Week 2 Journal: Restorative Justice in Action

https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370816682981

European Journal of Criminology 2017, Vol. 14(6) 679 –696

© The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1477370816682981

journals.sagepub.com/home/euc

Understanding victim participation in restorative practices: Looking for justice for oneself as well as for others

Tinneke Van Camp California State University Fresno, USA

Abstract Restorative justice (RJ) promotes a constructive dialogue between the victim of a crime and the offender. Restorative practices have been credited for allowing victims to move on from victimization. This paper goes beyond victim appreciation of RJ and addresses what motivates victims to agree to communicate with their offender. Victim-participants were interviewed at the start of a restorative intervention and again after its conclusion, with the aim of identifying reasons for participation and exploring whether these evolve as a restorative procedure progresses. Discourses reveal that victims hoped that interaction with their adult or young offender would advance insight and healing as well as help the offender. Shifts in motivation over time were only subtle and many respondents manifested prosocial intentions (for example to help the offender) early on.

Keywords Justice motives, procedural justice, prosocial concerns, restorative justice, victims of crime

Recent years have seen a welcome surge in reforms to increase victim participation in criminal justice (Hall, 2009), which has been associated with an enhanced sense of justice for victims (Herman, 2003; Wemmers, 2011). One particular form of victim participation is offered in restorative justice (RJ) practices. Although there is no con- sensual definition, it is generally accepted that RJ is characterized by facilitated inter- action between the victim of a particular crime and the offender in search of conciliation

Corresponding author: Tinneke Van Camp, Department of Criminology, California State University Fresno, 2576 East San Ramon Avenue M/S ST104, Fresno, CA 93740, USA. Email: [email protected]

682981EUC0010.1177/1477370816682981European Journal of CriminologyVan Camp research-article2016

Article

680 European Journal of Criminology 14(6)

and potentially reparation. The promotion of communication between the parties involved in a crime is associated with the idea that crime is not simply an infraction of the law, but also causes hurt and results in damages to be addressed (Zehr and Mika, 1998). Moreover, participation is strictly voluntary – participation in RJ should at all times be a choice. In this paper, I explore victims’ motives for choosing to be involved in a restorative intervention, a key question, but one in which almost all information has come from studies that asked victims their views retrospectively, that is, after the restorative intervention had finished. For this study, adult victims from Belgium and England were interviewed and it was possible in many cases to follow victims’ experi- ences as they went through RJ, comparing their views before and after. The research included some very serious offences and also less serious offences. The question it seeks to answer is twofold: first, do victims consider only self-relevant concerns (that is, interests that are associated with their own personal needs, such as healing or repa- ration) or also prosocial purposes (that is, intentions to address other people’s interests) when they participate in a restorative intervention, and, second, do certain concerns inspire and motivate participation or do they result only from experiences within the restorative intervention?

Background

Whereas RJ still mainly operates in the margins of the criminal justice system (CJS), it has been gaining force and its development is promoted through national legislation or criminal justice policies in a number of countries and supranational guidelines (for example, the European Union Directive of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime). The restorative approach is being used in response to many different offences, including property crime and crime against a person, committed by young or adult offenders. It can be used at vari- ous stages of the criminal justice procedure and referrals to RJ services can be made by law enforcement officers, prosecutorial services, judges, victim support services and offender support services or could be directly initiated by the victim or offender. Restorative interventions either replace conventional judicial proceedings or decision- making, or run alongside them. Several values and safeguards underpin good restorative practice. For instance, it should provide a safe, neutral and confidential setting in which every participant feels enabled to discuss their concerns and each receives support from and is prepared by a trained facilitator (for more details on the RJ process see, for exam- ple, Rossner, 2008).

Globally, the most common restorative programmes are victim–offender mediation (VOM) and conferencing. VOM builds on voluntary involvement by the victim of a particular offence and the offender. They meet separately and prepare with a trained mediator first. This may involve shuttle mediation, in which the mediator delivers questions and messages from one participant to the other. Preparation and liaised com- munication can eventually lead to a facilitated face-to-face meeting or a written dia- logue. If they so wish, victim and offender can together design an outcome agreement in which the offender commits to making amends (Groenhuijsen, 2000). Conferencing not only requires voluntary participation by victim and offender and the assistance of

Van Camp 681

a facilitator, but also involves the victim’s and the offender’s supporters and, often, a police or community representative. Whereas VOM programmes are aimed at juvenile and adult offenders alike, conferencing is mainly used in response to youth offending. Unlike VOM, conferencing always involves face-to-face communication between the victim and the offender and the offender is encouraged to draft a reparative plan with the assistance of his or her supporters (Zinsstag et al., 2011). Both in VOM and in conferencing a restorative outcome can be uniquely tailored to the particular conse- quences of an offence and the context in which it took place. Possible outcomes include an apology or a voluntary agreement to repair the damage (financially, materially or symbolically) or to address the underlying problems that might be associated with the offending. Restorative interventions can also be concluded without a palpable outcome because no agreement could be reached or because participants were not looking for one. Also, even without a concrete outcome a restorative intervention can be satisfying for victims – the opportunity to have a dialogue with the offender can be an end in itself (Van Camp, 2014).

Plenty of studies provide insight into the benefits of RJ when done well. RJ is found to outperform the CJS in meeting victims’ needs and to be more satisfactory than con- ventional judicial proceedings (Strang and Sherman, 2003). Victim-participants also generally perceive RJ to be fair (Shapland et al., 2011). More specifically, RJ, with its focus on voluntary participation and dialogue, seems to comply particularly well with fairness requirements for victims of crime (Van Camp and De Mesmaecker, 2014). Moreover, perception of fairness and a sense of involvement have been found to advance victim healing (Herman, 2003; Wemmers, 2011).

Such findings warrant an advanced implementation of RJ. Meanwhile, because they emerge largely from retrospective studies and from interviews with victims who com- pleted a restorative intervention, they do not offer sufficient insight into what initially motivates victims to participate. We know what victims like about RJ in hindsight, but not necessarily what they expected from it beforehand (but see Shapland et al., 2011, discussed below). Such insight shapes good practice, which should be in tune with vic- tims’ expectations.

The observed association between satisfaction with RJ and having felt involved and fairly treated calls for a look at discourses on why such involvement and fair treatment matter. Early studies into fairness suggested that disputants mainly seek to satisfy self- interest through involvement in a conflict resolution procedure, which maximizes the chances for a favourable outcome, such as compensation or reparation (Deutsch, 1975; Thibaut and Walker, 1975). Subsequent research, however, indicated that disputants value a fair procedure regardless of its impact on the outcome. A fair procedure reflects that participants are respected members of the community (Lind and Tyler, 1988). This has been found to matter for victims of crime in particular: victims value voice and fair treatment in the CJS because they reflect recognition and validation of the victim’s con- cerns (Wemmers et al., 1995). In addition, most victims do not know what to expect from the CJS (Goodey, 2005). Lind and Van den Bos (2002) argue that information about fair treatment, decision-making and outcome is particularly important in these circumstances, which they dub situational uncertainty. Such situational uncertainty can be aggravated by personal uncertainty, stemming from doubt, lack of control or instability in views of the

682 European Journal of Criminology 14(6)

self and the world as a consequence of unpleasant experiences (Van den Bos, 2009), such as victimization (Wemmers, 2013). Yet, when people feel that they are being treated fairly, such uncertainty is likely to be attenuated (Van den Bos, 2009).

These three justice motives are ostensibly concerned with an individual’s self-rele- vant interests, be they instrumental (that is, a favourable outcome) or normative (that is, self-validation or uncertainty management). This focus on self-relevant interests is challenged by mounting evidence that people care about the social bonds they have with others and concern for their social group’s interests (McCullough, 2008). Such prosocial inclinations rub off on the assessment of fairness. Van den Bos and Lind (2001) found that people are equally sensitive to procedural injustice (that is, not being given a chance to voice their concerns in a conflict resolution procedure) towards themselves as towards others. Similarly, Van Prooijen et al. (2012) observed that peo- ple with strong prosocial tendencies in particular favour equal treatment, even if that means injustice for all. Indeed, not everyone is equally likely to show consideration for others (McClintock and Allison, 1989). Social tendencies are, for instance, shaped by one’s experiences (Bogaert et al., 2008), including adverse experiences. Vollhardt (2009) demonstrates that in the aftermath of a variety of negative life-changing events, ranging from unintentional collective violence (such as natural disasters) to intentional interpersonal violence (such as violent crime), those harmed manifest an increased likelihood of wanting to help others who experience adversity. This helps to transform suffering (Janoff-Bulman, 1992).

In view of the increased likelihood of prosocial behaviour following adversity, it is pertinent to wonder whether prosocial motives contribute to victim participation in RJ. Retrospective studies on victim appreciation of RJ, used in response to a variety of crimes committed by juvenile or adult offenders, suggest that victims value RJ for being beneficial for themselves as well as for the offender and society (for example, Doak and O’Mahony, 2006; Umbreit et al., 2006; Wemmers and Cyr, 2005; Van Camp, 2014). Staub and Vollhardt (2008: 274) propose that ‘[r]estorative justice programs are likely to both strengthen the self and create a more positive attitude towards human beings in general, thereby promoting [altruism born of suffering]’. However, rather than looking at whether participation in RJ produces prosocial purposes, I wanted to learn whether prosocial considerations inspire participation in RJ. In one of the few prospective studies on RJ by Shapland et al. (2011), victim-participants were asked, moments before a face- to-face meeting with their offender was about to start, to indicate whether they were participating because they wanted to express their feelings, have a say, be repaid for the damage incurred, help the offender, or do their duty by taking part. Their answers suggest that they had in fact adopted both self- and other-oriented reasons. The present study expands on Shapland et al.’s (2011) quantitative pre-meeting observations through the use of in-depth interviews with victims at an earlier point in time, that is during the preparation of the victim–offender dialogue in individual meetings with the restorative facilitator. During this preparatory phase, which is characterized by repeated interactions with and support from a restorative facilitator, initial motives for participation might shift and, hence, this period needs to be taken into account when studying victims’ views on the meaning of RJ.

Van Camp 683

Method

Unstructured interviews were conducted with victims of property crime and violent crime who agreed to participate in complementary VOM or conferencing in Belgium and England.1 VOM and conferencing in Belgium and England are facilitated by non-gov- ernmental services and charity services, respectively (for more details on the implemen- tation of RJ in Belgium, see Van Camp and De Souter, 2012, and, on the state of affairs in England, see Miers, 2012).

Respondents were interviewed twice. The first interview took place as soon as possi- ble after the respondent agreed to be involved in a restorative intervention and (possibly) before any substantial liaised exchange with the offender had taken place. Respondents were interviewed again after the conclusion of the restorative intervention (a concluded restorative intervention did not have to include a face-to-face meeting or a signed out- come agreement).

Respondents were recruited with the assistance of RJ services. The final sample of 30 respondents includes 18 respondents residing in Belgium and 12 in England. Most respondents were women (n = 19). The youngest respondent was 18; the oldest was 72 (the average age was 40). Eight cases concerned an offence committed by a young offender (that is younger than 18). The sample includes mostly offences that involved (the threat of) physical violence or unintentional bodily harm (n = 20), including some very serious offences, such as homicide (n = 4). Consequently, the study sample includes adult relatives of a victim who has passed away owing to the consequences of the crime. In extant literature, relatives of victims of manslaughter or murder are commonly referred to as indirect victims or co-victims. This description has been criticized for trivializing the impact of losing a person whom one holds dear (see, for instance, O’Neill, 2000). The impact of losing a loved one often results in similar emotional and psychological conse- quences (including depression, self-blame and post-traumatic stress disorder) as direct victimization (for example, Kilpatrick and Acierno, 2003). This then might result in comparable motives for participation in a restorative practice. Most cases in the Belgian subsample were concluded pre-conviction (n = 11), yet RJ did not replace criminal jus- tice proceedings and decision-making. In the context of RJ, 16 respondents met their offender face-to-face. Only two cases overall involved conferencing (supporters for both parties attended). With five of the respondents the first and second interviews took place at the same time because it was possible to talk with the respondent only after the RJ intervention had already concluded.2 Also, in eight cases either the victim or the offender withdrew from the restorative intervention after the first interview. All eight victims were still invited to participate in a second research interview to reflect on their experiences with RJ following the first interview – only one of them declined.

Interviews were done in English, Dutch and French. Face-to-face interviews were favoured but were not always feasible (owing to distance and time constraints); 19 respondents could be interviewed only by phone. Phone interviews have a different dynamic but do not necessarily produce inferior findings compared with face-to-face interviews (Sturges and Hanrahan, 2004). All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed inductively with the use of NVivo.3

684 European Journal of Criminology 14(6)

Findings

RJ was largely unknown among respondents. Four respondents had heard about RJ in the context of their work or studies. Six respondents self-initiated RJ after having learned about it through court documentation, a TV documentary or another victim, or after hav- ing (repeatedly) told a police officer, probation liaison officer or prison warden that they wanted to speak with the offender. The other respondents had never heard about RJ before the restorative facilitator contacted them following a request by the offender or the authorities to consider participation in a restorative intervention. Consequently, many respondents had no idea what RJ was or what to expect from it. Yet they agreed (with or without some hesitation) to meet with the facilitator.

[F]or whatever reason, I decided that I would do [it]. There was no aim as such…. It just seemed like a good idea.… I just thought it would be something that I would like to do.… [I]f you’ve got the opportunity to do things, why not? (Frank, victim of burglary, 1st interview)

Several respondents (n = 13) divulged that the RJ offer appealed to their curiosity. They were curious about the offender, what he or she had been thinking or why the offender wanted to talk to them. Some were curious about RJ. This had a vocational significance for some, but not for others. Participation in RJ had a religious significance for two respondents. For Sonia, however, meeting her burglar would simply be part of ‘life’s rich tapestry’ (1st interview).

Respondents identified many different reasons why they wanted to participate in RJ, which are related to a need to feel involved in the aftermath of the crime, self-relevant motives associated with reparation or therapeutic purposes and prosocial concerns.4

‘A chance to be involved’

Some respondents (n = 8) reported that their decision to participate in the restorative intervention was partly related to their appreciation of the availability of a service that expressly considers the victim’s interests. What is more, participation was voluntary and RJ was, at least in this study, complementary to the CJS. This also swayed respondents to agree to participate – it implied that there was no pressure to reach an agreement or to accept a proposal from the offender. RJ offered choices and was devoid of obligations. For example, respondents could choose between face-to-face and indirect communication with the offender – the latter allowed them and the offender to remain anonymous. A number of respondents explained that they would not have become involved if RJ required meeting the offender face-to-face: ‘When I realized that I did not have to confront [the offender] directly, I accepted’ (Jeanette, victim of assault, 1st interview).

Voluntary participation also entails the freedom to withdraw whenever one is unhappy with the way things are going. For instance, sometimes continued engagement in the restorative intervention depended on the offender’s motivation to participate in RJ. Knowing that there was no obligation to participate and that they could simply walk

Van Camp 685

away if they were unconvinced of the offender’s efforts or dissatisfied with the offend- er’s motives, was very much appreciated or convinced respondents to stay involved (n = 14).

It is always possible to take a step back. I never felt that, as soon as I agreed to do it, a machine had been set in motion that could not be stopped. At any time I can tell [the facilitators] that I want to stop. (Marie, victim of sexual violence, 1st interview)

Respondents felt enabled to make an informed decision about participation in RJ thanks to the transparent and forthcoming information they received from the restorative facilitator during the introductory meeting. Owing to the care and support provided throughout the procedure this reassurance was preserved. A number of respondents (n = 6) spontaneously mentioned that this inspired their decision to participate in RJ. Respondents were also told that there were no guarantees of certain outcomes. This helped shape realistic expectations and prevented disappointment (n = 22).5 Sam, who was willing to meet his burglar, argued:

One would hope that [VOM] has a positive result on [the offender’s] life, but we can’t say one can expect it one way or the other.… So it can … have no effect, [but] it won’t have a bad effect. There’s no way we’re going to make [him worse]. All we’re going to do is either nothing, or say something which just improves things. (1st interview)

‘Doing it for me’

Only a few respondents (n = 6) noted that they were seeking compensation or material reparation – all were from Belgium. Incidentally, this desire was not strictly material; what mattered was the effort from the offender to put things right. Given the violent nature of most of the crimes in the study sample, it is not surprising that for most respond- ents the impact of the crime was predominantly emotional. Victimization left them feel- ing upset and wary. It affected their studies, work and social life. RJ was expected to contribute to their recovery (n = 19). It is telling that the few respondents who initiated RJ themselves did so mainly or exclusively for therapeutic reasons. For instance, Lilian, a victim of sexual violence, explained that ‘a mediated conversation … helps particularly to accelerate healing’ (2nd interview).

There were different routes towards healing through RJ. A few respondents hoped that they would manage to look the offender in the eye – this would be empowering. Respondents also cared about the opportunity to explain how the incident had affected them, to vent their emotions and to ask questions. The offender’s answers might offer insight and appeasement. Respondents anticipated that answers could be painful, but they argued that not knowing what happened was even worse. They also understood that the offender might not have all the answers they needed – the chance to ask questions mattered in itself. In the first interview, Phil manifested a strong need to ask the offender questions about the deadly assault on his relative. Following VOM, he felt content at having had the opportunity to rid himself of these questions, even though he did not receive answers:

686 European Journal of Criminology 14(6)

I don’t have an answer, but at least I know that I took the chance to ask my question and possibly getting an answer. If I’d refused to have this conversation, I would have forever been wondering whether I could [have had an answer]. At least now I know that I will never know what really happened [because I asked and the offender doesn’t remember]. (2nd interview)

In addition, RJ was about recognition. Some interviewees anticipated that a genuine apology would be satisfactory (n = 7) and others acknowledged the value of an apology after having received one (n = 5). Five respondents more specifically wanted to find out whether the offender was capable of accepting responsibility and telling the truth. Amy, for instance, explained that she wanted to see whether the offender was truly able to admit to killing her relative, as he had always denied it until he appeared in court.

These reasons for participation are prompted by self-relevant concerns. As respond- ents sought to fulfil these self-relevant concerns they (expected that they) would be able to stop dwelling on the crime. It would allow them to make sense of what hap- pened. During the first interview, Libby expressed frustration for still reliving the moment she came face-to-face with a burglar in her home and feeling like a victim, which she was hoping to move past through VOM: ‘I tell myself that when I succeed, when I am able to conquer my fear and tell [the offender] what I want to tell him, that I will be appeased in some way…. [If] I manage … to look him in the eye, I will be a little stronger.’ When I spoke to her again after the VOM, she explained that she no longer thinks of herself as a victim and that ‘[VOM] has been nothing but beneficial.… It is a mini-therapy, if you will’.

‘It is also about the other’

Respondents also took the offender’s and the community’s concerns into account. For example, RJ was perceived as an opportunity for both parties to explain, express or unburden themselves. There was support from a neutral facilitator for both. The victim’s and offender’s concerns were balanced and respected and RJ was valued for it (n = 16).

It is made easier … [for me] as much as for [the offender] because [with all the preparatory shuttle mediation] he now knows [and is prepared for] what I want to ask him. (Gina, victim of damage to property, 1st interview)

Moreover, seven respondents (initially) insisted that they had no pressing personal con- cerns for RJ and would not have initiated it themselves. Max, who had been robbed and beaten, added that he understood how VOM ‘would be beneficial for me, but in my case … I didn’t need [it] to [be beneficial for me]’ (1st and 2nd interviews together) – he had already been doing fine. Victims were willing to go along with RJ because the offender initiated it and put himself or herself forward. This was seen as a possible sign of remorse. Positive impressions of the offender (for example, the offender listened, was understand- ing, seemed honest, went to great lengths to respond to questions, suggested making amends, seemed sincerely remorseful) justified completing the restorative intervention. Respondents wanted to match the offender’s efforts. For instance, Burt, a victim of a common assault, was happy with the idea of writing a response to his offender’s letter: ‘it’s only fair if he has taken the time to write I do the same back’ (1st interview).

Van Camp 687

Many respondents were also either a priori looking for RJ to allow the offender to find peace and move on (n = 13) or hoped in hindsight that it would (n = 10). Only one respondent referred to forgiveness. Respondents mainly wanted to give the offender an opportunity to own up to the truth (which would be liberating for the offender), provide insight into what happened because the offender could not remember, accept the offend- er’s apology or show that they did not bear the offender ill will.

In addition, for many respondents, RJ was an opportunity to persuade the offender to refrain from reoffending, either as a reason to step into RJ (n = 14) or as a benefit in hindsight (n = 3). Through participation in RJ they had a shot at raising awareness about the multiple consequences of victimization, encouraging the offender to avoid negative influences or risky situations (such as drugs, alcohol and ‘bad’ friends) or inspiring the offender to learn a skill. It was assumed that such a message is more powerful when it comes from the victim.

The only thing I said to [the offender] was, … the only way to really prove that he is sorry, is to go and make something of himself. But not for me. ‘I don’t want you to do it because you have done something wrong to me. I want you to do it because you want to do it. [I]f you want to make something of yourself, by all means go and do it and that will be the best apology ever.’ (Max, victim of robbery and assault, 1st and 2nd interviews together)

Respondents who described such other-oriented concerns often adopted a particular approach to the incident or the offender. The offence, for instance, was not necessarily referred to as a crime but described as an accident, an unintentional hurt or a mistake (n = 5) or it was emphasized that the incident would not have happened if the offender had been sober (n = 7). Even before having had a direct exchange with the offender, whom she knew, Julia was convinced that the offender was ‘a good lad’ and did not mean to kill her relative. It happened because he had been doing drugs and ‘it is two young lives ruined from a stupid incident [– his victim’s and his own]’ (1st interview). In addition, in cases involving a young or young adult offender, the offence was often associated with careless- ness or a sin of youth. In the first interview, Tim, who was seriously injured as a conse- quence of a traffic violation, described the incident as ‘a stupid mistake [but] with serious consequences’. He believed that ‘[the offender] did not [hurt me] on purpose.… [He] is a young lad…. Young people … don’t have a lot of life experience.… They don’t always think about other people or about what could happen’. Moreover, 11 respondents (includ- ing in cases concerning murder and manslaughter) referred to the offender as a person who had gone off the rails, had suffered bad luck in life, had got mixed up with the wrong crowd, had succumbed to peer pressure or did not enjoy the same chances in life or a good upbringing. Consequently, they hoped that the offender would pull themselves together and start over, for instance, after hearing that the victim did not bear them ill will. Anna, whose relative was killed, explained that,

deep down, I do believe he is just a lad who’s gone off the rails and he hasn’t had the [best] guidance…. Because, to me, he’s a young lad who’s acted how he shouldn’t have acted, in drink…. So I’ve tried to have compassion for him. Feeling that he’s done a lot of damage to himself.… I don’t think it’s an excuse, but I think he’s had a dreadful home life. (1st interview)

688 European Journal of Criminology 14(6)

Some respondents who expressed a concern for the offender also reported that they had never or no longer suffered severe material and emotional consequences or that they were reluctant to go to court (n = 13). Bill, for instance, explained that he never wanted to register a complaint for slander against his neighbours but was advised to do so when the neighbourhood police officer had indicated that they had run out of options to deal with the dispute informally. Bill was then ‘positively surprised that [the other party] agreed to do [mediation].… Apparently, they also want to try to sort it out this way, so, yes, if we can, I’ll be very happy indeed’ (1st interview).

A beneficial consequence of raising victim awareness among offenders and, as such, potentially discouraging reoffending is a safer community for all. This was also taken into consideration in the decision to participate in RJ (n = 13) or appreciated as a benefit in retrospect (n = 4).

I think that, after that meeting, [the offender] realizes what the consequences [of his act] were [for us] and that it is very unlikely that he will do it again. I think that is very important, that no one else will have to experience it, because of him. (Ellen, victim of armed robbery, 1st and 2nd interviews together)

Yet, inasmuch as respondents hoped that RJ would help desistance from crime, many underlined, either prior to (n = 7) or following (n = 7) the restorative intervention, that desistance depended largely on the offender’s willingness and effort. They considered that the impact of their dialogue on the offender’s future might be only minimal, no mat- ter how much they hoped it would help. Cathy, who was the victim of a bag-snatching, acknowledged during the first interview that ‘I might only have a small chance to con- tribute in some way, … but even if there is only one chance, I will take it. If he succeeds in finding the right way, then that will also help me to turn the page.’ During her face-to- face meeting with the offender, she learned that he was still doing drugs and this con- cerned and discouraged her:

What good is mediation when you have that terrible impression that things will not change, even if there is goodwill towards the victim? … Even when he does have good intentions, and that is always a good thing, but if it is just me and the mediator to help him regain some purpose? Our actions are very limited.… He will need further support and follow-up. (2nd interview)

Furthermore, two respondents stressed that they were willing to stay engaged in the intervention with the aim of helping the offender only if they perceived that the offender wanted to be helped. In Bob’s case the person who had attacked him had initiated VOM. The offender was a stranger to Bob and he did not feel a meeting with his aggressor would be ‘of any particular benefit for me’. He did not have any burning questions for the offender – he did not doubt that the offender had only randomly attacked him in search of money for his next fix. ‘If I went to meet him, it would not be for me. That might sound odd but it won’t be for me, it would be for him’ (1st interview). During the second interview, Bob explained that he eventually withdrew from VOM. He wanted to participate for the offender’s benefit but he was not convinced the offender had the best intentions and would benefit from speaking with his victim.

Van Camp 689

Collectively, prosocial purposes for participation in RJ seemed to foster meaning- making. For example, respondents described that they wanted to turn the harmful inci- dent into something constructive (n = 5) or that it felt good to have a chance to encourage the offender to make something of his or her life and raise victim awareness (n = 7). As such, victim-participants sought to give a positive meaning to the harmful incident, which could contribute to a sense of appeasement.

I said to him ‘Make it not in vain, [my relative]’s dead. You can’t bring [them] back but you can change what you do [with your life]’. […] I wanted that [my relative]’s life had not gone in vain, that [my relative] might have [taken] a drunken young man in prison…, but at the other end, [many] years later, I want somebody to come out who can do something in society. (Anna, 2nd interview)

Few changes in motives along the way

Because most respondents were interviewed on two occasions, that is, once as soon as possible after they agreed to participate in a restorative intervention and again after its conclusion, inferences can be drawn about the evolution of motives for participation as respondents journeyed through the restorative process.6

During the first interview (which was able to be done with 25 out of the 30 respond- ents), 15 respondents indicated that participation in RJ was associated with both self- relevant and prosocial purposes. Yet the weight given to either self-relevant or prosocial concerns varied: both were equally important (n = 5), self-relevant purposes were domi- nant but respondents acknowledged that prosocial benefits might additionally result from the restorative encounter (n = 6), or the restorative intervention primarily needed to be helpful for the offender but respondents appreciated that they might feel better (than they already did) after speaking with the offender (n = 4). Five respondents identified only self-relevant purposes at the beginning of their RJ journey – they were after regain- ing a sense of control, finding closure or getting compensation. To them, it (initially) did not matter what the offender took away from RJ or it was unclear how it might possibly help the offender. Finally, five respondents revealed that they had no self-relevant con- cerns, apart from maybe personal or vocational curiosity. They explained that they had not suffered significant financial loss or that, if they had been distressed by the (violent) incident, the emotional impact had waned – communication with the offender was not vital for their recovery. They merely wanted to help the offender and try to discourage reoffending.

A comparison between the first and second interviews (n = 24) reveals that there was only a slight change in motives. A change in motives was most distinctly exhibited in four discourses. Three respondents who reported that they were initially only doing RJ for themselves revealed that a concern for the offender had emerged from their exchanges with the offender in the context of the restorative intervention. In a fourth case, the respondent recalled during the first interview that she had agreed to participate in VOM because the offender had initiated it and she was simply willing to go along with it for his sake: ‘I don’t think it will actually benefit me … but I feel like it will benefit [the offender]’ (Mia, victim of armed robbery). However, in hindsight, during the second

690 European Journal of Criminology 14(6)

interview, Mia emphasized how the communication with the offender had helped her feel better and how glad she was that she had participated and accepted the offender’s letter, ‘because it sort of put my mind at ease…. It restored my faith in humanity.’

In seven cases it was not so much a matter of new motives arising from participation but rather of a shift in weight accorded to initial motives. During the first interview with these respondents, both self-relevant and prosocial reasons for agreeing to participate in RJ were presented, but one motive was secondary to the other. After the conclusion of the restora- tive intervention either what was initially only a secondary motive became a primary motive or both sets of reasons became equally important. Vera, for instance, initially agreed to participate in VOM mainly because she felt the offender needed it. The opportunity for her to ask questions about the burglary was, however, a valuable bonus. In hindsight, Vera reported how surprised she was about how much reassurance she had found in it for her- self, in addition to it having been helpful for the offender: ‘I thought it would … not [be] as influential on how I felt about it. I thought it would just be like “oh, I got my letter and fair enough”, but it did really make me, like, feel at ease’ (2nd interview).

It is remarkable that many respondents who described prosocial concerns for their participation in RJ had already done so during the first interview. It is equally notable that even in cases where the respondent was hoping to help the offender but the offender withdrew before giving the victim-participant a chance for a substantial exchange, or the victim withdrew because they did not trust the offender to be sincerely engaged in the RJ process, respondents maintained in the second interview that they had agreed to the restorative intervention for the offender (as well as for themselves) and hoped that the offender would find support. One of these seven respondents is Bob, who, as mentioned earlier, had been hesitant about the offender’s intentions in VOM from the start and even- tually withdrew because the messages he received from the mediator during the prepara- tion for a victim–offender dialogue only confirmed his reservations. Yet, Bob added that he has ‘no ill-feeling towards [the offender] and I hope he does get his life back on track’ (2nd interview). When he withdrew before having any exchange with the offender, Bob asked the mediator to tell the offender to focus on his own recovery and, ‘if he was at all concerned about what happened to his victim, that he should no longer be concerned because I am fine’ (2nd interview).

Discussion

Many studies demonstrate that RJ is highly valued by victim-participants and credited with promoting a sense of justice and appeasement. The current paper aims to move beyond victim appreciation of RJ and contribute to building much-needed insight into how it works (Rossner, 2008) in order to advance good restorative practice. More par- ticularly, it unravels victims’ reasons for participation in a restorative intervention.

Owing to the fact that only a few respondents knew about RJ prior to participation, there were few preconceived ideas about how RJ could serve them. This also implies that, for their expectations for RJ, victims rely to some extent on the information they receive from the restorative facilitator. The importance of the quality of the interaction with the facilitator for victim appreciation of RJ cannot be overstated (for example, Shapland et al., 2011). Respondents specifically appreciated having received clear and

Van Camp 691

honest information. Support and honest information not only allowed informed choice about participation, but also helped create realistic expectations and decrease uncertainty (Lind and Van den Bos, 2002; Wemmers, 2013).

Upon invitation or following an introductory talk with the restorative facilitator, respondents perceived that the restorative intervention could have multiple benefits for different parties. Motives associated with material and therapeutic interests but also with a search for involvement, recognition, apology and support can be classified as self-rel- evant. Respondents in this study, which included victims of violent offences, particularly alluded to therapeutic self-relevant concerns. Victim-participants anticipated that having a chance to express emotions and gain insight would advance healing. They further com- mended RJ facilitators for asking them what they needed and giving them a voice. This sense of involvement was amplified by knowing that participation was voluntary and could be withdrawn at any time. Respondents also favoured the complementary nature of RJ, which exempts them from any responsibility to reach an agreement with the offender. Generally, victims are not looking for control over any decisions with regards to the offender (Wemmers and Cyr, 2006) nor should they ever be burdened with it (Reeves and Dunn, 2010).

Furthermore, as found in other studies on experiences in RJ in response to both youth and adult offending (for example, Doak and O’Mahony, 2006; Shapland et al., 2011; Strang, 2002; Umbreit et al., 2006), most respondents in this study sample identified selfless purposes for their participation. For instance, respondents were looking for fair treatment and an opportunity for voice for both parties. They were willing to match the offender’s effort in the restorative intervention. Respondents also wanted or hoped for their dialogue with the offender to dissuade reoffending, which might contribute to a safer society for all. Staub and Vollhardt (2008) argue that experience of adversity increases willingness to help others and prevent others from suffering. It would appear that such prosocial concerns might also inspire participation in an assisted victim– offender dialogue.

It could be assumed that, along the way, expectations and reasons for participation in RJ change; for instance, intuitively it could be assumed that prosocial purposes result from increased insight into the offender’s remorse only through the victim–offender dia- logue. In this study, however, victims’ motives for participation in RJ evolved little over the course of the restorative intervention. Prosocial concerns had mostly already been taken into consideration at an early stage, rather than being produced by the restorative process or communication with the offender. It is nonetheless important to acknowledge that, in some cases, it was the offender’s initiative to do RJ that persuaded respondents to participate, which they then did mainly for prosocial reasons – the offender’s initiative was seen as an indication of the offender’s remorse. It could be argued that prosocial pur- poses then indeed resulted from the offender’s initiative to communicate. Also, a concern for the offender did not always propel participation in RJ; sometimes this was merely an anticipated additional benefit, rather than a driving force for participation. Put differently, at the start of a restorative intervention, the large majority of respondents had already either expressly presented prosocial motives for doing RJ or at least recognized and appre- ciated that, as they sought to satisfy self-relevant interests, their participation in RJ could also have benefits for the offender and the society. It seems that RJ accommodates, rather

692 European Journal of Criminology 14(6)

than produces, prosocial concerns (Van Camp and Wemmers, 2013). It is, of course, also not unthinkable that motives for participation might be subject to the victim’s recovery. Unfortunately, the nature of the collected data does not allow one to isolate the impact of the time that has passed since the victimization, which might be healing (Wemmers, 2013), or the healing effect of support that victims might have received outside of RJ.

Ultimately, gaining insight through communication with the offender enabled victims to make sense of the incident and give it a place (Gehm, 1998), while encouraging the offender to do better, and trying to build a safer society helped victim-participants trans- form their suffering into something meaningful (Janoff-Bulman, 1992). Such prosocial behaviour is associated with better coping and greater wellbeing among trauma survivors (Frazier et al., 2013). Put differently, seeking to achieve prosocial motives might have enhanced the self (see also Grossman et al., 2006). The reverse is also true: participation for self-relevant reasons might (purposefully or inadvertently) have a prosocial benefit for the offender and the society (Cyr and Wemmers, 2011). Consequently, since such self- relevant and prosocial purposes are already manifested when victims decide to participate in RJ and each is associated with meaning-making, meaning-making does not simply result from participation in RJ. Rather, RJ is a vehicle in the search for meaning-making.

These observations can be translated into implications for RJ practices. For instance, good RJ practice should continue to support the different interests that victims manifest. Good RJ practices allow individual motivations to emerge spontaneously and respect these, be they self-relevant, prosocial or both. It starts with the question ‘tell us what it is you want – we will try to accommodate that’. RJ is a flexible practice and can adapt to individual motivations (Van Camp and De Mesmaecker, 2014), and this flexibility and individuality should be guaranteed. Good RJ practice is also about safeguarding informed choice and preparation. Finally, RJ allows victims to use their victimization to a con- structive end and, as such, find meaning in adversity. Unfortunately, awareness about RJ among victims is low at present. Therefore, action is required to increase awareness and help victims find their way to RJ (Laxminarayan, 2014). Victims want to know about RJ (Shapland et al., 2011; Wemmers and Canuto, 2002) – they would prefer to decline the invitation to participate in RJ rather than not know about their restorative options (Van Camp and Wemmers, 2016).

The present study has some important limitations. First of all, the observations are drawn from qualitative data and an unrepresentative sample. The aim of qualitative stud- ies is to uncover the spectrum of views and experiences, not to measure the extent of their prevalence. It therefore does not aspire to draw on a representative sample. This study’s sample does not mirror either the victim population, in which most are men and victims of minor offences, or RJ services clientele. Moreover, the prevalence of prosocial motives may be greater owing to self-selection to participate in scientific research, which is in itself a prosocial interest. Also, in only a few cases was it possible for a first inter- view to take place before there had been much exchange between the victim-participant and the RJ facilitator, in which the facilitator might have revealed some background about the offender and the offender’s motives for engaging in RJ. Therefore I cannot rule out that RJ facilitators unknowingly affected the victims’ motives for becoming or stay- ing involved in the RJ intervention. Finally, it would be interesting to compare the motives for participation in complementary and diversionary RJ in further research.

Van Camp 693

RJ has been credited with providing voice and advancing healing. The observations in this study, which draws on a series of interviews with victim-participants in complemen- tary VOM and conferencing in Belgium and England, suggest that victim-participants seek to achieve prosocial purposes through RJ, or at least appreciate RJ for having proso- cial benefits. More specifically, victim-participants hoped that a dialogue with the offender would provide insight and promote closure as well as dissuade reoffending and, as such, contribute to a safer society. Through the achievement of self-relevant and prosocial concerns, the victim–offender dialogue fostered meaning-making and allowed injustice to be transformed into something positive.

Acknowledgements

I owe many thanks to Professor Joanna Shapland and Dr Gwen Robinson for reading and com- menting on an earlier version of this article. I am grateful to the anonymous peer reviewers for their remarks and suggestions. Thanks are also due to the RJ services that assisted in the recruitment of respondents and to the victims who agreed to share their experiences. Ethical approval for this study was received from the University of Sheffield, UK.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/ or publication of this article: This research was supported by the European Commission as a Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship (# PIEF-GA-2011-298434).

Notes

1. The study, from which this article is drawn, responded to an additional research objective that cannot be addressed within the confines of this paper, that is, to explore the impact of experiences in different legal-structural and legal-cultural systems on the motives for victim participation in RJ. In order to comply with this objective, I recruited respondents from a common law country and a civil law country.

2. There was a quick turnover in these five cases (it was a speedy intervention or the victim or the offender withdrew from the procedure), which meant that I could not speak with the victim in question until after the restorative procedure was completed or terminated. Since these victims had been made aware of the research and had informed their mediator that they wanted to participate in an interview, I did not want to deny them that opportunity if they were still interested. However, given that these five respondents could only retrospectively reflect on their motivations for RJ, I did not include them in the analysis of the changes in motives presented in the Findings section.

3. Interview excerpts are associated with pseudonyms. Citations have been translated whenever necessary.

4. Despite the fact that the countries included in this study represent a different adjudicatory regime and victims have different formal positions in these regimes – Belgium uses an inquis- itorial judicial regime in which victims can be involved as civil claimants upon their own initiative, and England typifies an adversarial judicial regime in which victims merely act as witnesses upon invitation by the court – there appeared to be little difference between responses in the two countries in terms of the range and nature of reasons for participation. This will be further developed in another paper.

5. I hasten to note that I cannot rule out that, in their multiple interactions with victim-partici- pants, mediators might (knowingly or unknowingly) also have instilled some expectations.

694 European Journal of Criminology 14(6)

6. Please note that, as explained in the methodology section of this paper, five respondents could not be interviewed before the restorative intervention had already concluded and one respondent refused the second interview.

References

Bogaert S, Boone C and Declerck C (2008) Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A review and conceptual model. British Journal of Social Psychology 47(3): 453– 480.

Cyr K and Wemmers J-A (2011) Empowerment des victimes d’actes criminels. Criminologie 44(2): 125–155.

Deutsch M (1975) Equity, equality, and need. What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues 31(3): 137–150.

Doak J and O’Mahony D (2006) The vengeful victim? Assessing the attitudes of victims par- ticipating in restorative youth conferencing. International Review of Victimology 13(2): 157–177.

European Union (2012) Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime. Official Journal of the European Union, L 315, 14 November 2012.

Frazier P, Greer C, Gabrielsen S, Tennen H, Park C and Tomich P (2013) The relation between trauma exposure and prosocial behavior. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy 5(3): 286–294.

Gehm J (1998) Victim–offender mediation programs: An exploration of practice and theoretical frameworks. Western Criminology Review 1(1) [online].

Goodey J (2005) Victims and Victimology: Research, Policy and Practice. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Groenhuijsen M (2000) Victim–offender mediation: Legal and procedural safeguards. Experiments and legislation in some European jurisdictions. In: The European Forum for Victim–Offender Mediation and Restorative Justice (ed.) Victim–Offender Mediation in Europe. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 69–83.

Grossman FK, Sorsoli L and Kia-Keating M (2006) A gale force wind: Meaning making by male survivors of childhood sexual abuse. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 76(4): 434–443.

Hall M (2009) Victims of Crime. Policy and Practice in Criminal Justice. Abingdon: Routledge. Herman JL (2003) The mental health of crime victims: Impact of legal intervention. Journal of

Traumatic Stress 16(2): 159–166. Janoff-Bulman R (1992) Shattered Assumptions: Towards a New Psychology of Trauma. New

York: Free Press. Kilpatrick DG and Acierno R (2003) Mental health needs of crime victims: Epidemiology and

outcomes. Journal of Traumatic Stress 16(2): 119–132. Laxminarayan M (2014) Accessibility and Initiation of Restorative Justice. Leuven: European

Forum for Restorative Justice. Lind EA and Tyler T (1988) The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum

Press. Lind EA and Van den Bos K (2002) When fairness works: Toward a general theory of uncertainty

management. Research in Organizational Behavior 24(2002): 181–223. McClintock CG and Allison ST (1989) Social value orientation and helping behavior. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology 19(4): 353–362. McCullough ME (2008) Beyond Revenge. The Evolution of the Forgiveness Instinct. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Van Camp 695

Miers D (2012) Restorative justice and victim–offender mediation in the United Kingdom. In: Miers D and Aertsen I (eds) Regulating Restorative Justice: A Comparative Study of Legislative Provision in European Countries. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Verlag für Polizeiwissenschaft, 420–510.

O’Neill A (2000) Honouring survival: Is there a rule book? Bachelor’s thesis, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia.

Reeves H and Dunn P (2010) The status of crime victims and witnesses in the twenty-first century. In: Bottoms A and Roberts JV (eds) Hearing the Victim. Adversarial Justice, Crime Victims and the State. London: Routledge, 46–71.

Rossner M (2008) Healing victims and offenders and reducing crime: A critical assessment of restorative justice practice and theory. Sociology Compass 2(6): 1734–1749.

Shapland J, Robinson G and Sorsby A (2011) Restorative Justice in Practice. London: Routledge. Staub E and Vollhardt J (2008) Altruism born of suffering: The roots of caring and helping after

victimization and other trauma. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 78(3): 267–280. Strang H (2002) Repair or Revenge: Victims and Restorative Justice. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Strang H and Sherman L (2003) Repairing the harm: Victims and restorative justice. Utah Law

Review 15(1): 15–42. Sturges JE and Hanrahan KJ (2004) Comparing telephone and face-to-face qualitative interview-

ing: A research note. Qualitative Research 4(1): 107–118. Thibaut J and Walker L (1975) Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates. Umbreit MS, Vos B, Coates RB and Armour MP (2006) Victims of severe violence in mediated

dialogue with offender: The impact of the first multi-site study in the U.S. International Review of Victimology 13(1): 27–48.

Van Camp T (2014) Victims of Violence and Restorative Practices. Finding a Voice. London: Routledge.

Van Camp T and De Mesmaecker V (2014) Procedural justice for victims of crime: Are victim impact statements and victim–offender mediation rising to the challenge? In: Vanfraechem I, Pemberton A and Felix N (eds) Justice for Victims. Perspectives on Rights, Transition and Reconciliation. London: Routledge, 277–299.

Van Camp T and De Souter V (2012) Belgium. In: Miers D and Aertsen I (eds) Regulating Restorative Justice: A Comparative Study of Legislative Provision in European Countries. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Verlag für Polizeiwissenschaft, 60–100.

Van Camp T and Wemmers J-A (2013) Victim satisfaction with restorative justice: More than simply procedural justice. International Review of Victimology 19(2): 117–143.

Van Camp T and Wemmers J-A (2016) Victims’ reflections on the proactive and protective approach to the offer of restorative justice: The importance of information. Accepted for publication in the Canadian Journal for Criminology and Criminal Justice.

Van den Bos K (2009) Making sense of life: The existential self trying to deal with personal uncer- tainty. Psychological Inquiry: An International Journal for the Advancement of Psychological Theory 20(4): 197–217.

Van den Bos K and Lind EA (2001) The psychology of own versus others’ treatment: Self-oriented and other-oriented effects on perceptions of procedural justice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27(10): 1324–1333.

Van Prooijen J-W, Ståhl T, Eek D and Van Lange PAM (2012) Injustice for all or just for me? Social value orientation predicts responses to own versus other’s procedures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38(10): 1247–1258.

Vollhardt JR (2009) Altruism born of suffering and prosocial behavior following adverse life events: A review and conceptualization. Social Justice Research 22(1): 53–97.

696 European Journal of Criminology 14(6)

Wemmers J-A (2002) Restorative justice. The choice between bilateral decision-making power and third party intervention. In:Williams B (ed.) Reparation and Victim-Focused Social Work. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 34–44.

Wemmers J-A (2011) Victims in the criminal justice system and therapeutic jurisprudence: A Canadian perspective. In: Erez E, Kilchling M and Wemmers J-A (eds) Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Victim Participation in Justice. International Perspectives. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 67–85.

Wemmers J-A (2013) Victims’ experiences in the criminal justice system and their recovery from crime. International Review of Victimology 19(3): 221–233.

Wemmers J-A and Canuto M (2002) Expériences, attentes et perceptions des victimes à l’égard de la justice réparatrice: Analyse documentaire critique. Ottawa: Ministère de la Justice Canada.

Wemmers J-A and Cyr K (2005) Can mediation be therapeutic for crime victims? An evaluation of victims’ experiences in mediation with young offenders. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 47(3): 527–544.

Wemmers J-A and Cyr K (2006) What fairness means to crime victims: A social psychologi- cal perspective on victim–offender mediation. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice 2(2): 102–128.

Wemmers J-A, Van der Leeden R and Steensma H (1995) What is procedural justice: Criteria used by Dutch victims to assess the fairness of criminal justice procedures. Social Justice Research 8(4): 329–350.

Zehr H and Mika H (1998) Fundamental concepts of restorative justice. Contemporary Justice Review 1(1): 47–55.

Zinsstag E, Teunkens M and Pali B (2011) Conferencing: A Way Forward for Restorative Justice in Europe. Leuven: European Forum for Restorative Justice.