WK2 Assignment: Providing Accountability to the Victim

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uvao20

Victims & Offenders An International Journal of Evidence-based Research, Policy, and Practice

ISSN: 1556-4886 (Print) 1556-4991 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uvao20

Perspectives of Juvenile Offenders Undergoing Victim-Offender Mediation with their Own Family Members: A Qualitative Study

Taufik Mohammad & Azlinda Azman

To cite this article: Taufik Mohammad & Azlinda Azman (2018) Perspectives of Juvenile Offenders Undergoing Victim-Offender Mediation with their Own Family Members: A Qualitative Study, Victims & Offenders, 13:7, 995-1012, DOI: 10.1080/15564886.2018.1520766

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2018.1520766

Published online: 15 Oct 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 672

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Perspectives of Juvenile Offenders Undergoing Victim-Offender Mediation with their Own Family Members: A Qualitative Study Taufik Mohammad a and Azlinda Azman

aSchool of Social Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia

ABSTRACT The authors suggest that victim-offender mediation could be applied within the family contexts based on two arguments: (a) family members of offenders are also victims of the latter’s crime and (b) repairing family relationships is pivotal in juvenile rehabilitation. Therefore, the objective of this research was to assess the perspectives of 11 juvenile offenders undergoing victim-offender mediation with their family members. A thematic analysis suggests that the juvenile offenders were satisfied with the process and outcome of the mediation especially in regard to the honesty and behavior shown by their family members. The media- tion sessions and feedback from the juvenile offenders are discussed. The broad satisfaction reported by the offenders, with both the program and family participation, suggests that the application of the victim- offender mediation model into the family context may provide a pro- mising alternative avenue for the rehabilitation of offenders.

KEYWORDS Victim-offender mediation; family relationships; juvenile offenders; Malaysia; restorative justice

Introduction

The number of juvenile delinquency cases varies throughout the years and has become a prominent issue in Malaysia. Statistics compiled by the Social Welfare Department, Malaysia have shown that the number of cases decreased from 5,153 cases in 2014 to 4,669 cases in 2015 (Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat, 2015). Inversely, recidivism showed a hike from 371 cases in 2014 to 417 in 2015. These statistics alone suggest that first-time and repeated cases should be understood independently and that interventions that deter first-time offenders should perhaps be different from those deterring repeat offenders. To reduce delinquency and prevent recidivism, the Malaysian juvenile justice has employed various measures to rehabilitate juvenile offenders. The measures range from giving warnings to institutionalizing the offenders.

It is imperative to study the efficacy of the measures in addressing delinquency, considering the increase in the number of repeated cases throughout the years. Among the interventions specified by the Child Act 2001 in Malaysia, other than releasing the offenders with certain conditions such as a bond or being under a care of a valid caretaker, involve the use of institutionalizations. The institutes housing juvenile offenders in Malaysia include Asrama Akhlak (juvenile probation hostels), Sekolah Tunas Bakti (juve- nile schools), and Sekolah Henry Gurney (prison schools). Based on the statistics by Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat (2015), institutionalization appears to be one of the most

CONTACT Taufik Mohammad [email protected] School of Social Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800, Penang, Malaysia. Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/uvao.

VICTIMS & OFFENDERS 2018, VOL. 13, NO. 7, 995–1012 https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2018.1520766

© 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

common orders given to convicted juvenile offenders. In 2015, 1,228 of 4,669 cases (26.3%) were placed under probation hostels or schools. As these statistics excluded the number of juvenile offenders imprisoned at prison schools, the number of offenders being institutionalized may be higher. Unfortunately, no data is available to confirm if the offenders who were institutionalized were the same offenders who reoffended after release; however, it is reasonable to assume there was nonnegligible overlap.

The current juvenile justice system in Malaysia adopts the philosophy that juvenile offenders should not be treated the same way adult offenders are treated. This is supported by a provision in Section 91, Child Act 2001 of Malaysia, where the word hukuman, which means “punishment” or “sentence,” cannot be used to describe the outcome of a juvenile offender’s trial. Even so, it has been argued that in whatever form the “order” (the word order is used instead of punishment or sentenced) takes place, the juvenile justice system in Malaysia will always revert to its original philosophy of punitivism when treating juvenile offenders (Dusuki, 2010`; Samuri, Mohd Kusrin, Omar, Mohd Awal, & Md. Sham, 2012). Some juvenile offenders are still placed in the same lock-up as adults during detention whereas others experience abuse by unscrupulous authority, merely to garner confession of their wrongdoing (Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development, Malaysia and UNICEF, 2013).

Given the punitive nature of the system, it is crucial to question if the institutionalization measures in Malaysia are effective in addressing juvenile delinquency. There is a surfeit of discussion around the effectiveness indicators such as recidivism rates and compliance with judicial orders. This “data gap” (i.e., if the offenders who were institutionalized were the same offenders who reoffended after release) highlights the need for accurate assessments of the efficacy of these measures. Indeed, it has been argued in a study elsewhere that institutionaliza- tion (e.g., imprisonment, detention center) itself does not reduce delinquency (Leve & Chamberlain, 2005) and that institutionalization also does not reduce recidivism (Cullen, Jonson, & Nagin, 2011; Mat Saat, Idrus, & Nor Hamid, 2013). Despite the evidence that is mixed at best, the Malaysian juvenile justice still relies heavily on institutionalizing juvenile offenders.

In light of these serious questions, it is perhaps time for Malaysia to look into alternative approaches in addressing juvenile delinquency. One promising option is the use of programs based on the philosophy of restorative justice (Daly & Immarigeon, 1998). An approach that benefits victims of crime, restorative justice has also been shown to effectively reduce recidivism among offenders (Bergseth & Bouffard, 2013; Bouffard, Cooper, & Bergseth, 2017; Bradshaw & Roseborough, 2005). However, the objective of our study is not to argue about the effectiveness of restorative justice. Based on the arguments that we present subsequently, we believe that victim-offender mediation, a program based on restorative justice, can be applied into the family context. We argue this because the family of the offenders are also considered as victims of the offenders’ crimes that will be discussed further subsequently.

Families of offenders as victims

The position of the victims of crime as the primary stakeholders of a criminal process is undeniable. However, we argue that the circle of victimization goes beyond the direct victims —it also includes the families of the offenders. Often the families of the offenders experience some changes in their lives due to the crimes committed. Studies have shown that crime

996 T. MOHAMMAD AND A. AZMAN

deteriorates family relationships between offenders and their own family members (Stewart, Simons, Conger, & Scaramella, 2002; Thornberry, 1987; Thornberry, 1991). This may affect the family’s quality of life (De Neuilly Rice, 2008). The disruption is not just caused by the offender committing crime, but also by the subsequent incarceration and detention.

Furthermore, families of offenders may also have to deal with the backlash of the crime that someone in the family committed. Sharp (2005) noted that because society often considers offenders’ family members to be “vicarious offenders,” they face covert and even overt ostracization that disrupts the family system. Some families still keep in touch with their incarcerated family members, while others minimize contact with the latter due to the shame caused by ostracization. While still acknowledging the experience of the families of the victims of crime, we concur with Sharp that we should also acknowledge that the families of the offenders are also affected by their family member’s commission of crime in various ways.

In relation to Sharp’s (2005) argument, we would like to highlight De Neuilly Rice’s (2008) notionthatthefamily ofoffenders,thus,are alsovictims tothecrimecommitted by theoffenders. Sharp (2005) highlighted that families of offenders become victims due to the stigma that they experience. This stigma occurs because they are associated with the offenders (Breen, 2008; Ofori-Dua, Akuoko, & de Paul Kanwetuu, 2015). The families of offenders are considered as the “tertiary” victims after the direct victims as the primary victims and the families of the direct victims as the secondary victims (Standing Committee on Community Services and Social Equity, 2004). As tertiary victims, they also face financial constraints, and shifts of roles and responsibility that may disrupt the well-being of the families, besides ostracization.

Offenders undergoing victim-offender mediation with their families

As research shows that if relationships between offenders and their families are improved, it reduces recidivism accordingly (Henggeler, et al., 1986; Mills & Codd, 2008). This has important impacts on the offenders themselves since the quality of the offenders’ relationship with their family is inversely correlated with the likelihood of repeat offence (Austin & Hardyman, 2004; Rosansky, 2010). Therefore, families of offenders are an important part of an effective rehabilita- tion of offender and repairing the strained family relationship should also be an aim of offender rehabilitation that focuses on reducing recidivism.

Our main question in this study was, “Would it be feasible to implement victim- offender mediations between offenders and their own family members?” Our argument based on the evidence and arguments of other scholars is that it is feasible because applying victim-offender mediation into a family context combines the needs for the involvement of family and that it can repair strained relationships between family mem- bers. Therefore, we assumed that the application of victim-offender mediation into the family context may be ultimately beneficial for the offenders.

The first benefit that could be expected is fostering of empathy. It has been argued that the lack of empathy may contribute offenders to commit crime against their victims (Milojević & Dimitrijević, 2014). Thus, fostering empathy may be a sought-after benefit in restorative justice programs (Moran, 2017). In our discussion we previously stated that families of offenders also suffer, but do offenders grasp this reality? Having said that, offenders undergoing victim-offender mediation with their family members may obtain higher level of empathy toward the latter which may provide a therapeutic value of rehabilitation. Furthermore, we believe that victim-offender mediation applied into the

VICTIMS & OFFENDERS 997

family context would be helpful in repairing family relationships that may be strained by the offender’s crime.

Our pilot project: Victim-offender mediation between 11 offenders and their family members

The victim-offender mediation in this study involved juvenile offenders and their family members. The mediation process involved several phases. First, the offenders and their families would be identified by the researchers and briefed about the nature of the mediation session. This phase required the researchers to build rapport with the offenders and educate them on the nature of the mediation session. Their agreement and voluntary participation were strictly required, in compliance with research ethics standards (The Centre for Justice & Reconciliation, n.d.). The briefing included the nonmandatory nature of the program and the possibility of withdrawing anytime during the program and interview. After the offenders’ agreement was obtained, then, the family members were contacted for their permission and briefing.

Second, the date of the mediation was agreed on beforehand between the parents and juvenile detention centers. When agreement was reached, participants were separately informed on the nature of the mediation and what they should expect. The venue was a counselor room in the juvenile detention center. Because the mediation was conducted when the offenders were still residing in the center, it had to be conducted within the center. Two social workers were appointed as the mediators. The social workers had experience in dealing with conflict mediation beforehand. This decision was made as social workers have the skill to be victim-offender mediators (Bradt & Bie, 2009; Ritter, Ritter, Vakalahi, & Ofahengau, 2008).

The third phase was the mediation. In the counselor room, the mediator requested the juvenile offenders and their family members to sit at the designated places. They were told that the whole mediation session and interview were recorded using an electronic device. The intent to record the session was expressed explicitly to the mediation participants, along with assurance that their confidentiality would be kept secure. The mediation began with some informed consent in which offenders were instructed that any information shared during the session would be recorded and kept confidential, except for the use of this study. The mediator explained what the mediation would entail and the basics that should be expected in the session, such as expressions of repressed issues and also offerings of apology/forgiveness. Their verbal agreement was taken again.

The mediation session for each participant was unique, depending on the nature of the communication between the juvenile offenders and their caretakers, and the dynamics of their relationship. However, the mediators ensured that in each session, the outcomes that should be achieved were mediated dialogues, an agreement of what the offender should commit to after release, and a genuine offer of apology/forgiveness (if both parties were willing).

The last phase was the interview with the offenders to assess their perception on the mediation session they underwent with their family members. The method of the inter- view will be described in details in the following section.

998 T. MOHAMMAD AND A. AZMAN

Method

Respondents

Eleven juvenile offenders who underwent victim-offender mediation with their family members (primarily their parents) were interviewed. Their ages ranged between 14 and 17 years old, and all of them were boys. They were detained for various types of crimes, but the majority of the offenders were detained for drug abuse.

Interview instrument

The interview questionnaire for the juvenile offenders was based on Poulson’s (2003) synthesis of positive psychological outcomes ideally gained by victims and offen- ders after a victim-offender mediation. There were 11 indicators of psychological improve- ments associated for the victims and nine for the offenders. This study used the nine items for the offenders in assessing their perception of various aspects of the mediation. The nine indicators were (a) perception of the process as fair, (b) perception of the outcome as fair, (c) satisfaction with the way the case is handled, (d) belief that they (the offenders) have an opportunity to tell a story, (e) perception that their opinions matter, (f) perception that the mediator was fair, (g) belief that they were held accountable as an offender, (h) the proffering of apology, and (i) perception of the other side’s behavior as good.

Developing the questionnaire for a qualitative study requires the researcher to be circumspect in the research process (Agee, 2009). Poulson’s (2003) items were originally presented in quantitative form, but used qualitatively in the current study. The decision to convert Poulson’s items was also to conform to the exploratory nature of this study. Additionally, the decision to adopt a qualitative approach in the interview was to explore the meaning of each indicator that may guide future implementation. The decision to convert Poulson’s items to qualitative form was also to allow detailed analysis of subject experience, an important goal given the exploratory nature of this work in a Malaysian context.

Analysis

A thematic analysis was employed for the data obtained from the interviews. The method was used to condense the responses into organized patterns (or themes) of data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). AccordingtoBraunand Clarke (2006), therearesix steps that shouldbedonetoreachinto themes that may summarize the patterns of the data as a whole. The steps are (a) familiarizing with the data, (b) generating initial codes from the responses, (c) organizing the codes into patterned themes, (d) reviewing themes, (e) defining themes where the story and map of the theme is charted, and (f) producing the report which is the purpose of this article. The analysis will also include the connection (or termed as the framework of understanding) of the themes found in all items. The connection for themes may be useful for future use of data in policies or intervention measures.

All interviews were transcribed for the purpose of triangulation. Methods of triangulation used were member checking (Birt, Scott, Cavers, Campbell, & Walter, 2016) and investigator triangulation (Denzin, 2006). Member checking (done in the first step of Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis steps) was done to ensure that all responses were understood correctly and

VICTIMS & OFFENDERS 999

accurately by returning back to the respondents for verification [in this case, the offenders at the detention] center). On the other hand, investigator triangulation (done in Steps 4 and 5 of Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis steps) uses more than one investigator for checking the product of the data analysis (e.g., themes, interpretation of themes).

Results

The thematic analysis for each question illustrates how the juvenile offenders perceive the mediation process between them and their family members who, for most of the respon- dents, were their parents. Their perception, expressed through their responses to the questions asked, would indicate whether they benefited from the mediation and how the benefits were experienced from the perspective of the offenders.

The following sections outline the main themes emerging from the analysis of the interview transcripts. It should be noted that a few respondents (especially Respondent 3) had difficulties understanding one or a few questions during the interview. The researchers would paraphrase the questions and if the respondents still had difficulty understanding(orrespondedin such ways that did not answer the question), the interviewer would move to the next question and omit the nonresponse. However, we still included their responses for questions they did respond to enrich our understanding on the experience of the juvenile offenders undergoing this victim-offender mediation. For the following analysis, all transcripts were translated to English.

Perception of the fairness of the process

This question asked the respondents if they saw the process of mediation as fair for them and their family members. Respondent 3 did not understand the question and his response was omitted. There are two main themes that have been identified from the responses from the rest of the responses. These themes indicated that the offenders perceived the process as fair because (a) it is for the offenders’ own benefits and (b) it provides the opportunity for transparency and honesty.

The theme “for the offenders’ own benefits” presents responses where the juvenile respon- dents explained that the process was fair because it was for their own benefits and improvement. This indicated that they could appreciate the wisdom behind the implementation of this program, which implied nonresistance. In a generic way, Respondent 4 implied this and noted, “[it was fair] because this was done for me. It was for my own good.” This was supported by the responses of Respondents 2, 8, and 9. Respondent 2 emphasized the ability to apologize when the mediation was conducted. Meanwhile, Respondents 8 and 9 had a hint of how they would be like in the future after undergoing the mediation. Respondent 8 said, “[it was fair] becausethiswasformyownfuture,”whileRespondent 9said, “Itmade me think abouthow I can improve in the future, how to be better.”

For the theme “the opportunity for transparency and honesty,” the respondents pointed out the opportunity to express matters openly, which they could not otherwise do. This is perhaps related to the lack of practice of open communication these offenders had with their families. Respondent 6 reported on how he had been wanting to do this for a long time. Respondent 5 noted the honesty on his parents. He said, “[it was fair] because they were honest and did not keep what they wanted to say inside.” Respondent 1 and 7 emphasized their own opportunity to be transparent and honest. Respondent 1 said, “I can

1000 T. MOHAMMAD AND A. AZMAN

express what I wanted to say to my parents. At home, I cannot do things like this,” and Respondent 10 said, “It is fair because I could learn about what my mom felt, and my mom could learn about what I felt.”

Perception of the fairness of the outcome

This question asked the respondents if they perceived the outcome of the mediation as fair. The response to this question refers to the agreement that had been set by both the family members and the juvenile offenders on what they should achieve and do upon release. Respondents 1, 3, and 6 did not understand the question and their responses were omitted from the analysis. On the other hand, Respondent 11 expressed caution when it came to fulfilling the agreement. He said,“Perhaps,Ithink some parts ofthe agreement,I mightnotbe able tofulfill,but I’ll try. . .”For this question, only two themes were identified which are (a) because the ability to fulfill the outcome and (b) because they want to change.

Only one respondent which was Respondent 9 whose response belonged to Theme 1. He said that the outcome was fair because he can fulfill what has been promised. He appreciated the discussion that took into consideration his capacity to oblige with the agreements. To summarize his thought, he simply said, “I can simply just follow them.”

The rest of the respondents belonged to Theme 2. All of them claimed that the outcome was fair because it helps with their intention to change upon release. Respondent 5 elaborated after saying that it was fair, “Since I was sent to this place (the juvenile detention center), I have already been thinking, if I keep repeating my old habits then I will never gain another forgiveness from my parents. So, this agreement may keep me on track.” Respondent 7 echoed the need for parental approval and said, “[it was fair] because I want to show my parents that I can succeed. I want to see them proud.” Meanwhile, Respondent 2 said that he wanted to change because his mother also wanted to change, “My mother wants to change, so I have to also change.”

Respondents 4 and 8 made a general statement of wanting to be better. Respondent 4 said, “I do not want to repeat doing things (the crime) like this anymore.” Respondent 8 said, “[it was fair] because I want to change. I do not want to be like before.”

Satisfaction about the way the case was handled

This question asked the respondent if they were satisfied with the ways the mediation was implemented. Respondents 3 and 6 did not understand the question and their responses were omitted from the analysis. One major theme was identified from the responses of this question. The way the mediation was handled was perceived as fair because it gave them a platform to talk (Respondents 1, 4, 7, 8, and 11).

In this theme, the respondents appreciated the opportunity given to them to talk about things they would not normally talk about at home. This could be seen clearly from Respondent 8’s response. He said, “I like it (the mediation) because usually when I talked to my mother at home, it would not be like this. I am shy.” Respondent 7 echoed the ability to express what was bottled inside, “I could let out what has been kept inside, about what I have gone through all this while.”

VICTIMS & OFFENDERS 1001

Respondents 1 and 4 just simply appreciated the opportunity to talk. Respondent 1 said, “I could talk about my feelings with my mother and father.” Meanwhile, Respondent 4 said, “[I am satisfied] because I could talk with my family.”

Three other themes (apology theme, parents’ encouragement theme, and to change theme) had only one response each. For the apology theme, Respondent 2 was thankful for the opportunity to apologize that arose because of the mediation session, “I was satisfied because the mediator gave me a chance to apologies.” For the parents’ encouragement theme, Respondent 5 emphasized how the mediation showed him the support given by his parents, “My parents, they showedme how they could guide me,and when I’mreleased, theywould guide me.” For the to change theme, Respondent 9 reported how the mediation gave him hope, stating, “I’m happy, because I am thinking about how I can change.”

Belief that they were given the opportunity to tell their “side of the story”

This question asked the respondents if they felt they were given a chance to tell their “side of the story.” Respondent 3 did not understand the question and his response was omitted from the analysis. All other respondents, except Respondent 2, felt they could tell their story in mediation and felt heard.

Respondent 2 was the only one whose response did not fit this theme. Instead, his response emphasized on his ability to apologize. He expressly saw the mediation as a way to apologize to his parents. He said, “Yes, because of this mediation, I could meet with my parents and apologies to them.”

For other respondents, the general pattern of their responses to this question is that they felt like they could voice out from their perspective. For this theme, we could see the emphasis given on talking with their family members—implying that they might not have quality communica- tion at home. Respondent 1 emphasized how he liked the face-to-face component of the mediation, “I like that I could talk face-to-face with them (his parents).” Respondents 4 and 7 are the other two respondents who mentioned about their family in their responses. Respondent 4 said, “Sessions like this allows me to talk with my family.” And Respondent 7 said, “Other people (the mediator) gave me a chance to talk to my father.”

Other respondents reported the same reasoning, but without the emphasis of their family hearing their emotions. Respondents 5 and 9 emphasized on their emotions. Respondent 5 said, “I could express my emotions.” While Respondent 9 said, “It’s like I could also express my feelings.” Respondent 6 simply said that he has said it all in the mediation and Respondent 8 mentioned the role of the mediator, “You (the mediator) asked me about things so I can tell.”

Perception that their opinions mattered

This question asked the respondents if they felt like the other parties took what they had said during the mediation session seriously. For this question, responses for Respondents 3, 4, and 9 were omitted from the analysis as they did not understand the question asked. One theme relating to the future was identified from the responses of Respondents 2, 5, 7, and 8.

For the other four respondents, their responses indicated that their voices were important because the other party was their family. Respondent 1 claimed that his mother actually listened to him and said, “I was sincere when talking about it (the content of the

1002 T. MOHAMMAD AND A. AZMAN

dialogue) with my mother. I want to change.” Respondent 6 said, “I have been wanting to talk to my father about it but it has never happened. [But, now it has].” However, Respondent 11 expressed some resentment while echoing this theme, stating, “Of course because before, my parents never showed that they cared about what I said at all. This time they do.”

The respondents’ responses reported that their voices were important because it had an implication in the future when they were going to be released. Respondent 5 said exactly this, stating, “It is important because it is for the future.” For other respondents, while the word future was not mentioned, their responses were about what would happen in the future when they were released. Respondent 2 said, “My voice is important for my parents. It is important because it is a promise.”

The theme of the future implies that the respondents they were taken seriously as a person. The respondents whose responses belonged in this theme believed that they were taken seriously. Respondent 7 was optimistic and added after saying that he was important. He said, “With my parents’ guidance, I can be successful later.” Meanwhile, Respondent 8’s response was about his responsibility toward his family. He said, “I have to take care of my family when I am released.”

Perception of the fairness of the mediator

This question asked the respondents’ perception specifically on the fairness of the mediators in handling the mediation session, focusing on both the needs of parents— or family—and the offenders themselves. There were two themes identified—all positive indications toward the mediators. One theme was about the respondents’ feedback on the qualities of the mediators (Respondents 5, 9, 10, and 11). Another theme was about the fairness shown by the mediators in producing desirable outcomes for the respon- dents (Respondents 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8).

Apropos of the first theme, Respondents 5 and 9 talked about the qualities of the mediator in handling the mediation. Respondent 5 said, emphasizing on the possibility of reparation pointed out by the mediator, “The person mediating was a cool person. It’s like he showed me, I have made a mistake and I know that I can repair it now.” Meanwhile, Respondent 9 said, “[He was fair] because the mediator was nice and he talked to me in a way that it should be.” Respondents 10 and 11 commended the mediator for not showing bias in the midst of a heated discussion. Respondent 10 said, “The mediator did not even show any negative reactions even when my mother was blaming me.”

Relating to the other theme, the respondents pointed out that the fairness of the mediator was evident from the outcome of the mediation. Respondent 1 responded when asked about the mediator’s fairness, “If the mediator had not done this, I would not know if I would have an opportunity to face my parents.” Respondent 2 said something similar, opining, “The mediator has helped me and all. I now have apologized to my family.” Respondent 8 emphasized the mediator’s role in establishing promises. He said, “[the mediator was fair] because he was here so I could make promises like this. If he was not here, I would not have done this. He made sure this happened.”

Other responses categorized to this theme emphasized the ability to talk with their parents. Respondent 3 said, “[He was fair] because what the mediator said was right. I have talked to my mother now.” While Respondent 4 simply said that he has now spoken to his parents, Respondents 6 and 7 appreciated the mediator’s help in giving them the

VICTIMS & OFFENDERS 1003

chance to speak to their family. Respondent 6 said, “[The mediator] has helped me, helped me to talk to my parents.” Meanwhile, Respondent 7 said, “[He was fair] because he has given me an opportunity to talk to my parents.”

Belief that they were held accountable

This question asked if the respondents believed that they were accountable for their mistakes. “Mistakes” did not solely refer to the crime they committed, but also the mistakes that they have made to their parents (e.g., running away from home, raising their voice). Only Respondent 9 said “no” as a response to this question, commenting on how he was not responsible for the crime as he was wrongly accused.

For other respondents, all responses were the opposite of Respondent 9. They accepted both responsibility for, and accountability for, their mistakes. However, in this general theme, the responses can be divided into two subthemes. The first subtheme belongs to responses that focused on the consequence of the mistakes on the offenders themselves (Respondents 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8). The second subtheme, on the other hand, included responses that focused on how their mistakes affected their families (Respondents 1, 3, 6, 10, and 11).

For the first subtheme, the respondents made comments solely about themselves. Respondents 2, 4, 7, and 8 made general remarks on how they needed to face the consequences for the mistakes they committed. For example, Respondent 2 said, “I am wrong and I have done all this (the mistakes),” and Respondent 4 said, “[I believe it] because I have made a mistake, so I need to bear the consequence.” Responses of Respondents 7 and 8 were similar to those of Respondents 2 and 4. However, Respondent 5 did take responsibility for his bad social choices. He said, “[I believe it] because I have chosen the wrong friends, I followed them.”

For the second subtheme, the respondents also mentioned their families as being affected by their mistakes. Respondent 1 elaborated, “Yes, I feel very guilty because I gave bad consequences to people. I made my parents worry. I left my mother alone (at home).” Meanwhile, Respondent 3 specified what he did. He said, “I have stolen stuff, so I am wrong. When I stole, my brother and others knew about it.” Respondent 6 was similar in specifying the mistakes he made, along with the chance given to him to improve himself. He said, “[I believe it] because I have taken drugs and all. My father has said, after this, if I do it again, it (the opportunity to change) is over.”

Perception of the opportunity to apologize

This question asked the respondents about their perception of their ability to express apologies in the mediation session. Similar to the question on accountability, “apology” did not refer to the crime the respondents committed. It could also include apologies relating to other mistakes made toward their family members. This was a challenging question to some of the respondents. The question seemed to be mainly answerable with a yes or no and not more than that—generally seeing the apology as a discrete, binary action. For example, when asked to elaborate on his yes response, Respondent 9 said, “It’s like just now.” Other respondents who failed to elaborate on their responses were Respondents 2, 3, and 4. However, all other respondents said yes to this question, as well.

1004 T. MOHAMMAD AND A. AZMAN

For other elaborated responses, no common theme was identified—all responses had their own points. Respondents 1 and 11 emphasized their ability to apologize because such mediation session was implemented for him. Respondent 1 said, “I got a chance to apologize because of this session. If this session didn’t exist, I wouldn’t know when I would do it (to apologize).” On the other hand, Respondent 5 claimed that his in-session apology was credible. He said, “In the past, if I apologized, I’d do it again. But now I am truly apologetic. I don’t want to repeat my mistakes.” Meanwhile, Respondent 6 just simply said, “[He is able to apologize] because I could say it all.”

Respondent 7 specifically mentioned his rationale for apologizing. He said, “I apologize because of all the mistakes that I have made. Before I was really rude toward Cik Na (his stepmother), and also to all.” Meanwhile, Respondent 8 elaborated, “Before, when I made any mistakes, I never apologized.” Respondent 10 emphasized importance of the trust that he obtained from his mother: “I was afraid that my mother was angry. She did not trust me. Now, she trusts me. At home, this would not happen.”

Perception that the other side’s behavior was good

This question asked the respondents about their satisfaction with the behaviors of the other side of the mediation session—that is, that of their parents or other family members. Only Respondent 11 expressed dissatisfaction. Respondent 8 did not understand the question and his response was omitted from the analysis. Three themes were identified where the respon- dents indicated (a) good verbal behaviors (Respondents 2, 4, and 7), (b) good nonverbal behaviors (Respondents 1, 3, 5, and 9), and (c) expectations of material gains (Respondent 6).

Within the theme of verbal behaviors, the respondents perceived the other side as good because of their content of their communications. Respondent 4 simply said, “[I believe they are good] because they talked about good things only.” On the other hand, Respondent 2 specified what has been said. He reported, “They forgave me for what I have done to them.” Respondent 7 said that the other side was good because of the honesty. He said, “They could be honest with me on the things they would normally not have told me before.”

For the theme of nonverbal behaviors, the respondents reported satisfaction with the tone of communications. Respondent 1 said, “It’s OK, I saw my parents [looked like they were] being responsible [toward him] because they want me to be a better person.” Respondent 9 also mentioned the word “responsible.” He said, “[I believe they are good] because they were honest, responsible and respected me.” Respondent 3 observed his mother’s face, “I saw her face, and it looked different. It looked kind.” Respondent 5 said, “The way my mother behaved just now made me feel at home.”

Only the response of Respondent 6 belonged in Theme 3. He said, “[He is good] because whatever I asked for is fulfilled and he (his father) could consider.” For Respondent 11, who said no, he emphasized his dissatisfaction that he felt blamed, opining, “I think I’m just like everyone else. I am not that bad like other offenders. This is blown out of proportion.”

Discussion

Restorative justice is deemed as a highly viable approach to dealing with crime for its effectiveness in addressing several aspects of justice outcomes. The approach increases the level of victims’ satisfaction (Mutter, Shemmings, Dugmore, & Hyare, 2008; Umbreit &

VICTIMS & OFFENDERS 1005

Bradshaw, 2003), and reduces recidivism (Bradshaw & Roseborough, 2005; Bradshaw, Roseborough, & Umbreit, 2006; Rodriguez, 2007). It also contributes to reduction of future association with serious behaviors (Bergseth & Bouffard, 2007). Furthermore, Poulson (2003) listed 11 indicators of psychological improvements achieved by partici- pants of restorative justice programs, of which nine were applicable to offenders.

As families of offenders are a part of the victimization circle (De Neuilly Rice, 2008), and the injuries of the crime extend to them and the offenders themselves (Van Ness & Strong, 2010), we argued that victim-offender mediations should also be applicable into the family context. However, the efficacy of restorative justice may be difficult to assess as expectations of participants may vary (Shapland, et al., 2007). This means that the reports of participants of restorative justice programs are pertinent in the assessment process. In lieu of Shapland et al.’s (2007) argument, we used the perception of the juvenile offenders in this study to see if victim-offender mediation is a viable program to be conducted between the offenders and their family members.

Therefore, in this study, we assessed the perception of 11 juvenile offenders who underwent victim-offender mediation with their family members using Poulson’s (2003) indicators of psychological health for the offenders. Although it should be done, we did not look into the long-term effects of this program on the juvenile offenders and their family relationships. However, the immediate effects that took place as observed by the mediators and through the self-report of the juvenile offenders implied that the victim- offender mediation conducted in family contexts should be considered by policymakers.

Our conclusion was based on the themes of the responses that pointed to the positive experience of the juvenile offenders. One major theme was the juvenile offenders’ appre- ciation toward the honesty they had in the sessions. Many reported feeling satisfied that they could voice out about things they had previously been unable or unwilling to say. One respondent even emphasized how this opportunity was missed, even when the offender saw his parents at home every day. Honesty and confidence in the offenders’ sincerity are among the key elements in why victim-offender mediation is effective (Hallevy, 2011). We argue that this theme implied the valuable elements— honesty and confidence—offered by victim-offender mediation applied into the family context.

Our research also opens up interesting questions about the role of apology in victim- offender mediation especially in establishing the offenders’ sincerity. Some juvenile offen- ders in this study emphasized the quality of their apology in the mediation session— reporting that the apology was sincere and that the mediation allowed them to apologize for the first time. A few past articles have cast doubt on the sincerity of offenders’ apologies in similar contexts (e.g., Bennett, 2006; Choi & Severson, 2009). However, we would like to note that there may be differences in the experience of an offender speaking to a direct victim and one speaking to their own family members—and this may be due to offenders being more appreciative when the support comes from their own family members (Gillian, Skrine, Turnbull, Kazimirski, & Pritchard, 2013), which may render the juvenile’s behavior in the session to be more sincere.

The literature on victim-offender mediation often observes that most victims value emotional and psychological reparation more than the materialistic reparation (Ravinsky, 2015). However, this does not exclude material reparation as a part of the outcomes of the mediation offered to victims of crime (Gehm, 1998; Ravinsky, 2015). We would like to extend this assumption of

1006 T. MOHAMMAD AND A. AZMAN

material outcome on the offenders as well. One respondent in the study has shown the tendency to value materialistic outcome more than the psychological and emotional counterparts. This may be a unique observation offered by this study given that this is a victim-offender mediation applied into family context. The juvenile offenders who focused on material outcome in the mediation session may see the relationship with the other side of the mediation as the individuals who could also offer them something. After all, the other side of the mediation is the offenders’ own family members. However, future research is required to investigate if such material focus may be disruptive to the achievement of the objective of victim-offender mediation conducted into family relationship.

Framework on victim-offender mediation applied in family context

The following framework (Figure 1) illustrates how the practice of victim-offender media- tion applied in the family context is similar or different than their conventional version. Figure 1 shows that above all, the honesty that was encouraged in the mediation sessions was the most appreciated element by the juvenile offenders in this study. Honesty is one of the key factors to the effectiveness of any victim-offender mediation (Choi, Gilbert, & Green, 2013; Hallevy, 2011). As a result of this honesty too, the juvenile offenders in this study showed the ability to understand that the crime had also impacted their family members. This was indicated by an increase in their level of empathy toward their family members as examined in the mediation and from their responses to the interviews.

A conventional victim-offender mediation aims to achieve apology/forgiveness and a resolution agreeable to both parties (Dhami, 2016). Although this is secondary, offering apology/forgiveness and making an agreement can help offenders in repairing the harms done to the victims from the crime committed. Similarly, the victim-offender mediation applied in a family context also encourages reciprocal discussion in resolving issues during the dialogue. This may include offering apology/forgiveness. Both the offenders and their

Honesty

Focus of benefits on own self Focus of benefits in family members

Apology/forgiveness

Focus on material

Improved family relationship

Verbal behaviors

Non-verbal behaviors

Q u

a li

t ie

s o

f t

h e

m e

d ia

t o

r

Figure 1. Framework of victim-offender mediation applied in family context.

VICTIMS & OFFENDERS 1007

family members would set the changes both parties expect to happen after the mediation. This could include certain rules the offenders need to adhere to, and the changes the offenders would like to happen in their parents.

Another aspect that is similar to the conventional victim-offender mediation is the emphasis on victim empathy. Victim empathy is encouraged in restorative dialogues because it promotes healing (Lummer & Hagemann, 2015). There is also a limited evidence pointing to the possibility that victim empathy helps reduce recidivism (Gottschall, Greiner, Brown, & Serin, 2015). However, the difference is, in the responses given, the offender seemed to be able to obtain understanding on the victims’ (i.e., the family members) experience through the nonverbal behavior. This may be due to the situation that family members understand each other as deep as an accidental gesture. This can be considered as an asset in a victim-offender mediation conducted among family members, depending on the prior communication done beforehand.

However, there are several ways in which the victim-offender mediation applied in family context is different than the conventional version. First, when it comes to the benefits for the offenders themselves, there is an emphasis on a material outcome expected by the juvenile offenders. This was due to the different existing relationship between the offenders and the “victims” who were their family. This may have influenced the dynamics between the two that is different than the one assumed from a traditional relationship between an offender and the direct victim. In the present study, we did not explore further the material element and its impact on the overall effectiveness of the mediation session.

Second, given that the mediation was conducted between the offenders and their family members, the crime was not the focus—rather the focus was on family relationships that were strained due to crimes committed. The dialogue focused on the aspects of family that lead to the offenders committing the crime and how committing the crime, in turn, affected the family relationship even further. The issues that were discussed in the dialogues included the offenders’ feelings toward their parents and what the parents might have done that lead to the offenders feeling that way as well as the parents’ feelings about the experience.

Third, that integrating the parents’ perspective allows the offenders to see the impact of their criminal acts beyond the crime and its proximate victim(s) alone. Some points to understand may be on the emotional distress parents experience, the financial struggle of dealing with the arrest, and the stigma by the environment caused by the child’s rehabi- litation. This enhances victim empathy among the offenders.

Fourth, apology and forgiveness are an important part of the mediations conducted in this pilot study. Although the conventional victim-offender mediation may also integrate apology and forgiveness in the session, the apology and forgiveness for the victim-offender mediation applied in family context is not for the crime conducted by the juvenile offenders, but for the strained family relationship experienced by both the juvenile offenders and their family members. The apology and forgiveness can be offered by both parties as strained family relationship may be caused by both.

Conclusion

In the present study, we employed an exploratory design, using a qualitative approach with our subjective interpretations. Therefore, due to the design, there was a limitation, in that the findings cannot be generalized. However, the present study offers the insights on how victim-offender mediation can be applied into the family context—based on the

1008 T. MOHAMMAD AND A. AZMAN

argument that family members are also victims of the offender’s crime and that family involvement in the rehabilitation of the juvenile offenders is important in repairing family relationships and reducing recidivism among juvenile offenders (Alexander & Parsons, 1973; Latimer, 2001; Radohl, 2010). In the meantime, restorative justice, too, is shown to reduce the rates of recidivism among juvenile offenders (Bouffard, Cooper, & Bergseth, 2017; Bergseth & Bouffard, 2013; Rodriguez, 2007). Through the overlapping benefits of both restorative justice and family involvement, this study explains how these benefits can be combined through a mediation between juvenile offenders and their family members.

From the juvenile offenders’ perspectives, we propose that victim-offender mediation may be an appropriate alternative to restoring strained family relationships due to crimes committed. In the present study, among the aspects of the mediation that the offenders viewed positively were the ability to express their feelings through the mediation (which was otherwise near impossible at home), the fairness of mediators, the fairness of the process, and the outcomes of mediation. Offenders reported that these aspects helped in healing family relationships, which research suggests may pave the way toward an increased effectiveness of later rehabilitation.

Acknowledgments

This pilot project was funded by Universiti Sains Malaysia. Special thanks to the participants for their dedicated time and commitment in the mediation sessions.

Ethical approval for this project was given by Internal Committee (Universiti Sains Malaysia) and Research Creativity and Management Office, Universiti Sains Malaysia

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding

This work was supported by the Universiti Sains Malaysia.

ORCID

Taufik Mohammad http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7611-6849

References

Agee, J. (2009). Developing qualitative research questions: A reflective process. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22, 431–447. doi:10.1080/09518390902736512

Alexander, J. F., & Parsons, B. V. (1973). Short-term behavioral intervention with delinquent families: Impact on family process and recidivism. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 81, 219–225.

VICTIMS & OFFENDERS 1009

Austin, J., & Hardyman, P. L. (2004). The risks and needs of the returning prisoner population. Review of Policy Research, 21, 13–29. doi:10.1111/ropr.2004.21.issue-1

Bennett, C. (2006). Taking the sincerity out of saying sorry: Restorative justice as ritual. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 23, 127–143. doi:10.1111/japp.2006.23.issue-2

Bergseth, K., & Bouffard, J. A. (2013). Examining the effectiveness of a restorative justice program for various types of juvenile offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57, 1054–1075. doi:10.1177/0306624X12453551

Bergseth, K. J., & Bouffard, J. A. (2007). The long-term impact of restorative justice program- ming for juvenile offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 433–451. doi:10.1016/j. jcrimjus.2007.05.006

Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., & Walter, F. (2016). Member checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative Health Research, 26, 1802– 1811. doi:10.1177/1049732316654870

Bouffard, J., Cooper, M., & Bergseth, K. (2017). The effectiveness of various restorative justice interventions on recidivism outcomes among juvenile offenders. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 15, 465–480. doi:10.1177/1541204016647428

Bradshaw, W., & Roseborough, D. (2005). Restorative justice dialogue: The impact of mediation and conferencing on juvenile recidivism. Federal Probation, 69, 15–21.

Bradshaw, W., Roseborough, D., & Umbreit, M. S. (2006). The effect of victim offender mediation on juvenile offender recidivism: A meta-analysis. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 24, 87–98. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1541-1508

Bradt, L., & Bie, M. B. (2009). Victim–Offender mediation as a social work practice. International Social Work, 52, 181–193. doi:10.1177/0020872808099729

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Breen, J. (2008). Prisoners’ families and the ripple effects of imprisonment. Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review, 97, 59–71.

Choi, J. J., Gilbert, M. J., & Green, D. L. (2013). Patterns of victim marginalization in victim- offender mediation: Some lessons learned. Crime, Law and Social Change, 59, 113–132. doi:10.1007/s10611-012-9382-1

Choi, J. J., & Severson, M. (2009). “What! What kind of apology is this?”: The nature of apology in victim offender mediation. Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 813–820. doi:10.1016/j. childyouth.2009.03.003

Cullen, F. C., Jonson, C. L., & Nagin, D. S. (2011). Prisons do not reduce recidivism: The high cost of ignoring science. The Prison Journal, 91, 48S–65S. doi:10.1177/0032885511415224

Daly, K., & Immarigeon, R. (1998). The past, present, and future of restorative justice: Some critical reflections. Contemporary Justice Review, 1, 21–45.

De Neuilly Rice, M. (2008). The victimological impact of heroin abuse on the family: A study in progress. Acta Criminologica, Special Edition 1, 96–116.

Denzin, N. (2006). Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook (Chicago ed.). Dhami, M. K. (2016). Apology in victim–Offender mediation. Contemporary Justice Review, 19, 31–

42. doi:10.1080/10282580.2015.1101686 Dusuki, F. N. (2010). Implementation of article 12 in juvenile justice system in Malaysia, speak,

participate and decide the child’s right to be heard. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved from www.crin.org/docs/GDD_2006_UNICEF_Malaysia2.doc

Gehm, J. R. (1998). Victim-offender mediation programs: An exploration of practice and theoretical frameworks. Western Criminology Review, 1, 1–30.

Gillian, H., Skrine, O., Turnbull, P., Kazimirski, A., & Pritchard, D. (2013). Intermediate outcomes of family and intimate relationship interventions: A rapid evidence assessment.

Gottschall, S., Greiner, L., Brown, S., & Serin, R. (2015). Value, challenges, and solutions in incorporating victim impact awareness in offender rehabilitation: The results of qualitative interviews with stakeholders. Victims & Offenders, 10, 293–317. doi:10.1080/ 15564886.2014.949959

1010 T. MOHAMMAD AND A. AZMAN

Hallevy, G. (2011). Therapeutic victim-offender mediation within the criminal justice process- sharpening the evaluation of personal potential for rehabilitation while righting wrongs under the ADR philosophy. Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 16, 65.

Henggeler, S. W., Rodick, J. D., Borduin, C. M., Hanson, C. L., Watson, S. M., & Urey, J. R. (1986). Multisystemic treatment of juvenile offenders: Effects on adolescent behavior and family inter- action. Developmental Psychology, 22, 132–141. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.22.1.132

Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat. (2015). Laporan Statistik Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat 2015. Retrieved from Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat: http://www.jkm.gov.my/jkm/uploads/files/pener bitan/Buku%20JKM%202015%E2%80%A2Final.pdf

Latimer, J. (2001). A meta-analytic examination of youth delinquency, family treatment, and recidivism. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 43, 237–253.

Leve, L. D., & Chamberlain, P. (2005). Association with delinquent peers: Intervention effects for youth in the juvenile justice system. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 339–347. doi:10.1007/s10802-005-3571-7

Lummer, R., & Hagemann, O. (2015). Victim empathy within prison walls: Experiences from pilot projects in Schleswig-Holstein. Ljetopis socijalnog rada, 22, 37–60.

Mat Saat, G. A., Idrus, Z., & Nor Hamid, N. (2013). Contextualising institutionalised prevention of recidivism among Malaysian petty criminals. Budapest: Annual Conference of European Society of Criminology.

Mills, A., & Codd, H. (2008). Prisoners’ families and offender management: Mobilizing social capital. Probation Journal, 55, 9–24. doi:10.1177/0264550507085675

Milojević, S., & Dimitrijević, A. (2014). Empathic capacity of delinquent convicted minors. Psihologija, 47, 65–79. doi:10.2298/PSI1401065M

Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development, Malaysia and UNICEF. (2013). The Malaysian juvenile justice system: A study of mechanisms for handling children in conflict with the law. Putrajaya: Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development.

Moran, K. (2017). Restorative justice: A look at victim offender mediation programs. 21st Century Social Justice, 4, 1–5.

Mutter, R., Shemmings, D., Dugmore, P., & Hyare, M. (2008). Family group conferences in youth justice. Health and Social Care in the Community, 16, 262–270. doi:10.1111/j.1365- 2524.2008.00770.x

Ofori-Dua, K., Akuoko, K. O., & de Paul Kanwetuu, V. (2015). Unanticipated Consequences of imprisonment on families of prison inmates of Kumasi Central Prison of Ghana. International Journal of Social Science Studies, 3, 185–196. doi:10.11114/ijsss.v3i3.786

Poulson, B. (2003). A third voice: A review of empirical research on the psychological outcomes of restorative justice. Utah Law Review, 1, 167–203.

Radohl, T. (2010). Incorporating family into the formula: Family-directed structural therapy for children with serious emotional disturbance. Child and Family Social Work, 16, 127–137. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2010.00720.x

Ravinsky, L. (2015). Reducing recidivism of violent offenders through victim offender mediation: A fresh start. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, 17, 1019.

Ritter, J., Ritter, J. A., Vakalahi, H. F., & Ofahengau, H. F. (2008). 101 careers in social work. New York: Springer Publishing Company.

Rodriguez, N. (2007). Restorative justice at work: Examining the impact of restorative justice resolutions on juvenile recidivism. Criminology & Penology, 53, 355–379.

Rosansky, J. (2010). Reducing recidivism: stopping the trend of criminal relapse in America. Retrieved from Palm Beach State College: https://www.palmbeachstate.edu/honors/sabiduria/spring-2010. aspx

Samuri, M.-A., Mohd Kusrin, Z., Omar, A., Mohd Awal, N., & Md. Sham, F. (2012). Legal issues in sentencing child offenders in Malaysia. Advances in Natural and Applied Sciences, 6, 1093–1098.

Shapland, J., Atkinson, A., Atkinson, H., Chapman, B., Dignan, J., Howes, M., . . . Sorsby, A. (2007). Restorative justice: The views of victims and offenders. Retrieved from SACRO: http://www. restorativejusticescotland.org.uk/Restorative-Justice.pdf

VICTIMS & OFFENDERS 1011

Sharp, S. (2005). Hidden victims: The effects of the death penalty on families of the accused. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Standing Committee on Community Services and Social Equity. (2004). The forgotten victims of crime: Families of offenders and their silent sentence. Canberra: Legislative Assembly for the ACT.

Stewart, E. A., Simons, R. L., Conger, R. D., & Scaramella, L. V. (2002). Beyond the interactional relationship between delinquency and parenting practices: The contribution of legal sanctions. Journal Of Research In Crime And Delinquency, 39, 36–59. doi:10.1177/002242780203900102

The Centre for Justice & Reconciliation. (n.d.). Victim offender mediation. Retrieved from The Centre for Justice & Reconciliation: http://restorativejustice.org/restorative-justice/about-restora tive-justice/tutorial-intro-to-restorative-justice/lesson-3-programs/victim-offender-mediation/ #sthash.jAqNmEeY.dpbs

Thornberry, T. P. (1987). Toward an interactional theory of delinquency. Criminology, 25(4), 863– 892. doi:10.1111/crim.1987.25.issue-4

Thornberry, T. P. (1991). Testing interactional theory: An examination of reciprocal causal relation- ships among family, school, and delinquency. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82, 3–35. doi:10.2307/1143788

Umbreit, M. S., & Bradshaw, W. (2003). Assessing victim satisfaction with victim offender media- tion & dialogue services: The development and use of the victim satisfaction with offender dialogue scale (VSODS). International Review of Victimology, 10, 71–83. doi:10.1177/ 026975800301000104

Van Ness, D. W., & Strong, K. H. (2010). Restoring justice: An introduction to restorative justice. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

1012 T. MOHAMMAD AND A. AZMAN