Abstract
This book provides a long-awaited and invaluable insight into victims’ experiences with restorative justice (RJ) and their position within RJ practices. As the editors state in their general introduction, there has been a proliferation of RJ research that explores and evaluates the position, development and practice of RJ as well as outlines the benefits of RJ to the victim, the offender and the wider community. Regardless of the wealth of research and literature in the field of RJ, research that specifically explores the victims’ experience of RJ is limited and incomplete. According to the editors there is a lack of research that provides an in-depth understanding of the dynamics within the RJ process, the lived experience of the victim and the position of the victim in RJ practice. This book fills that void by providing an understanding of victims’ experiences in RJ and how the context in which RJ programmes are developed determines the victims’ involvement and experience.
The first section explores ‘Victims in restorative justice literature’, which provides an account of victimisation experiences as well as victims’ need for justice and contextualises the position of the victim in RJ as portrayed in existing literature and empirical research.
Within the main body of the book (Part II ‘Victims in mediation and conferencing: European research’) the authors present the findings of their study in regard to victims’ experiences with RJ and the types of participation (including non-participation) within the context of the legislative, organisational and institutional frameworks of Austria, Finland and the Netherlands. The reader is provided with an in-depth understanding of the historical and current development and practice of RJ within each of these European countries. The position of the victim within both the criminal justice system and RJ is outlined in order to illustrate how victims’ experiences, access and involvement in RJ differ across jurisdictions and are influenced by the societal ecology and the legislative and organisational framework of the jurisdiction. In addition to the primary research, findings from a previous research project on the position and experience of the victim within RJ conferencing in Belgium are outlined and used as a further comparison. Victim–offender mediation (VOM) is the RJ process practised in Austria, Finland and the Netherlands and the research on Belgium provides an additional insight into victims’ experiences of RJ conferencing.
The final chapter of Part II analyses and draws comparisons and conclusions through a relativist epistemological approach, which is applied across the four countries in order to further distinguish the influence that institutional settings have on victims’ experiences and involvement. The findings are comparatively drawn together to contextualise the four countries’ RJ programmes as seen through a ‘societal ecology’ lens. The main finding is that RJ practice is diverse and varies according to the societal ecology of the country in which RJ is developed. The particular societal ecology framework – and its institutional, political and cultural characteristics – of each of the countries in this study impacts on the motives behind the implementation of RJ and results in divergent discourses and objectives for RJ, e.g. as a diversionary or complementary process or as neutral, victim-focused or offender-oriented.
The societal ecology under which RJ practices are developed determines not only the position of RJ but also influences victims’ experiences, access and involvement with RJ. A detailed insight into the experiences and (non)involvement of victims in RJ is provided and explains that the majority of victims, regardless of what jurisdiction they are in and regardless of the institutional setting and aim of the RJ programme, were satisfied with their experience with RJ. Whilst the context and setting of the RJ programme did not overly impact on victim satisfaction, victims’ experiences differed by country. Victims’ motives for participation in RJ were affected by the particular setting in which RJ was implemented and the position of the victim depended on the relationship and positioning of the RJ programme within the criminal justice system. There are some interesting and challenging findings relating to the use of RJ in partner violence in Finland that challenge the theoretical debates and arguments regarding the suitability of RJ for such cases – the findings support the use of RJ in domestic violence despite some caveats. One other interesting point in the comparative analysis relates to the concerns surrounding RJ and secondary victimisation. The offer of RJ does not (from the findings of this research) cause secondary victimisation if delivered with sufficient information and preparation.
It is Pemberton’s chapter on victims in the Netherlands that, for me, is the most interesting chapter. It provides a unique perspective on the philosophical and ideological factors that influence the development and practice of RJ. It is here that the argument that victims’ participation and experiences are determined by the societal ecology in which RJ is implemented and practised is boldly presented. Pemberton highlights, through Entman’s ‘framing theory’, how social movements, such as RJ, have to adjust through ‘frame alignment’ to the societal ecology in order to ‘fit in’. The concept of ‘frame alignment’ provides an insight into how RJ practice has developed in different guises across various nations. One of the key facets of the Netherlands’ societal ecology, for instance, is the endorsement of a ‘neo-liberal mode of penal governance’ (p.133). In addition to this punitive shift (with a clear victim–victimiser dyad) is the rise of the victim (whose needs and protection are paramount). RJ has, therefore, developed within a ‘victimological frame’ to fit within the specific societal ecology of the Netherlands. The end result is that RJ has lost its transformative essence and is used cautiously and sparingly, i.e. mainly for victims of minor and moderately serious crimes. Interestingly, Pemberton does suggest that RJ can develop without realigning or adjusting its main principles, namely in times of crisis. The fiscal crisis of recent years, coupled with the neo-liberalism of individualism, and more recently individual responsibility, appears to be (since 2013) providing the opportunity for RJ to emerge as a key player in the justice process in the Netherlands.
In the final section of the book (Part III) Bolívar discusses the opinions of RJ practitioners on how the victim is involved or should be involved in RJ. Bolívar, referring to Rappaport’s (1981) ‘empowering and the prevention-needs model’, illustrates the various conceptions of victimhood between RJ practitioners and victim support practitioners (VSPs). VSPs appear to have a conception of victimhood that is based on ‘prevention-needs’, which impacts on the type and levels of victim participation in RJ. These differing conceptions of victimhood go some way to explaining why there is little collaboration between the two types of practitioners and why, for instance, in the Netherlands, a country with a strong victimological focus, very few victims are referred to RJ by VSPs.
One slight disappointment of the book is that, whilst the authors provide a much required insight into participating victims’ experiences, only a limited insight is provided into non-participating victims. This cohort of victims requires further research and the authors acknowledge that the limited numbers of non-participating victims impinges on the generalisability and validity of their research findings. One positive finding though was that all of the non-participating victims stated that the process of RJ should be offered to all victims of crime. Overall, the findings of this European research invaluably contribute to the fields of criminal justice, victimology and restorative justice through the perspective of the victims’ experiences of RJ.