Possibility of Sincere Apology in Restorative Justice: When and How?

Introduction

After interpersonal transgression, there are several acts that are socially demanded. An apology is one of them because it has benefits. An apology can have a healing effect on the damaged relationship by paving a path toward reconciliation (Bottoms, 2003; Tavuchis, 1991), on victims by restoring their sense of dignity (C. Bennett, 2006), and on offenders by signaling their morality as a law-abiding citizen for their reintegration into society (Vines, 2017).

Restorative justice is a new justice response that is widely used in the conventional criminal justice systems (Gavrielides, 2021). Although receiving an apology is one of the important needs for victims (Strang, 2002), an apology is considered a secondary goal of RJ (Hayes, 2006; Stubbs, 2007) because RJ is dialogue-driven rather than settlement-driven (Hansen & Umbreit, 2018). As a conflict resolution process, however, RJ can facilitate an apology (Schneider, 2000), and research showed that offenders who participated in RJ were more likely to offer an apology to their victims than those sent to criminal courts (Sherman et al., 2005).

When it comes to apologizing in RJ, it is important to bear in mind that just offering an apology may not be enough. An apology may need to be perceived as sincere (C. Bennett, 2008; Brook & Warshwski-Brook, 2010; Hayes, 2006; Walgrave, 2011). In this regard, Daly (2006, p. 139) distinguished two types of apologies: “ideal-typical apology” and “sincere apology.” Whereas “there is an expression of forgiveness from a victim to an offender” in the former, “there is a mutual understanding between the parties that the offender is really sorry, but there is no assumption of forgiveness” in the latter. ¹ Daly (2006) argued that one may expect only a sincere apology to be possible in RJ because “we should not expect a victim to forgive an offender ”(p. 139). ² Despite this expectation, existing literature revealed mixed findings on the perceived sincerity of apology in RJ. Although some studies suggested that victims regarded their offender’s apology as sincere (Bolívar et al., 2015; Vanfraechem, 2015), other research reported otherwise (Honkatukia, 2015a; Hoyle et al., 2002; Wagland et al., 2013; Walters, 2014). Moreover, there seems to be a gap in the perceived sincerity between offenders and victims because, while offenders claimed that they offered a sincere apology, victims disagreed with it (Choi & Severson, 2009; Daly, 2005).

A question arises: Why is there a gap in the perceived sincerity of apology in RJ? To date, there has been no in-depth investigation on this issue. One exception may be Hayes (2006) who pointed out the influence of the presence of third parties on an apology. However, there is still a lack of understanding of what constitutes a sincere apology in RJ and what leads to a sincere apology in RJ. This paper aims to expand our knowledge about the conditions under which a sincere apology is possible in RJ. More specifically, this paper seeks to identify the key components of a sincere apology that are pertinent to RJ as well as the promoting and inhibiting factors for a sincere apology in RJ. Since RJ aims to repair the damaged relationship between victims and offenders, unpacking the micro-mechanism of a sincere apology is helpful because it may be an important precursor to reconciliation (C. Bennett, 2007; Bottoms, 2003).

By reviewing the extant literature, this paper first describes what we know about apology in RJ including the role, prevalence, and perceived sincerity. This paper then discusses the importance of a sincere apology to victims and offenders. This is followed by an investigation into what constitutes a sincere apology in RJ. After analyzing the conditions where a sincere apology is possible in RJ based on the promoting and inhibiting factors for a sincere apology, this paper concludes by providing future research implications on the relationship between a sincere apology and RJ.

What Do We Know About Apologies in RJ?

As a result of victimization, victims have a variety of needs. Surveying the victimology literature, Strang (2002) reported that the victim needs include giving a voice, receiving information, participation in decision-making, fair treatment, material reparation, emotional restoration, and an apology. This finding resonates with ten Boom and Kuijpers (2012) who conducted a systematic review of the victim’s needs. They found that the victims of crime needed proper treatment, an opportunity to express their feelings, information about procedures, involvement in their case, and reparation including an apology.

Despite such importance, the role of apology in RJ remains peripheral. For example, Hayes (2006) noted that while an apology is one of the key features of RJ, it is not integral to the RJ process. Stubbs (2007, p. 177) went beyond this and opposed overvaluing the role of apology in RJ by stating that “much of the RJ literature continues to stress apology . . . with little or no apparent recognition of the potential for imposing obligations on the parties, for generating inauthentic expressions of emotion or of safety issues for victims.” Thus, an apology is regarded as a secondary goal of RJ that is not aimed at.

Interestingly, however, an apology seems to be prevalent in the RJ process. Both Bolitho (2012) and Braddock (2011) observed that about 30% of offenders in their research apologized to the victims in the RJ process. Other studies reported even higher percentages of the prevalence of apology in RJ. Among 48 victims who participated in mediation, Honkatukia (2015b) found that 70% of victims received an apology during the process. In a small qualitative study by McMaster (2014), all eight victims of intimate partner violence stated that offenders said sorry during the RJ process. Dhami (2016a) also reported that more than half of the agreement plans the RJ process included an apology.

While such a high prevalence of apologies may be welcomed, simply offering an apology may not be enough. To be effective and meaningful, an apology may need to be perceived as sincere (C. Bennett, 2008; Brook & Warshwski-Brook, 2010; Hayes, 2006). Walgrave (2011, p. 126) argued that “If the apology is experienced as a strategy by a calculating offender to get lesser sanctions, rather than as an expression of genuine regret and acceptance of guilt, the victim may feel betrayed again in his [or her] confidence and undergo some secondary victimization.” In this respect, apology in RJ may not always be successful because existing research on RJ indicated that some victims were not satisfied with the apology because they felt that the apology from their offenders was not sincere (Honkatukia, 2015a; Hoyle et al., 2002; Wagland et al., 2013; Walters, 2014).

More importantly, there appears to be a gap in the perceived sincerity of apology between offenders and victims. In other words, while offenders claim that they sincerely offer an apology, victims feel it otherwise. To my knowledge, this finding was first reported by Daly (2005). Drawing on the subsets of the South Australian Juvenile Justice data, where both victims and offenders participated in the conferencing process, Daly (2005) found that “61 per cent of offenders said they were really sorry, but just 27 per cent of victims thought that offenders were really sorry” (p. 156). This finding was echoed by Choi and Severson (2009, p. 817) who conducted a small but in-depth qualitative analysis of the perceptions toward apology in victim-offender mediation (VOM) by focusing on the letter of apology “as a primary tool used for delivering an apology” in VOM. According to their interviews, offenders and their parents “believed that their apologies were genuine and were under the impression that the victims felt the same way” when they gave a letter of apology to the victims (Choi & Severson, 2009, p. 819). This was not the case for victims in their research, however, because they accepted the letter but “did not think that the apologies were sincere and heartfelt enough” (Choi & Severson, 2009, p. 818).

Why Does a Sincere Apology Matter?

To date, the disparity in the perceived sincerity of apology in RJ has not been thoroughly investigated. Yet, an apology may better be perceived as sincere in RJ because it benefits both offenders and victims in differing ways. First, giving a sincere apology may be linked to desistance from crime among offenders. In the legal setting, Robbennolt (2013) compared the effect of apologies given by the wrongdoer and their attorneys and found that when a responsibility-taking apology was offered by offenders, victims not only viewed such offenders as respectful and moral but also reduced anger and desire to punish. Other research offered a similar finding because an apology from offenders could increase the level of victims’ trust in the wrongdoer (Ma et al., 2019) and decrease the level of victim aggression toward the harm-doers (Ohbuchi et al., 1989). Taken together, giving a sincere apology may help to increase self-esteem and develop a pro-social identity because offenders may feel trusted as a law-abiding citizen. Given the emphasis on identity transformation in the recent desistance literature (Maruna, 2001), this positive change in the offenders’ perception of self may serve as what Giordano et al. (2002) called a “hook for change,” thereby supporting their desistance process (Lauwaert & Aertsen, 2016).

Receiving a sincere apology from offenders may also be related to victim recovery. Hubbard et al. (2013) examined how the variability of apologies, such as timing and sincerity, impacted victims in terms of communication satisfaction and changes in negative emotions including anger and sadness. Their results revealed that an apology that was perceived as sincere was associated with victims’ satisfaction with communication as well as decreases in anger and irritation. Relatedly, research by Anderson et al. (2006) indicated that victims who received a sincere apology reduced anger and improved their blood pressure levels. In addition to such emotional restoration, a sincere apology may assist the victim recovery process through account-making. According to Chouliara et al. (2014, p. 69), victim recovery is not only “symptom remission” attributed to victimization but also “the personal process and experience over time in order to reach a meaningful sense of life” post victimization. The literature on victim recovery suggested that one of the key components in this cognitive process of recovery requires making meaning of victimization because victims need to move on from victimization by reframing their traumatic adversity (e.g., Graham et al., 2022). Receiving a sincere apology in RJ may help this account-making process because, as will be discussed below, victims can not only receive an acknowledgement of the harm caused to them through an explanation about why the offending has happened, but also understand that victimization is not their fault by viewing offenders take responsibility for the wrongdoing.

What Can Be Considered a Sincere Apology in RJ?

If a sincere apology matters for both offenders and victims, the next question is what constitutes a sincere apology in RJ. In this regard, there seems to be some overlap in what scholars proposed as common components for a meaningful apology. For example, Lazare (2004) divided the apology process into four elements including acknowledgement of harm, explanation of wrongdoing, demonstration of pro-social attitudes, and reparation. Similarly, Petrucci (2002) argued that the key components of an apology are “an expression of remorse or regret, acceptance of responsibility, compensation, and a promise to avoid the behavior in the future” (p. 359). Gill (2000, p. 12) also noted that a “full” apology includes “an acknowledgment that the incident in question did in fact occur,” “an acknowledgment that the incident was inappropriate in some way,” “an acknowledgment of responsibility for the act,” “the expression of an attitude of regret and a feeling of remorse,” and “the expression of an intention to refrain from similar acts in the future.”

However, it is important to stress that an apology is not “a fixed content” (Slocum et al., 2011, p. 90). The importance of apology elements may vary depending on the content and context of the transgression (Kirchhoff et al., 2012). This may especially be the case for an apology in RJ because RJ deals with more severe transgression than conflict in a close relationship such as a married couple that is commonly targeted in the literature on an apology (Lewis et al., 2015). The more serious the wrongdoing is, the more different components may be needed for a sincere apology (Bippus & Young, 2020). It is therefore necessary to identify the essential components of a sincere apology that are particularly pertinent to RJ (Blecher, 2011).

There may be two key elements for an apology to be perceived as sincere in RJ. The first is an acknowledgment of harm caused to victims. According to Govier and Verwoerd (2002), acknowledgement through an apology has important functions for an apology to work. Not only does the acknowledgement of harm express the moral regret of the offenders, but it also reaffirms the moral status of the victims because the offenders admit that the wrongdoing is their fault, not the victims’. Furthermore, acknowledgement of harm through an apology can help to justify the anger of victims and other negative emotions that are attributed to crime because it gives legitimacy to these feelings (Govier & Verwoerd, 2002). These functions of acknowledging harm were empirically confirmed by Newman and Kraynak (2013, p. 41), who found that when there was a clear interpersonal transgression, apologies that involve an acknowledgement of harm were likely to be “well received.” Similarly, Allan et al. (2014) also reported that apologies with a self-other focus that acknowledges the impact of offending on victims were more likely to be perceived as sincere than apologies with a self-focus that only recognizes the impact on offenders.

As a dialogue-driven process, RJ can help offenders acknowledge the harm they have caused to victims. Hayes (2017) noted that in the RJ process, offenders are first asked to tell a story about why they engaged in offending and how they feel about it. Victims are then allowed to ask questions about offending and express feelings about offending. This story-telling process may lead to acknowledgement of harm because telling their own stories and listening to the victims’ stories may make offenders “feel guilt and shame . . . and develop sincere remorse, which may trigger the offering of sincere apologies” (Hayes, 2017, p. 410). In fact, research demonstrated that the RJ process encouraged offenders to acknowledge their wrongdoing (Calhoun & Pelech, 2013).

The second element for an apology to be perceived as sincere in RJ is taking responsibility for the wrongdoing. Waller (2007) argued that a sincere apology requires transgressors to admit responsibility for their wrongdoing. An apology that lacks responsibility-taking may be regarded as “too general and vague” and consequently perceived as insincere because a sincere apology demands that offenders “regret and apologise specifically for the harm he or she has done” (Szablowinski, 2012, pp. 732, 733). Research by Robbennolt (2006, p. 368) showed that responsibility-accepting apologies were effective in promoting legal settlement by transforming the victims’ perceptions about the conflict situation and the transgressor in a way that made them “more amenable to settlement discussions.” An apology that involves taking responsibility may have such an impact because the agency of transgression is clear. Wang and McGlone (2020, p. 75) found that victims were in favor of “apologies that assign agency for the transgression to the transgressor” over “those omitting agency.”

It is well-known that RJ works better in encouraging offenders to take responsibility for their offending than conventional criminal justice approaches. This may be because, through respectful listening and fair treatment that helps to nurture repentance within offenders (Braithwaite, 2000), RJ encourages offenders to take not only passive responsibility by merely admitting their offence but also active responsibility by engaging in making amends for the harm caused to victims (Braithwaite & Roche, 2001). Therefore, victims who attended RJ were also more likely to feel that offenders took the responsibility for the harm caused to them (Calhoun & Pelech, 2013).

When and How Is a Sincere Apology Possible in RJ?

The preceding section has revealed that RJ embraces the key components for an apology to be perceived as sincere. If an apology is offered by satisfying these conditions in RJ, it may be considered sincere. In addition to these key elements of a sincere apology in RJ, there are also other factors that can promote the sincerity of apology in RJ. For one, self-affirmation through RJ may help offenders offer a sincere apology. Transgression can damage not only victims but also offenders because wrongdoing means a breach of the social norm, thereby diminishing the trust in the wrongdoers. By being labeled as an “outsider” as a result of their offending, offenders may harm their self-integrity and develop an anti-social identity. When offenders view themselves as such, a sincere apology may be less likely to be offered because apologizing is a moral act that requires condemning their past (Edwards, 2015). Therefore, to give a sincere apology, offenders may first need to restore their self-esteem. According to Schumann (2014), helping self-affirmation of offenders was positively associated with the likelihood of offenders giving a comprehensive apology that involves acknowledgement of harm and responsibility-taking. RJ can offer self-affirmation because it provides fair treatment and respectful listening to offenders (Barnes et al., 2015), which may, in turn, assist them in restoring their self-value (Strang et al., 2011) and subsequently offering a sincere apology.

Reparation may also be a promoting factor for a sincere apology in RJ. Duff (2003, p. 51) contended that when a crime is serious, “even a sincere verbal apology might not do enough” because “verbal apologies can easily be [perceived as] insincere—mere words that lack depth or truth.” Duff (2003) went on to argue that for an apology to be sincere, “we often need to give more than merely verbal expression to things that matter to us.” According to Duff (2003), one strategy to strengthen an apology is accompanying material reparation. Duff’s proposal is consistent with the findings on so-called a “costly apology,” which refers to an apology that goes beyond a mere verbal expression and incurs a cost to transgressors including compensation for damage. By comparing the effects of costly apologies and non-costly apologies, Ohtsubo and Higuchi (2022) found that costly apologies were more effective in communicating the transgressors’ sincerity of the apology. It is common to discuss reparation as part of the agreement plan in RJ, and a meta-analysis by Latimer et al. (2005) demonstrated that there was a high compliance rate with this agreement plan. Therefore, when reparation is included in the agreement plan and an apology is offered in RJ, the apology may be regarded as sincere.

Alongside these promoting factors for a sincere apology, there are also factors that can inhibit a sincere apology in RJ. As mentioned at the outset of this paper, Hayes (2006) was the first to aptly investigate why a sincere apology might be hindered in RJ. Drawing on Tavuchis (1991), Hayes (2006, p. 378) pointed out the influence of third parties in RJ on the sincerity of the apology. While an apology is primarily a private act between victims and offenders, RJ makes it “a public drama,” which involves other people such as a facilitator, police officer, and supporter (Hayes, 2006, p. 379). Their involvement may generate some pressure on victims and offenders to reconcile as a moral exercise in the face of third parties as a representation of the public (Hayes, 2006). For example, offenders sometimes sense pressure from the facilitator to apologize (Riley & Hayes, 2018). As a result, an apology may be offered due to the pressure to conform to the expectation of reconciliation rather than out of genuineness (Vines, 2017), which may negatively impact the victims’ perceived sincerity of the apology in RJ.

Relatedly, an apology may be coerced in RJ. Jehle et al. (2012) suggested that victims were sensitive to the voluntariness of apology and viewed a voluntary apology more favorably than a coerced apology. This finding was confirmed in experimental studies that used a vignette of RJ. Saulnier and Sivasubramaniam (2015) demonstrated that “coerced apologies were evaluated as conveying less remorse, guilt, and potential for dispute resolution than apologies that were not coerced” (p. 384). More recently, Allan et al. (2022) found that voluntary apologies had a more positive impact on the perceived sincerity of the recipients than ordered apologies. Despite the importance of voluntariness in apology, offenders are sometimes coerced to apologize in RJ (Hoyle et al., 2002), leading to the assumption that coercion on apology may be one of the reasons for the gap in the perceived sincerity of apology in RJ.

If offenders wish to convey the sincerity of their apology, their apology may need to entail a non-verbal expression, especially eye contact. Bonensteffen et al. (2020) examined how eye contact influenced the perceived sincerity of apology by using eye-tracking technology in a fictitious crime scenario where victim-offender mediation was used. They found that there was a positive association between eye contact and the perceived sincerity of apology because, when an apology was offered, victims paid attention to “the offender’s upper face region, that is, around the eyes and the eyebrows (e.g., Chaby et al., 2017)” (Bonensteffen et al., 2020, p. 13). Nevertheless, as Suzuki and Wood (2018) argued, some offenders, especially young ones, may not have sufficient communication skills. Indeed, Choi and Severson (2009, p. 819) reported that victims who participated in victim-offender mediation questioned the sincerity of apology because young offenders failed to show “non-verbal cues such as looking the victim in the eye, appearing to look remorseful in facial expressions, [and] speaking with a tone of respect.” Therefore, when offenders are immature and lack sufficient communication skills, an apology offered in RJ may be less likely to be perceived as sincere due to the lack of non-verbal clues for sincerity.

Last but not least, the severity of the crime may matter in the perceived sincerity of apology in RJ. According to Bennett and Earwaker (2001, p. 462), the rejection of apology was “determined at least in part by the degree of the offender’s responsibility for the event and, independently, by the seriousness of the event.” Furthermore, research by Hubbard et al. (2013) suggested that when conflict discussions continued for more than 10 minutes, earlier apologies were more likely to lead to communication satisfaction and subsequently to perceived sincerity than later apologies. When these findings are combined with the findings that offenders in RJ tend to feel nervous at the beginning of the RJ process and sometimes fail to show their emotions such as remorse (Choi et al., 2011), an apology, if offered at the later phase of RJ or as part of the agreement plan, may be less likely to be perceived as sincere when crime is serious.

Taken together, Figure 1 sketches the possible paths of apology when it is offered in RJ. Since RJ has functions to encourage offenders to acknowledge the harm caused to victims as well as to take responsibility for their wrongdoing, an apology offered in RJ may basically be perceived as sincere by victims. The sincerity of apology offered in RJ may further be promoted because offenders may do self-affirmation through fair treatment and respectful listening in RJ and/or their apology may entail compensation and become a costly apology. This path may, however, be altered when third parties are present in RJ and put pressure on reconciliation, when an apology is coerced in RJ, when offenders are too immature to make appropriate non-verbal expressions, and/or when the crime is serious.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Possibility of a sincere apology in RJ.

The above theoretical framework for the possibility of a sincere apology in RJ is not without limitations. For one, it remains hypothetical at this stage. Since it is built heavily on the existing literature on an apology, it warrants an empirical test. In addition, while an apology may be offered by parents of young offenders as a supporter in RJ (Prichard, 2002), the above theoretical framework may only apply to the apology between victims and offenders because it has drawn on the literature that was focused on apology between the wrongdoer and wronged rather than between wrongdoer and third parties.

Conclusion

While the role of apology is secondary in RJ, an apology is prevalent in RJ. The problem is that there appears to be a gap in the perceived sincerity of apology between victims and offenders. To date, there is a lack of understanding of what constitutes a sincere apology in RJ and what leads to a sincere apology in RJ. This gap of knowledge may be detrimental to the theory and practice of RJ because a sincere apology may serve as a prelude to desistance, victim recovery, and reconciliation. By reviewing the extant literature, this paper has highlighted the key components of a sincere apology in RJ as well as the promoting and inhibiting factors for a sincere apology in RJ. Moving beyond Hayes (2006), this paper is the first to discuss under what conditions a sincere apology is possible in RJ. This paper adds to the literature by unpacking the micro-mechanism of a sincere apology in RJ.

Based on the identified conditions of when and how a sincere apology is possible, this paper concludes by providing research implications on a sincere apology in RJ. Given the complexity of apology (Bolívar et al., 2013), the sincerity of apology in RJ may be best examined with a qualitative approach (Stanfield, 2006). When employing a qualitative approach, it may be particularly beneficial to utilize what is called a “relational analysis,” which creates a pair of a victim and an offender who have participated in the same RJ process. This idea was originally put forward by Strang (2002) to compare RJ and conventional criminal justice approaches, but, as Suzuki (2020) argued, using the relational analysis may be useful especially to examine a gap in the perceived sincerity of apology in RJ. This is because, except for Daly (2005) and case studies like Choi and Severson (2009), no research has explored the perceived sincerity of apology among victims and offenders who have experienced the same RJ process. By analyzing subjective accounts of both victims and offenders with the relational analysis, it may be possible to identify whether and why there is a gap in the perceived sincerity of apology in RJ.