational well-being of individuals and communities involved in legal proceedings.
  • Focusing on concerns outside of strict legal rights, responsibilities, duties, obligations, and entitlements
• RJ and therapeutic jurisprudence share common foundational principles. They both serve a therapeutic purpose with focus on emotions, empathy, healing, and psychological well-being.
• A suggestion is made to amalgamate both theories to form a holistic therapeutic approach to legal practice to civil protection order process.
• There are arguments against therapeutic jurisprudence and RJ approaches:
  • Private reconciliation of domestic violence cases may fail to acknowledge the severity of domestic violence and put victims at serious risk.
  • Victim–offender collaboration can contradict traditional domestic violence intervention theory.
  • Certain communities may not be willing or able to fulfill responsibilities in domestic violence cases for two reasons: victims may become isolated from friends and family as a result of continuing abuse and may lack meaningful community connections; and family and community ties might fail to denounce domestic violence and instead perpetuate harm.

Author’s position:

• The article takes the position that despite the concerns noted in using a therapeutic approach to domestic violence cases, most can be alleviated. There remain common goals between RJ, therapeutic jurisprudence, and traditional responses to violence.
• The authors believe that incorporating therapeutic jurisprudence and RJ approaches to domestic violence cases would be beneficial to address shortcomings in current approaches and improve access to justice. Therapeutic concepts would also preserve valuable court resources and facilitate a more sensitive response to civil protection order proceedings.
• The authors support the use of alternative approaches as a supplement to, rather than a replacement for, the current civil justice system.

Joyce-Wojtas, N., & Keenan, M. (2016). Is restorative justice for sexual crime compatible with various criminal justice systems? Contemporary Justice Review, 19(1), 43-68.

Purpose:

• This article explores the possibility of a hybrid justice system that combines RJ and the traditional criminal justice system, in cases of sexual violence. The article examines key justice considerations, the limitations of the criminal justice system, and why RJ is needed.

Methodology:

• This article was exploratory in nature and focused on common law jurisdictions such as Ireland, the UK, the US, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia.

Findings:

• Legislative changes and other reforms have led to some improvements for victims of sexual violence. However, limitations still remains such as: high rates of attrition; the victim’s role is confined to that of a witness; lack of offender accountability; insufficient offender reintegration; and the limited role of the community in criminal proceedings.
• RJ can offer some justice for victims whose case never gets to trial, and for offenders who attempt to repair the harm.
• RJ gives the victim an active role in the justice process, based on the immediate acknowledgement of guilt from offenders; offers the opportunity to repair harm; supports and augments the reintegration of offenders; and reintegrates of the community in the justice process.
• Legislation is very important in reconciling RJ and the criminal justice system. However, sexual violence crimes are not often referred to RJ due to suitability concerns.
• There is a need to consider the role of the judiciary in the use of restorative solutions among other sanctions when adjudicating on criminal matters. Sentencing policy is capable of accommodating alternative responses or additional responses to crime such as RJ.
• There are many due process considerations in the RJ context:
  • Presumption of innocence: the concern is that participation in RJ might lead to false confessions or to plea bargaining. RJ advocates need to be mindful and work in collaboration with legal professionals to develop procedural safeguards to prevent the right to the presumption of innocence to be infringed.
  • Right against self-incrimination: the concern is that what was said during a RJ process could be used against the offender in criminal proceedings. Procedural safeguards should be put into place such as: voluntary participation, availability of legal advice all stages, and clarity and transparency regarding confidentially.
  • Right to a fair trial: this is not in jeopardy if the criminal justice system and RJ processes are treated as distinct and parallel processes of justice.
  • Right to legal representation: this is not compromised in RJ processes, but rather the role of the lawyers differ from the conventional criminal justice processes.
  • Victims’ rights: the concern is that RJ processes might have power imbalances and possibly re-victimized the victim, especially in cases of sexual violence where power imbalances already exist. The article emphasize the need for specialized training and facilitators to work in pair to include a gender balance.

Authors’ position:

• The authors believe the needs of victims can be effectively met by reconciling RJ processes with conventional criminal justice responses, all while protecting the due process rights of offenders.

Jülich, S., & Bowen, H. (2015). Restorative justice in Aotearoa, New Zealand: Improving our response to sexual violence. Revista De Asistenta Sociala, 14 (4), 93.

Purpose:

• This article proposes a model of recovery that helps RJ practitioners and other justice system professionals identify where victims are located in the journey to recovery, identify their likely reactions, and prepare victims to engage with the justice process.

Methodology:

• This article explores the literature and proposes a model of recovery for victims of sexual offending that combines Herman’s (1997) model of recovery from trauma and Zehr’s (1995) model of recovery from crime.

Findings:

• RJ in the New Zealand criminal justice context does not replace the adversarial process, but rather provides an additional layer of government funded justice processing.
• In light of the review of the existing criminal justice framework, there is growing support for modifying or replacing the existing adversarial system with an alternative structure such as RJ. In fact, there is growing support that the conventional criminal justice system is not geared towards meeting the complex needs of victims.
• Adversarial processes expose victims of secondary trauma, medical assessments, interviews, lengthy trials, delays, and assessments of personal credibility.
• For RJ to be successful in addressing sexual violence, practitioners need to understand the complexities and dynamics of sexual violence, to assess risk and readiness.
• A five stage model for recovery is discussed. It takes into account processes of victimization and recovery, highlights the roles of bystanders and outsiders in the recovery process and in initiating criminal charges, and emphasizes the complex nature of victim recovery. The model is as follow:
  • Stage one: The initial impact of trauma. RJ at this time will not likely be successful.
  • Stage two: The end of sexual violence, but not necessarily the end of emotional and psychological abuse. Victims may experience conflicting emotions and RJ may be premature and harmful at this stage.
  • Stage three: This marks the beginning of the recovery process where victims recognize the abusive experience. RJ at stage three could produce mixed results for victims; it is unlikely to be beneficial.
  • Stage four: Recovery continues for victims and they begin to discover personal strength and power, but remain impacted by the perspectives of offenders. RJ at this stage has a good likelihood of success. Victims have greater capacity to withstand denial and minimization of behaviour but still require support and preparation for RJ.
  • Stage five: The offender no longer dominates the life of the victim and the experiences of abuse become integrated into the life stories of the victim. Offenders no longer have the same influence over the victim’s recovery. RJ at this stage is likely to be successful for all parties but all parties in the RJ process need to be prepared so that they can contribute to the RJ process in a way that is supportive for the victim.

Authors’ position:

• The authors are supportive of RJ in cases of sexual violence with the use of this model to inform professionals about the appropriate timing of the RJ process. According to the authors, RJ can provide a real experience of justice to these victims.

Kasparian, A. (2014). Justice behind bars: Exploring the restorative justice alternative for victims of rape and sexual assault. Suffolk Transnational Law Review, 37(2), 377-410.

Purpose:

• This article explores the implementation of RJ in sexual offence cases bylooking at various pilot programs dealing with sexual assault cases that have been implemented across the world.
• The author examines the roots, evolution, and responses to RJ. The author also explores the process of RJ programs including current trends and criticisms.

Method:

• This article reviews the current state and historical features of RJ. The review includes contrasting RJ with traditional criminal justice approaches, reviewing global problems with the criminal justice system’s response to rape, and describing sexual assault policies around the world.

Findings:

• Only a handful of programs have attempted to use RJ practices in cases of sexual violence, but recently there has been an increase in use and awareness of the programs.
• Rape policies in jurisdictions experimenting with RJ pilot programs for rape victims:
  • Australia recently implemented new policies to provide victims with legal representation and started to consider RJ programs.
  • New Zealand currently has a legislative provision permitting the use of RJ at multiple points during the criminal justice process.
  • In 1998, the Danish Parliament implemented guidelines from the Danish National Board of Health. The guidelines recommend that medical examination, police questioning, and psychological care should all be offered at the same centralized location and that Danish multidisciplinary centers should be established by health services of the each jurisdiction.
• There are many shortcomings and criticisms of RJ. Critics of RJ assume that a victim will suffer from face-to-face interactions with the offender, the offender will blame or control the victim, and a victim's safety may be put at risk and it will result in victim intimidation or re-victimization.
• Some feminists argue that RJ practices lack an understanding about the dynamic of violence against women in the context of gender inequality.
• Some question whether RJ can truly hold offenders accountable and that RJ sends the message that society is not taking sexual offenses seriously.
• Pilot RJ programs across the globe:
  • Some countries, like Australia, have instituted RJ programs beforeacase enters the criminal justice system.
  • In New Zealand and most of the United States, RJ is applied withinthe criminal justice system.
  • Some American states implement RJ programs aftera case goes through the criminal justice system.
  • In some regions, like Denmark, RJ is completely outside of the criminal justice system.
• Implementation of a pre-conviction program that works with the criminal justice system, and is carefully selected, properly managed, and professionally facilitated, would create a new way to meet the justice needs of sexual assault victims.
• An ideal project would work alongside the criminal justice system and may be initiated prior to sentencing. RJ programs must work within the existing system in order to facilitate processes like retaining referrals and eliminating the risk of double punishment for offenders.
• RJ accomplishes the same goals as the criminal justice system such as, deterrence, (stopping) recidivism, rehabilitation, and reintegration, and offering victims support.
• There are many next steps for future RJ work. More pilot programs with empirical data regarding sexual assault are needed before RJ can have a positive impact for everyone involved. It is also important that pilot models share their research and overcome the hurdles faced by previous programs. Finally, future RJ pilot programs should continue to emphasize the core values of honesty, openness, discipline, and restoration.

Author’s Position:

• The author believes that RJ offers a viable alternative to the criminal justice system, though there is a need for further research and experimentation in order to improve justice responses for sexual assault victims.

Keenan, M. (2017). Criminal justice, restorative justice, sexual violence and the rule of law. In E. Zinsstag & M. Keenan (Eds.), Restorative responses to sexual violence: Legal, social and therapeutic dimensions (pp. 44-68). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Purpose:

• This book chapter examines a number of reasons for considering RJ as an additional (and in some cases an alternative) justice mechanism in cases of sexual violence are. The chapter also documents legal considerations that must be accepted when enabling RJ and criminal justice to co-exist for sexual violence cases. This discussion reflects on the public interest aspect of sexual crime, the protection of due process for the accused, and the importance of victims’ rights in response to sexual violence.

Methodology:

• The chapter is a review of perspectives on restorative justice. It begins by acknowledging the different legal and philosophical traditions that underpin common and civil law jurisdictions.
• The case for RJ as an important justice mechanism for victims, perpetrators and communities affected by sexual violence is then be considered.
• The final part of the chapter analyses the challenges involved in reconciling RJ with criminal justice.

Findings:

• The reality of the under-reporting of sexual violence and the high rates of attrition mean that for the majority of victims there is no justice whatsoever. For the majority of offenders there is also no accountability. In these circumstances the case for a purist position regarding RJ as an additional rather than an alternative mechanism in some cases is difficult to endorse fully.
• The jurisdictions in which RJ co-exists with criminal justice for all types of crimes, including sexual assault, are in the majority ones in which criminal justice is underpinned by continental or civil law traditions (such as Belgium, Denmark and Norway), with some exceptions (such as new Zealand, Canada and Australia). Common law jurisdiction have tended to be slower in considering restorative justice initiatives.
• While criminal justice has been criticized for focusing on the public aspects of sexual crime (such as prosecuting wrongdoing, punishing offenders, rehabilitating offenders, preventing future offending) at the expense of victims, RJ has been criticized for focusing on the private interests of victims and offenders while the public desire for punishment and protection is neglected
• The criminal justice system was not established to address directly the harm caused to victims. The criminal trial format leaves little space for the personal account of the victim’s experience and trauma as a result of the assault.
• RJ situates the displaced victim at the center of the justice process by ensuring that victim participation is a key feature of justice delivery
• The key to making the trial process meaningful for victims is the early acknowledgement of guilt by defendants. All of the current features of the criminal justice system militate against this.
• The court process does little to encourage offenders to understand the consequences of their actions or to empathize with victims.
• Increased criminalization and stigmatization of offenders also results in their willingness to deny responsibility and take the risk of forcing the state to prove the case against them. In effect they have little to lose by pleading ‘not guilty’.
• RJ methodologies on the other hand can actively include citizens and immediate communities of care in the justice process, both as secondary victim and as party to repairing the social bonds
• The offender’s participation in RJ must always be on a voluntary basis with the support of legal advice. The offender must also always have the option to limit himself to the criminal process if he feels his right to a fair trial would be otherwise violated.
• A policy framework for non-reported and non-prosecuted cases would also include guidelines on the sanctions or other criminal mechanisms that would apply if an offender fails to abide by the conditions of the RJ as specified in the assessment and agreement.

Author’s position:

• Both the public and private interests must be addressed in cases of sexual assault.
• RJ does not replace criminal justice as a justice mechanism in sexual violence cases. Rather RJ is seen to complement criminal justice by offering victims, offenders and communities a menu of justice options that promotes greater victim participation, perpetrator accountability and community involvement in justice delivery.

Keenan, M., &, Zinsstag, E. (2014). Restorative justice and sexual offences: Can 'changing lenses' be appropriate in this case too? Monatsschrift for Criminology, 97(1), 93-106.

Purpose:

• This article presents the general characteristics of RJ and describes the specific aspects of RJ in cases of sexual violence. The report also notes theoretical considerations of RJ, outcomes, challenges and possible next steps.

Methodology:

• The authors assess the theories of RJ and focus on its appropriateness in cases of sexual violence. The review consists of normative and empirical assessments of RJ in instances of sexual violence. The article examines existing theories of RJ and then compares and contrasts them with traditional criminal justice system approaches in addressing sexual violence.

Findings:

• Many document the origins of RJ and it can be dated back to the ancient Greeks.
• The structure of the criminal legal system makes it difficult to address sexual crimes, notably because of the adversarial process.
• Literature on using RJ in cases of sexual violence distinguishes among different types of sexual crime, and this is an important factor to determine what can be handled restoratively. For example, greater violence and offending of sexual violence brings warnings of the need for careful participation in RJ so there are no other instances of abuse or power-imbalance.
• In family or acquaintance cases, there are different types of power and control at work that need to be considered. In these cases, the literature suggests that RJ facilitators must be well versed in the dynamics of domestic abuse and guard to protect against re-victimization.
• According to some scholars, RJ for sexual violence should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and may consider factors such as the offence, age of offender, and whether this is a first time offence.
• There are values, procedural safeguards and principles to keep in mind. Some include a RJ process that is victim-led, voluntary, encourages offender and system accountability, promotes safety, and ensures victim choice. The procedural safeguards may also include some type of risk assessment or screening.
• While there are no standards for measuring RJ outcomes, most evaluations focus on victim satisfaction. Other indicators may include: reduction of stress; perceptions of fairness; and if there would be participation in the process in the future.
• There is a growing body of evidence on the increase of victim satisfaction and the enhanced therapeutic impact of RJ for victims.
• Some research focuses on offender satisfaction, the decreased desire to re-offend, the help RJ provides in reintegration, and the positive impact of RJ on offenders’ psychology and well-being.

Authors’ position:                                                                                                  

• The authors note the positive impact of RJ. However, the challenges of RJ suggest a need for future research and legislation on the use of RJ in cases of sexual violence.

Lopez, E. C., & Koss, M. P. (2017). The RESTORE Program for sex crimes: Differentiating therapeutic jurisprudence from restorative justice with therapeutic components. In E. Zinsstag & M. Keenan (Eds.), Restorative responses to sexual violence: Legal, social and therapeutic dimensions (pp. 212-228).  New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Purpose:

• This study explores the similarities and differences between RJ and therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ) in cases of criminal sex offences.

Methodology

• The authors begin by presenting an overview of the literature on TJ and RJ, including definitions and functions thereof, then case studies are presented.

Findings

• It is stated that TJ and RJ are not synonymous – a relationship between the two is not agreed upon in the literature.
• The similarities include that they both involve empathy and problem-solving. Both also focus on addressing the underlying factors that may have led to offending and any constructive solutions available to prevent reoffending.
• The difference, however, is that while both TJ and RJ are meant to humanize the justice experience, TJ court programs (i.e., specialized courts) are not intended to be restorative in process. For example, a mental health court still requires adversarial fact-finding and may not be concerned about restoring harm to a victim or community; offenders who plead guilty in specialized TJ courts may also still receive punitive sanctions for their actions (such as prison time).
• Offender accountability is encouraged in court programs that employ a TJ philosophy, yet this adversarial system remains distinctly different from the non-adversarial nature of RJ conferencing programs.
• RJ programs are based on a premise of active responsibility, requiring that offenders accept responsibility of their actions in order to be admitted into the program or process; it is not concerned with fact-finding or weighing of evidence as is required in an adversarial (TJ) process
• Another difference between RJ and TJ is that TJ is primarily focused on offender well-being while RJ programs are victim-centered.
• While RJ and TJ have their differences, they both are considered examples of procedural justice (King, 2008), or when the offender feels as if they are treated fairly and are respected by all parties. 
• RJ programs with therapeutic components produce better outcomes, in terms of victim satisfaction, than adversarial court processes.
• The authors present two case studies that employ TJ practices for sexual offences and found that while they were successful in offender management and reducing re-offence rates, they entirely failed to focus on victims and repair harms done.
• Finally, the RESTORE conferencing model is presented as the RJ case study. This program follows a RJ conferencing model and facilitates community-based therapy services. An evaluation of the program found that overall satisfaction levels were high among survivor-victims.

Author’s position

• TJ and RJ cannot be interchangeable terms in practice due to their distinct philosophical difference – while TJ courts are more frequently starting to address sex offences, the authors warn that it is “dangerous for RJ conferencing to be considered a TJ practice” due to the fact that specialty courts are entirely offender-outcome focused and are adversarial in nature (p. 222).
• It is suggested that RJ programs do not use the term ‘therapeutic’ to promote their programs in order to avoid confusion with TJ-inspired specialty courts.
• A RJ process alone should not claim to be a clinically therapeutic intervention.

Muir-Pfeiffer, G. (2017). Restorative justice responses to sexual violence as non-domination promoting instruments. (Dissertation/Thesis, LLM), ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Purpose:

• This graduate research in law assesses two international RJ models that deals with sexual violence. The concept of non-domination is used to explore and contrast RJ processes with the traditional criminal justice system response.

Methodology:

• The author conducts a literature review and assessment of scholarly work on RJ, features of the traditional criminal justice system responses, and RJ responses to sexual violence.

Findings:

• It is possible for RJ to promote goals that are common to the criminal justice system, notably by serving victims and offenders.
• In RJ, the victim and the offender of sexual assault should be given an opportunity to participate in a process and be heard during that process.
• Current legal responses where offenders wish to admit responsibility for harm are inadequate and do not give the victim a say in the process.
• There are limited options for dealing with sexual violence outside of traditional sentencing. This closes off opportunities for victims and offenders to challenge decisions, rectify harm, and hold the criminal justice system accountable. Other problems with criminal justice/sentencing responses include a lack of opportunity for participation, de-personalizing the process, not recognizing harms, and creating new harms with the collateral consequences of sexual violence convictions.
• RJ allows for a personalized response and the consideration of the voice of the victim.

Author’s position:

• The author believes that RJ is a serious attempt to rectify harm caused by sexual violence.

Naylor, B. (2010). Effective justice for victims of sexual assault: Taking up the debate on alternative pathways. Law Journal, 33(3), 662-684.

Purpose:

• This article proposes an alternative pathway for appropriate sexual violence cases based on principles of RJ and therapeutic jurisprudence. The article explores possibilities, challenges, and presents approaches which may better serve victims and the community.

Method:

• The article reviews literatures and provides a review of debates and solutions in the area of sexual violence.

Findings

• Victims may want the following from the justice system: public retribution and/or punishment; acknowledgement of the harm by the community and the offender; a voice in the process; reassurance that the violence will stop; an apology from the offender and compensation or reparation; and some control over the process.
• Remorse and empathy will be more effective than stigmatisation for achieving an offender’s restoration.
• Recent meta-analyses of RJ programs internationally (all of which excluded sexual assault cases) report mixed results on reduced recidivism but did find that overall they were more effective in reducing reoffending for more serious crimes.
• RJ pathway would begin with a report of sexual assault to the police and referral to the prosecution. The prosecution would work with a multiagency team, including medical and welfare staff, to consider whether the case was suitable for referral to the alternative pathway. Protocols would be established to consider the appropriateness of the type of case and the scope for guilty plea and/or admission.
• The starting point for the use of the alternative pathway would be, first, the desire of the victim to take an alternative pathway and, second, the willingness of the offender to accept responsibility for the harm and to proceed through the restorative pathway.
• The alternative pathway is directed to address serious offending, balance the interests of victims and offenders and the expectations of the community, and to ensure procedural fairness.
• Requirements for conferencing include: participants must be fully informed; conference facilitators must be trained and the conference itself must be structure; there must be clear guidelines as to outcomes; the offender must have clear advice about the consequences of participating; the process must be accountable; it must be possible for both victim and offender to decide not to continue with the parallel option; and, the conference must incorporate effective community representation.
• Studies of victims’ experiences of RJ have shown high levels of satisfaction, although the recent reviews did not include cases of sexual assault
• RJ canoffer valuable responses for some victims of sexual assault and it shouldbe considered, given the failure of the criminal justice system and the unmet needs of victims of sexual assault
• There are many challenges with RJ. For example, there may be a limited range of types of cases which the community would see as appropriate for a non-adversarial pathway; there may be a small range of cases where the offender will acknowledge responsibility; and consideration of sexual assault outside the criminal justice system appears to preclude a retributive or punitive response to a serious harm.
• There are three possible approaches:
  • Most Aligned with the Restorative Justice Model: obtaining the offender’s general acknowledgement of responsibility, followed by referral out of the criminal justice system to a separate conference. The outcome would be an agreement with no criminal justice system sanctions.
  • Most Aligned with the Adversarial Criminal Justice System Model: would be court-based and available only upon a formal guilty plea. On pleading guilty, the offender could be referred to a RJ conference, if the victim and offender wished to engage in this process. The matter would then return to the court for sentencing, taking account of the agreement reached at conference.
  • A Third or Middle Way: This model could be based in a collaborative court process ensuring a role for the victim, a more restorative sentencing regime, and a greater role for the judge to actively challenge attitudes of the offender and the community about sexual offending.

Author’s Position:

• The adversarial criminal justice system serves an important symbolic function in the censure and punishment of sexual assault, but in practice provides little justice to victims. A RJ-based alternative can address at least some feminist and therapeutic goals. It can provide clear and fair incentives to offenders to accept responsibility and engage in a restorative procedure. A more proactive justice system will be better able to empower victims and have the potential to achieve long term change.

Pali, B. (2017). Towards integrative frameworks for addressing sexual violence: Feminist, abolitionist, social harm and restorative perspectives. In E. Zinsstag & M. Keenan (Eds.), Restorative responses to sexual violence: Legal, social and therapeutic dimensions (pp. 28-43). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Purpose:

• The restorative framework can learn from other perspectives within critical criminology to provide answers to sexual violence.

Methodology:

• The article highlights the feminist perspective, the abolitionist perspective, and the social harm perspective in broad strokes and looks at what they can contribute to a RJ framework.

Findings:

• No single perspective alone is able to counter all the problems that are related to sexual violence.
• The feminist approach notes that sexual violence has historically been tolerated and relegated to the private sphere, stopping public recognition and condemnation of the harm it causes.
• Abolitionists believe in alternatives to punishment based on conflict resolution, reconciliation, and creating the social conditions for pain reduction.
• Abolitionism puts almost all crimes on the same political level and ignores the serious and gendered impact of sexual violence.
• The social harm perspective notes that the criminal justice system is overly individualistic. The criminal justice system disproportionately punishes the transgressions of the crimes of the poor and people of colour.
• Something as complex as “doing justice” cannot be measured in the number of years the offender spends in prison.
• RJ considers wrongdoing to be a disruption of social bonds. In RJ, the needs and interests of the persons involved must be addressed in order to solve the disruption.
• RJ seeks to contextualize the wrongdoing and aims for agreement or consensus on how to “make good” among those affected by the wrongdoing.
• RJ allows for participants to discuss and reflect upon the connections between specific acts and the related social conditions which can raise awareness about social harms.

Author’s position:

• A multi-perspective approach is necessary in addressing sexual violence.
• Context-dependent strategies are always needed to deal with sexual violence.
• RJ, if informed by different perspectives, can balance and address the diverse needs of victims, offenders, and community.

Randall, M. (2013). Restorative justice and gendered violence? From vaguely hostile skeptic to cautious convert: Why feminists should critically engage with restorative approaches to law. Dalhousie Law Journal, 36(2), 461-499.

Purpose:

• In this paper, the author discusses key principles and directions for further engagement between feminists and proponents of RJ in the development of approaches to the harms of gendered violence.

Method:

• The article consists of a review and critical engagement with bodies of literature on the criminal justice system, RJ, and RJ models for gendered violence. It offers conceptual arguments on alternative and restorative approaches to gendered violence.

Findings

• Many of the criticisms of RJ, regarding gender violent crimes, are legitimate and must be addressed in any development or adaptation of RJ for gendered violence. Any RJ model for gendered violence must be victim centered and include the victim(s), offender(s), and the community.
• There are criminal justice system problems when it comes to processing gendered violence. Most gender violence crimes are not reported and if they are, many are dropped before trial. Few accused are convicted. The sentences, for those who are convicted, tend to be lenient. The adversarial process of the criminal justice system re-victimizes and re-traumatizes the victim.
• Some key features of RJ include holding the offender responsible and the active participation of the offender to address the harm. RJ aims to repair the harm and heal those affected including the victim, offender, and the community. The community is important because RJ views violence against women as being a social and public issue, not an individual and private one.
• In RJ, the starting point is the offender’s admission of guilt. In a criminal trial, where admissions of guilt are rare, the facts of what happened are contested and denied. This results in attacks on the victim’s credibility.
• Feminist criticisms of RJ include: insufficiency with regard to women’s safety, its softness on offenders, its lack of offender accountability, its insistence on forgiveness, its potential to coerce victims to participate and compromise women’s integrity, and its inability to deliver justice for its victims. A lot of these criticisms involve cases where RJ has been applied without adequate training or understanding of gender inequality and gendered violence.
• There is a need to shift away from only documenting defects of the criminal justice system to alternative approaches to justice. This may involve considering what justice means from the perspective of the victim.
• A RJ approach to gendered violence must include: prioritizing the victim; risk assessment and safety planning; extensive preparation; program standards that are regularly reviewed; the involvement of community members; the abandonment of the idea of neutrality and a focus on anti-violence and gender equality; challenging victim blaming, social denial and the minimization of the harms of gendered violence; specialized training about gender inequality; being cognizant of racism and other social inequalities; a requirement of ongoing monitoring and follow-up; and being trauma informed and include specialized trauma training.
• A successful RJ approach must include careful planning and preparation, development of standards of practice and transparent, self-critical, self-evaluating, and public reporting.
• Despite fiscal constraints, state resources are essential to the development of adequate RJ programs.

Author’s position:

• The author believes that there is a need for more effective, expansive, creative, and victim-centred and victim-sensitive legal remedies for crimes of gendered violence. Women may benefit from RJ rather than the traditional criminal justice system.

Shapland, J. (2014). Implications of growth: Challenges for restorative justice. International Review of Victimology, 20(1), 111-127.

Purpose:

• The author examines what RJ practices exist, its implementation mechanisms, and theoretical viewpoints.
• The article identifies difficulties with RJ and focuses on starting points for RJ practices in new areas, such as RJ with serious crimes.

Methodology:

• The author reviews the RJ literature and organizes the discussion as follows: 1) the development of RJ worldwide, 2) typing up with criminal justice, 3) moves toward professionalization, 4) a need for new theoretical developments, and 5) developing an ethic of RJ.

Findings:

• Conferencing occurs in 26 countries and on all continents. Conferencing is used with young offenders and with a wide range of offences (including domestic violence and sexual violence). Referrals can be made by police, prosecutors, and the courts. There are two ways in which programs are designed: a) the offender has to participate, or b) offender and victim may participate. Participation options include: in person, video/audio links, letters and the use of a proxy. Most programs aim to reach an agreement between the parties present at the conference.
• Mediation occurs in 28 jurisdictions in Europe and 11 jurisdictions outside of Europe. Most programs are for young offenders, with a wide range of offences. Referrals were the same as for conferencing though a bigger proportion come from the courts. The main difference in mediation and conferencing is seen in the finding that though supporters are not formally part of mediation most of the programs described allow both victim and offender to bring a supporter. Mediation programs were less likely to allow a victim replacement (a proxy). Mediation tends to strive for outcome agreement.
• There is a lack of availability, awareness, and trained facilitators of RJ.
• Generally, RJ is used successfully in the majority of cases where it has been mainstreamed as a statutory service and is no longer dependent on referral decisions by criminal justice personnel.
• The growth of RJ and its use in cases of serious offences are likely to lead to a move towards the professionalization of RJ.
• It is only through government action that criminal justice agencies will be encouraged to refer cases and to play their part.
• Problems with RJ include: low public awareness, lack of clarity, lack of a government-based forum, a need to strengthen the ‘statutory footing’, misunderstanding of the roles and outcomes, access to RJ, on-going monitoring and evaluation, and the lack of best practices.
• Potential action include: improving access to RJ, increasing awareness, increasing capacity of skilled facilitators, building evidence for best practice, legislating, creating a database of skilled facilitators, creating a national protocol for information-sharing, and creating local partnerships.
• Professionalization could be facilitated by a national association, even though these new professionals (i.e. RJ facilitators) may remain volunteers (but trained, coordinated and resourced volunteers, funded by the state).
• There are real tensions, dangers and theoretical challenges in increasing professionalization of RJ.
• There is a need to develop an ethic of RJ. Some important values may include: voluntary participation, inclusivity, community, safety, voluntary agreement, and neutral facilitator or mediator.

Author’s position:

• The author believes that the growth of RJ and its increasing closeness to the criminal justice context have brought benefits in terms of the possible use of RJ for different stages of the criminal justice system and for all types of offences (even more serious offences).
• More discussion is required regarding concerns about core values of RJ, developing its ethics, and elaborating a theoretical basis.

Wager, N. (2013). The experience and insight of survivors who have engaged in a justice meeting with their assailant. Temida 16(1), 11-32.

Purpose:

• This article explores the experiences of survivors of sexual violence who engaged in a RJ process with their assailant to determine whether the process helped their recovery.

Methodology:

• This scoping study involves the synthesis and analysis of research and non-research material.
• Search words include: sexual assault or sexual abuse or sexual violence or sexual offen* or gendered violence or child sexual abuse or serious violence or severe violence and restorative justice or conferencing or victim-offender mediation or victim offender dialogue.
• Databases include: SocIndex, Google, Google Scholar, PsychInfo, Sage Criminology Collection, Psychological and Behavioural Sciences Collection and PubMed.
• The study reviews a total of 58 publications and 10 publically available cases/accounts of survivors’ perspectives about their experience in participating in a RJ process that involved a face-to-face meeting with their assailant. The cases used for this study were from the UK, US, Australia, and Spain.

Findings:

• Referrals to a RJ process happen at various stages: diversion from court, following a police caution, and at the same time as the traditional criminal justice system process.
• The cases (historic child sex abuse, marital rape, rape by a stranger, sexual assault of a minor) were either a victim-initiated RJ process or an offender-initiated RJ process.
• The age range of the survivors at the time of the RJ process was from 13 to mid-50s.
• The duration between the sexual assault, or the reporting of the abuse in the context of child sexual abuse, and the RJ meeting was between 4 months and 25 years.
• The duration of the preparation of cases where it involved a victim-initiated program was between 6 months to several years. Cases where RJ was a diversion from the court, the duration of preparation was less.
• Some suggestions for best practices include: 1) offer on-going counselling support, 2) expectation management, 3) preparation/fully informed, 4) offer alternative avenues for survivor engagement in RJ in the event that the offender declines participation, 5) organizing and planning the meeting (e.g. visit of location beforehand), and 6) options to have supports present.
• Arguments supporting RJ include: 1) victim/survivor has a more central role, 2) it can avoid possible secondary victimization under the adversarial processes, 3) validation of experiences during the RJ process, and 4) subjective and holistic focus with RJ, instead of legal conceptualizations, that can work to condemn violence.
• Arguments against RJ include: 1) diminishing the seriousness of the offence / seen as a “soft” approach, 2) RJ may be regressive for the progress made in elevating the seriousness of sexual violence in political and public agendas, 3) victim/survivor safety concerns, and 4) lack of available funding.
• There are a number of gaps in the literature. Some areas/questions for further development include:
  • Understanding survivors’ perceptions of the desirability and expectations of RJ.
  • What kind of survivors show a preference for RJ (e.g., the nature of the victimization and level of engagement in the criminal justice system)?
  • How many people would seek RJ if it were available?
  • Should RJ be offered as an addition or an alternative to conventional justice?
  • Likelihood of engagement based on the criminal justice system stage.
  • Evaluation of existing programs to go beyond the levels of satisfaction (e.g., the change in the degree of self-blame, evidence of letting go and moving on, restoration of damaged relationships, increased sense of safety).
• Some limitations of this work include: small sample of cases examined and certain uncertainties (when these experiences were sought out/how soon after the RJ process); and the possibility that only favourable accounts of RJ will make their way into the public domain.

Author’s position:

• The author believes that there are certain circumstances where survivors of sexual violence could benefit from participating in RJ. However, RJ programs need to be specifically designed for sexual violence cases. There needs to be more funding opportunities or opportunities for investments for programs that exist outside of the criminal justice system to commit time and resources.

Woessner, G., (2017). On the relationship between restorative justice and therapy in cases of sexual violence. In E. Zinsstag & M. Keenan (Eds.), Restorative responses to sexual violence: Legal, social and therapeutic dimensions (pp. 248-265). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Purpose:

• This chapter compares the therapeutic and criminogenic needs of victims and offenders in order to understand the advantages and disadvantages of RJ in cases of sexual violence. The author also explores the relational pathways between therapy and RJ.

Methodology:

• The author reviews existing RJ literature and synthesizes it in response to various questions regarding the relationship between RJ and therapy.
• Questions include:
  • What is the relationship between therapy and RJ?
  • Do they interfere with or complement each other?
  • What are the challenges for RJ practitioners and therapists when the victim or the offender is undergoing both RJ and therapy?
  • Can RJ and therapy be pursued at the same time and are they mutually dependent on each other?
  • Does RJ correspond to the aims of therapeutic work?

Findings:

• RJ may aid in a victim’s therapeutic process of maladaptive to adaptive coping. Further, by allowing victims to address their negative feelings (of anger or shame) the RJ process may assist in increasing or strengthening victims’ positive feelings. For example, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is characterized by recurrent and intrusive recollections and dreams of the incident, very often including flashbacks associated with dissociation, persistent avoidance with stimuli associated with the sexual assault, hyperarousal and negative emotional and/or cognitive changes, and being unable to experience positive emotions; therefore, the combination of therapy with RJ is a way to overcome trauma and regain power over one’s feelings and thoughts.
• Another possible benefit of RJ for victims with PTSD is that it may help them to lose their fear of the offender after hearing that they will not commit further crimes.
• For offenders, RJ may be used in conjunction with sex offender therapy in order to improve empathy deficits, which is a primary treatment goal for sex offenders.
• Another theme in the author’s synthesis of the literature is that therapy and RJ must be clearly separated, including the role of the therapist and that of the RJ facilitator. It should be clear that although RJ may have a therapeutic effect for victims and offenders that it is not in and of itself a form of therapy.
• It is possible for RJ to occur at varying stages within the criminal procedure – police, prosecution, sentencing, or post-sentencing – and who initiates the process may vary.
• The question of whether a victim or offender should be or have been in therapeutic care prior to participating in a RJ process cannot be answered as it is highly dependent upon the situation. It is important that any possible impacts of RJ are identified and how best to manage them before victims or offenders engage in a RJ process.
• Intensive preparation for the RJ process is necessary.
• The timing of a RJ process is crucial to examine. Although some argue that there is no ‘wrong’ stage for it to occur, others assert that the ideal stage is in a post-prison context. RJ should not be hurried as it may take an extended period of time from a therapeutic standpoint to prepare the RJ participants.

Author’s Position:

• RJ must not be considered as a means of therapy. It is also important for both therapists and RJ facilitators to have a comprehensive understanding of trauma and sexual violence when it comes to victimization and offending.
• Because RJ in cases of sexual violence is relatively new, further empirical research is needed with regard to therapeutic efficacy as well as the link between both offender and victims’ treatment and RJ.
• Further theoretical and empirical support for RJ is needed in order to protect the rights of both victims and offenders.

Zinsstag, E., & Busck-Nielsen, V. (2017). Wartime sexual violence and conventional and restorative justice responses: the potential of a “blended approach” within transitional justice. In E. Zinsstag & M. Keenan (Eds.), Restorative responses to sexual violence: Legal, social and therapeutic dimensions (pp. 69-91). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Purpose:

• This book chapter expands practical justice options to wartime sexual violence against women and girls by blending conventional and restorative justice approaches.

Methodology:

• This study consists of a historical look at various justice system responses to wartime sexual violence in societies transitioning to peace. The conventional approach and the RJ approach are critically assessed in order to advocate for a blended approach to addressing sexual violence perpetrated during war.

Findings:        

• Challenges to addressing sexual violence in a post-conflict setting are significant given the scale of violence, the lack of services, and limited police force and judiciary.
• Justice is imperative not only because sexual violence violates human rights, but because justice has implications for societal peace and security.
• The ideal form of transitional justice blends conventional and RJ approaches.
• Achieving fairer treatment for victims and ending the effective impunity granted to most offenders will require sustained political will on the part of international community, national governments and key local actors committed to lasting justice.
• Rigid procedural requirements, which are a staple of the conventional judiciary, can be ill-suited to handle the emotional and personal trauma generated by wartime sexual violence.
• Conventional courts fall short of addressing the complexity of harm caused by wartime sexual violence because they can only provide the imprisonment of the offender and material compensation for victims of wartime sexual violence.
• RJ prioritizes dialogue, acknowledgement of the victim’s harms and the need for repair, which makes healing possible.
• Neither conventional nor RJ responses on their own respond appropriately to wartime sexual violence.
• Truth-seeking mechanisms for victims of massive human rights violations together with reparations programs are increasingly recognized as essential to deal with the legacy of civil war.
• Truth and reparation programs must be flexible enough to ensure victims are not punished, stigmatized, or retraumatized for testifying.
• The transitional justice process should favour a ‘bottom up’ approach and especially community initiatives.

Author’s position:

• Transitional justice mechanisms have an important educational role to play in preventing future victimization.
• Effective transitional justice mechanisms lay the foundations for a just society to emerge.

Zinsstag, E., & Keenan, M. (2017). Restorative responses to sexual violence: Legal, social and therapeutic dimensions. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Purpose:

• A 2014 meeting on RJ in Belgium brought together experts on RJ and sexual violence from academic, practice, community, and policy backgrounds. Some of those discussions are taken up in this edited collection.
• This volume addresses legal, social, and therapeutic dimensions of restorative responses to sexual violence.

Methodology:

• The edited collection consists of a mix of empirical, literature reviews, and theoretical assessments of RJ in the context of sexual violence.

Findings:

• The introductory chapter confronts conceptual and definitional issues, starting points, complexities, and nuances of: sexual violence, victims/survivors, and RJ.
• Despite the benefits of RJ, research in this edited collection is concerned with how the needs and interests of victims are reconciled with the needs and interests of offenders in the RJ process. There is a related concern about how RJ may re-victimize in subtle ways and may be challenging given power imbalances.
• There are safeguards to combat these concerns, including procedural protections that ensure the physical and emotional safety of participants.
• Training among RJ facilitators is emphasized, with a particular focus on the dynamics of sexual violence.
• Big questions posed by victims, such as ‘Why did you do this to me?’ are challenging to ask and challenging to pursue in RJ.
• There is a growing body of work supporting RJ in cases of severe harm. In the cases presented in the volume, research shows how RJ can: meet the needs of victims; allow victims to reclaim their voice; challenge notions that the life of the victim has been ruined; and provide opportunities to change the narrative around the effects of sexual violence.
• There is a perception that RJ in sexual violence is ‘more risky’ so caution, training, skills, and safety are important for practitioners.
• The chapter entitled ‘Repairing the harms of rape of women through restorative justice’ by Nikki Godden-Rasul illustrates how the harms around rape can be used in the RJ process and RJ can contribute to repairing some of these harms.
• The Brunilda Pali chapter entitled ‘Towards integrative frameworks for addressing sexual violence: feminist, abolitionist, social harm and restorative perspectives’ reviews various perspectives that can address sexual violence and argues that RJ frameworks can benefit from other perspectives within critical criminology to learn about sexual violence.
• ‘Criminal justice, restorative justice, sexual violence and the rule of law’ by Marie Keenan reviews the arguments supporting and opposing RJ and some of the legal challenges with RJ.
• Estelle Zinsstag and Virginie Busck-Nielsen’s chapter entitled ‘Wartime sexual violence and conventional and restorative justice responses: the potential of a “blended approach” within transitional justice’ uses examples of wartime sexual violence against women and girls to expand practical justice options with a combination of traditional and RJ approaches.
• Tony Ward’s ‘Restorative justice and the dual role problem confronting practitioners’ presents the dual role problem of RJ where practitioners juggle their ethical responsibilities to victims of crime, the community, and to the individual who has committed a crime.
• Kathleen Daly discusses how to build a body of evidence to assess and compare justice responses to sexual violence in her chapter ‘Sexual violence and victims’ justice interests’. This involves a model that consists of exploring: contexts of victimisation, justice mechanisms, and victims’ justice interests.
• In ‘Sibling sexual violence and victims’ justice interests: a comparison of youth conferencing and judicial sentencing’, Kathleen Daly and Dannielle Wade apply a method to assess and compare RJ conferences, particularly in the context of sibling sexual violence.
• Clare McGlynn, Julia Downes, and Nicole Westmarland’s chapter engages with victims’ justice interest by examining the understandings of ‘justice’ from victims of sexual violence. In ‘Seeking justice for survivors of sexual violence: recognition, voice and consequences’ the authors argue that restorative approaches can satisfy certain aspects of the survivors’ justice interests.
• In ‘Achieving justice outcomes: participants of Project Restore’s restorative processes’ by Shirley Jülich and Fiona Landon, the authors apply the Victimisation and Justice Model (from chapters 6 and 7) to project RESTORE to show how most outcomes are achieved and the interests of victims are met.
• Elise C. Lopez and Mary P. Koss’s chapter entitled ‘The RESTORE Program for sex crimes: differentiating therapeutic jurisprudence from restorative justice with therapeutic components’ analyzes the differences between therapeutic jurisprudence and RJ to argue for conceptual clarity. Notably, they suggest that RJ conferencing programmes should differentiate between the justice and therapeutic outcomes for victims in research and evaluations.
• Miriam Beck, Daniela Bolívar and Bie Vanseveren in their chapter entitled ‘Responsibility, care and harm: the involvement of the community in cases of child sexual abuse. A reflection from the practice experience of the Belgian mediation service Alba’ assess how the closest social relationships for victims’ and offenders’ can participate in RJ.
• Gunda Woessner’s ‘On the relationship between restorative justice and therapy in cases of sexual violence’ compares therapeutic, criminogenic and protective needs of both victims of sexual assault and of sex offenders. This is used to assess achievements and risks of the RJ process in cases of sexual violence.
• Finally, in ‘Circles of support and accountability: survivors as volunteers and the restorative potential’ by Nadia Wager and Chris Wilson assesses the restorative potential for victim/survivors of sexual violence in working with sex offenders as volunteers in Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA). The authors explain how victims/survivors work to maintain their resilience and self-manage risks to their psychological well-being by volunteering with the program.

Authors’ position:

• RJ and sexual violence remains widely under-researched. This edited collection brings varied and rich messages about the use of RJ in this context.

Government reports

Bolitho, J., and Freeman, K. (2016). The use and effectiveness of restorative justice in criminal justice systems following child sexual abuse or comparable harms, Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Sydney.

Purpose:

• In 2013, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse commissioned an international literature review. The review examines research evidence on the use, justification and effectiveness of restorative justice approaches in relation to child sexual abuse and concerns/problems using RJ particularly as it relates to institutional and non-familial child sexual abuse.
• This report focuses on restorative justice approaches used within criminal justice systems.

Methodology:

• A review of international literature on RJ in cases of child sexual abuse. It focuses on four areas:
  • the current extent of RJ in cases of institutional child sexual abuse and other child sexual abuse;
  • the empirical evidence supporting RJ for child sexual abuse (or comparable areas);
  • the issues and criticisms on the use of RJ; and
  • the considerations or implications for using RJ in cases of institutional child sexual abuse.
• To compile the literature to review, the authors conduced a keyword search of 12 databases, a search of grey literature repositories, and engagement with six international RJ networks to explore current practices and research.

Findings:

• There are 15 discrete programs that offer RJ to address harms following child sexual abuse or similar harms. Among these programs, zero reported completing cases relating to institutional child sexual abuse, six use RJ to address other forms of child sexual abuse, five used RJ after some form of adult sexual abuse, and four work with other kinds of harm.
• Three programs are tailored to address the needs of victim-survivors and offenders after sexual abuse. These programs include: ‘Project Restore’ in New Zealand (began in 2005), ‘RESTORE’ in Arizona in the US (operated between 2003 and 2007) and the New South Wales Pre-Trial Diversion of Offenders, known as ‘Cedar Cottage’ (Child Sexual Assault) Program (1989 to 2014).
• Restore and Project Restore (inspired in part by the program in Arizona) are located within explicitly feminist frameworks, advocating for the needs of victim-survivors of sexual abuse.
• The majority of programs (12 out of 15, or 80 per cent) are designed to meet the needs of victims and offenders in the aftermath of serious (usually violent) crime.
• Of the 15 programs, just over half (eight, or 53 per cent) operate pre-sentencing, four (27 per cent) operate post-sentencing with the offender either still in prison or being managed in the community by the relevant criminal justice department, two (13 per cent) accept referrals at either the pre or post-sentencing stage, and one operates pre-court (with referrals made by the prosecutor).
• The programs have four main goals: (i) to support offenders in non-offending by increasing their insight; (ii) to improve victim-survivors’ experience of justice by considering their wellbeing and needs (for example, for information); (iii) to improve victim access to justice by offering a different avenue to address harm; and (iv) to build healthy communities where relationships are strengthened.
• All 15 programs have been evaluated. Some of the findings include:
  • There is good evidence for offender-oriented treatment practices such as the Cedar Cottage Pre-trial Diversion Program.
  • Internationally, there is good evidence for using RJ post-sentencing. There is a 95 per cent success rate (based on pre and post meeting justice needs being met) documented in the Victim Offender Conferencing (see Bolitho 2015) and this is similar to long-established post-sentencing programs in the US (see Victim Offender Sensitive Dialogue, Umbreit et al. 2006) and in Canada (see the Community Justice Initiatives Association’s Victim Offender Mediation Program, Roberts 1995 and Gustafson 2005).
  • The most useful research (assessed based on rigour, relevance and sample size) relates to the South Australian Family Conferencing model. The findings illustrate how harms are dealt with more quickly with conferencing than court, more offenders agree to stay away from victims, offer apologies and are more likely to participate in a treatment program tailored to address the reasons for sex offending.
• There are conditions for good outcomes when using RJ. Some of these include: specialism including the skills of the facilitator, vigilant screening, the use of experts, flexibility and responsiveness to the needs of participants, timing and survivor readiness, and targeted participation in treatment for offenders.
• RJ may also be offered independent of the criminal justice system. The review identified 29 programs that operate outside of a formal civil or criminal justice context. There were 25 empirical studies on programs outside of the justice system.
• For the studies on RJ outside of the justice system, there is evidence for the effectiveness of the Circles of Support and Accountability models in the USA (see Duwe 2013), Canada (see Wilson et al. 2009) and the UK (see Hoing et al. 2013), and the Victims’ Voices Heard program model (see Miller 2011).

Authors’ position:

• The evidence suggests that RJ can be used to achieve good effect following sexual abuse.
• RJ may operate both within and independently of the criminal justice system.
• RJ is seen to have certain qualities, both a mechanism for obtaining justice and a kind of justice.
• The authors expect that extending RJ to cases of sexual violence will be challenging but they rely on emerging evidence illustrating how RJ can be practiced safely and benefits for victim-survivors, offenders and communities after experiencing the harms of sexual abuse.
• RJ is seen as one option on the menu of imaginative and innovative responses to harm.

Centre for Innovative Justice. (2014). Innovative justice responses to sexual offending – pathways to better outcomes for victims, offenders and the community. Melbourne, VIC: RMIT University/ Centre for Innovative Justice.

Purpose:

• The Centre for Innovative Justice was commissioned by the Australian Attorney General’s Department to identify important innovations in the justice system.
• The objectives include: identifying innovative justice processes that have the potential to meet the needs of victims of sexual offending; addressing public interest concerns; and preventing reoffending in ways that the conventional justice system cannot achieve.

Methodology:

• The report builds upon existing theoretical work and proposes a best practice for sexual offence RJ conferencing. The work is influenced by national and international innovations that can be tailored and implemented in all Australian jurisdictions.
• The report consists of a national and international review of research and current practices, as well as consultation with stakeholders.

Findings:

• Sexual assault is complex and pervasive yet the criminal justice system response is inadequate for a large majority of victims. Especially given that victims have historically been met with denial, disbelief, limited understanding, gendered assumptions, and inadequate responses.
• Legal responses seen in tough penalties, stringent release conditions, and long sentences do not address the majority of sexual offending and make offenders reluctant to accept responsibility. It simultaneously makes victims reluctant to pursue prosecution.
• RJ tends to exist at the periphery and is not extended to sexual offending for adults.
• If there are comprehensive safeguards, and a coordinated and properly resourced system, RJ for sexual offences through conferencing has the potential to meet more justice needs of victims who are currently being failed by the system.
• A RJ conferencing model for sexual offending includes: legislation and overarching principles, a RJ oversight body, specialist teams on gender violence, expert assessments to determine the suitability of RJ, skilled specialists as RJ facilitators, basic eligibility criteria, clear pathways in and out of RJ, consultation with Indigenous communities, RJ that is responsive to the needs of victims and their cognitive impairments, disabilities, and mental illness, funded and accessible community-based sex offender treatment, and balance of the victim’s autonomy and public policy considerations.
• A suite of recommendations are presented to: achieve greater justice for more victims, hold more offenders accountable, more effective crime prevention, offer tailored and flexible response from the justice system, operate as part of the solution not only to individual offences but also to the systemic nature of sexual violence, and draw on expert knowledge of sexual offending.

Author’s position:

• Victims need more choice in their pursuit of justice. They need options to best meet their circumstances, they need opportunities to tell their story, they need to have their harm acknowledged, they need to participate in the process, and they need to have a say in the outcome.
• The justice system should be responsive, inclusive, flexible, and fair.
• The choice is not between “tough” or “soft” responses to sexual harms, but reform depends on “appropriate” responses that meet victims and offender’s needs, rights, and integrity.
• There should be no explicit offender or offence exclusions. Rather, victim autonomy, consent, and expert forensic assessments should guide the decision about RJ suitability.
• Justice processes should be seen as an essential service and therefore not be beyond the reach of a majority of sexual assault victims.

Fox, K. J. (2013). Circles of Support and Accountability, Prepared for the State of the Vermont Department of Corrections, United States.

Purpose:

• The Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA) re-entry program in Vermont is funded by the Second Chance Act of 2007: Community Safety through Recidivism Prevention (H.R. 1593/S. 1060), which is funded by the U.S. Congress. Part of the funding is allocated to evaluations.
• CoSA is a community-based, nonprofessional model offering a reintegration support team for high-risk released offenders to help develop mutual relationships, navigate their social life, and be held accountable to the team, victim(s), and community.
• In 2010, the State of Vermont Agency of Human Services, Department of Corrections, contracted with Professor Fox to conduct a qualitative evaluation of their CoSA program funded by the federal Second Chance Act. The in-depth qualitative analysis examined how CoSAs work.

Methodology:

• The evaluation consists of a qualitative assessment of CoSAs in Vermont. It is based on semi-structured, open-ended interviews with core CoSA members including released offenders, community volunteers, and coordinators.
• The evaluation analyzes the nature of CoSAs’ relationships and how the program works. The evaluation focuses on answering three questions:
  • How do CoSAs work?
  • What is the nature of the relationships formed within Circles?
  • How do the relationships support desistance from crime/why do CoSAs work?
• The study evaluated 21 CoSAs including 21 core members (released offenders), 59 volunteers, and 9 re-entry coordinators for a total of 89 participants.

Findings:

• The CoSA program has a profound impact on core members and volunteers.  
• CoSA has also helped core members abide to stringent release conditions.
• Volunteers noted the positive effect, value, and benefits of the program.
• Core members noted feeling grateful for the support and enthusiastic about the program. All but one core member was fully positive about the program. Core members also expressed more positive sense of self as contributing members to society, a commitment to pro-social relationships, a sense of mutual obligation toward and trust of circle members, and greater optimism for the future. Most core members noted that they would have returned to jail without the help of the CoSA.
• CoSAs fill the gap that exists among programs inside prisons, compliance, and supervision in the community. These gaps include the lack of support from family and/or friends; institutionalized sense of self because of a long term of confinement; and relationship and life skill deficits.

Authors’ position:

• The author recommends:
  • Retaining and expanding the use of a CoSA-inspired model;
  • The need to focus on staff buy-in; and
  • Using CoSA as a roadmap for correctional practice.

 

• Previous page
• Table of Contents