The topic of restorative justice has become increasingly popular. However, there is some debate as to whether restorative justice programs adequately address victims' needs. To this end a review of the literature on victims' experiences with, and their expectations and perceptions of, restorative justice, was conducted. The available research shows that while restorative justice has advantages for victims, there is a risk of secondary victimization. There is, however, a demand for restorative justice programs among victims. The question is therefore not whether restorative justice programs should be offered to victims, but how they should be offered. This paper addresses the research on victims' needs and closes with recommendations for victim-oriented restorative justice programs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AertsenI.PetersT. (1998). Mediation for Reparation: The Victim's Perspective. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 6, (2), 106–124.
2.
AertsenI. (2000). Victim Offender Mediation in Belgium. In Victim—Offender Mediation in Europe: Making restorative justice work. (European Forum for Victim—Offender Mediation and Restorative Justice, ed.) pp. 153–192. Leuven University Press; Leuven.
3.
AshworthA. (2000). Victims' Rights, Defendants' Rights and Criminal Procedure. In Integrating a Victim Perspective within Criminal Justice (CrawfordA.GoodeyJ., eds) pp. 185–206. Ashgate Publishers; England.
4.
Avalon (1999). Formal Response of the Avalon Sexual Assault Centre to N.S. Department of Justice: The Restorative Justice Program. Submitted to the Nova Scotia Department of Justice, September 1999.
5.
BarilM. (1984). L'envers du crime. Cahier No. 2, CICC, Université de Montréal; Montréal.
6.
BaurmannM.SchadlerW. (1991). Victims of Reported Crime — Their Expectations, Needs and Perspectives. An Inquiry of Crime Victims Concerning Victim Protection, Victim Support and Mediation. In Victims and Criminal Justice (KaiserG.KuryH.AlbrechtH.-J., eds) Volume 52/1, pp. 3–27. Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Penal Law; Freiburg i.Br.
7.
BlanchetteJ. (1996). Une Équité À Toute Mesure: Enquête auprès de victims de jeunes contrevenants. Alternative Jeunesse Richelieu-Yamaska; Saint-Hyacinthe, QC.
8.
BontaJ.L.BoyleJ.MotiukL.L.SonnichsenP. (1983). Restitution in Correctional Half-way Houses: Victim Satisfaction, Attitudes, and Recidivism. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 25, (1), 277–293.
9.
BrienenE.HoegenM. (2000). Victims of Crime in 22 European Criminal Justice Systems. Wolf Legal Productions; Nijmegen.
10.
CavadinoM.DignanJ. (1997). Reparation, Retribution and Rights. International Review of Victimology, 4, 233–253.
11.
CoatesR.B.GehmJ. (1989). An Empirical Assessment. In Mediation and Criminal Justice: Victims, Offenders and Community (WrightM.GalawayB., eds) pp. 251–263. Sage Publications; London.
12.
Department of Justice Canada (2001). Summary Report on Victim Impact Statement Focus Groups. Ottawa.
13.
DignanJ. (1992). Repairing the Damage, British Journal of Criminology, 32 (4), 453–472.
14.
Du WorsR. (2000). The Justice Data Factfinder. In Criminal Justice in Canada (RobertsJulian, ed.) pp. 24–38. Harcourt Brace; Toronto.
15.
ErezE. (1999). Who's afraid of the big bad victim? Victim Impact Statements as Victim Empowerment and Enhancement of Justice. Criminal Law Review, pp. 545–556.
16.
FattahE. (1998). A Critical Assessment of Two Justice Paradigms: Contrasting the Restorative and Retributive Justice Models. In Support for crime victims in a comparative perspective (FattahEzzatPetersTony, eds) pp. 99–110. Leuven University Press; Leuven.
17.
GehmJ. (1990). Mediated Victim—Offender Restitution Agreements: An Exploratory Analysis of Factors Related to Victim Participation. In Criminal Justice, Restitution and Reconciliation (GalawayB.HudsonJ., eds) pp. 177–182. Criminal Justice Press; New York.
18.
GustafsonD.L. (1997). Victim Offender Mediation Within a Restorative Justice Framework: Toward a Justice Which Heals. Address to the Prison Governors. Leuven, Belgium.
Juristat (2000). Attitudes du public face au système de justice pénale. Centre canadien de la statistique juridique, Statistique Canada, 20, (12).
21.
KellyD.ErezE. (1997). Victim Participation in the Criminal Justice System. In Victims of CrimeSecond Edition (DavisR.LurigioA.SkoganW., eds) pp. 231–244. Sage Publications; Thousand Oaks, CA.
22.
KilchlingM. (1995). Offerinteressen und Strafverfolgung. Max-Planck-Instituut fur Auslandisches und Internationales Strafrecht; Freiburg i.Br.
23.
KlausP.A. (1994). The Costs of Crime to Victims. Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Deparment of Justice. February.
24.
LatimerJ.DowdenC.MuiseD. (2001). The Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Practices: A Meta-Analysis. Research and Statistics Division. Department of Justice Canada; Ottawa.
25.
LauneyG. (1987). Victim—Offender Conciliation. In Applying Psychology to Imprisonment: Theory and Practice (McGurkB.ThortonD.M.WilliamsM., eds) pp. 274–300. Her Majesty's Stationary Office; London.
26.
LurigioA.J. (1987). Are All Victims Alike? The Adverse, Generalized and Differential Impact of Crime. Crime and Delinquency, 33, (4), 452–467.
27.
MaguireM. (1991). The Needs and Rights of Victims. In Crime and Justice. A Review of the Research (TonryM., ed.) pp. 363–387.
28.
MaguireM. (1980). The Impact of Burglary Upon Victims. British Journal of Criminology. 20 (3), 261–275.
29.
MarshallTony (1999). Restorative Justice: An Overview. Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate; London.
30.
MarshallTonyMerrySusan (1990). Crime and Accountability: Victim/Offender Mediation in Practice. Her Majesty's Stationary Office; London.
31.
MattinsonJ.Mirrlees-BlackC. (2000). Attitudes to Crime and Criminal Justice: Findings from the 1998 British Crime Survey. Home Office; London.
32.
MiersD. (2001). An Exploratory Evaluation or Restorative Justice Schemes. Crime Reduction Research Series Paper 9. Home Office; London.
33.
MorrisA.MaxwellG.M.RobertsonJ.P. (1993). Giving Victims a Voice: A New Zealand Experiment. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 32 (4), 301–321.
34.
MulderR.P. (1989). Wie hept het slachtoffer? Publieke en particuliere voorziening voor slachtoffers van misdrijven., Cahier no. 70; Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau; Rijswijl.
35.
NetzigL.TrenczekT. (1996). Restorative Justice as Participation: Theory, Law, Experience and Research. In Restorative Justice: International Perspectives (GalawayB.HudsonJ., eds) pp. 241–260. Criminal Justice Press; Monsey, NY.
36.
NewburnT. (2001). The Introduction of referral orders into the youth justice system: Second interim report. RDS Occasional Paper No. 73. Home Office; London.
37.
PeaseK. (1998). Repeat Victimisation: Taking Stock. Crime Detection and Prevention Series Paper 90. Home Office; London.
38.
ReevesH.MulleyK. (2000). The New Status of Victims in the UK: Opportunities and Threats. In Integrating a Victim Perspective within Criminal Justice (CrawfordAdamGoodeyJo, eds) pp. 125–146. Ashgate Publishers; Aldershot UK.
39.
ReevesH. (1989). The Victiom Support Perspective. In Mediation and Criminal Justice: Victims, Offenders and Community (WrightM.GalawayB., eds) pp. 44–55. Sage Publications; London.
40.
KentRoach (1999). Due Process and Victims Rights. University of Toronto Press; Toronto.
41.
RobertsT. (1995). Evaluation of the Victim—Offender Mediation Project, Langley, B.C. Solicitor General Canada.
42.
ShaplandJ. (2000). Victims and Criminal Justice: Creating Responsible Criminal Justice Agencies. In Integrating a Victim Perspective within Criminal Justice (CrawfordAdamGoodeyJo, eds) pp. 147–166. Ashgate Publishers; Aldershot, UK.
43.
ShaplandJ. (1986). Victim Assistance and the Criminal Justice System: The Victim's Perspective. In From Crime Policy to Victim Policy (FattahEzzat, ed.) pp. 218–233. MacMillan; London, UK.
44.
ShaplandJ.WilmoreJ.DuffP. (1985). Victims in the Criminal Justice System. Gower Publishing Company; Aldershot.
45.
SmaleG. (1980). Slachtoffers van ernstige vermogens- en geweldsmisdrijven: Deel II immateriele problematiek I. Kriminologisch Instituut; Groningen.
46.
SmithD.BlaggH.DerricourtN. (1988). Mediation in the Shadow of the law: The South Shore Experience. In Informal Justice? (MatthewsR., ed.) pp. 123–150. Sage Publications; London.
47.
SpapensA.C. (2000). Bemiddeling tussen dadere en slachtoffer. Directie Preventie, Jeuged en Sanctiebeleid. Ministerie van Justitie; Den Haag.
48.
StraangH. (2002). Repair or Revenge: Victims and Restorative Justice, Oxford University Press; Oxford. (Forthcoming).
49.
SymondsM. (1980). The Second injury to Victims, Evaluation and Change, Special issue, 39–42.
50.
TylerT. (1990). Why People Obey the Law. New Haven: Yale University Press.
51.
UmbreitM.S. (1995). Mediation of Criminal Conflict: An Assessment of Programs in Four Canadian Provinces. Available at: http://ssw.che.umn/edu/rip.
52.
UmbreitM. (1994). Victim Meets Offender: The Impact of Restorative Justice and Mediation. Criminal Justice Press; Monsey, NY.
53.
UmbreitM.S.RobertsA.W. (1996). Mediation of Criminal Conflict in England: An Assessment of Services in Coventry and Leeds. Available at: http://ssw.che.umn.edu/rip.
54.
UNODCCP (1999). Handbook on Justice for Victims. United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention; New York.
55.
Van BarlingenM.SlumpG.-J.TulnerH. (2000). Tussenevaluation Herstelbemiddeling. Ministerie van Justitie, Amsterdam.
56.
Van HeckeT.WemmersJ. (1992). Schadebemiddelingsproject Middelburg. WODC, Onderzoek en Beleid, No. 116, Gouda Quint b. v.
57.
Van HeckeT.WemmersJ.JungerM. (1990). Slachtoffenorg bij het opnbaar ministerie, Den Haag, Ministerie van Justicie, WODC, No. K10.
58.
Van de VijverC., (1993). De Burger en de zin van het strafrecht. Koninklijke Vermande; Lelystad.
59.
Van de VijverC. (1983). Laat ze het zelf maar zeggen … De bruikbaarheid van bevolkingsonderzoek voor de beleidsvorming van de politie. Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken; Den Haag.
60.
WemmersJ.M. (1996). Victims in the Criminal Justice System. Kugler Publications; Amsterdam.
61.
WemmersJ.Van HeckeT. (1992). Schadebemiddelingsproject Middelburg. Onderzoek en Beleid nr. 116 WODC; Den Haag.
