The article will discuss the results of an exploratory scenario study on victim satisfaction with victim-accused negotiations in a sample of 242 Dutch university students. The data were collected at the University of Leiden. The main purpose of the research was to investigate the impact of different types of damage on victim-accused negotiations. It was our hypothesis that reaching a restorative agreement and satisfaction with that agreement would be the most difficult for subjects with a high degree of psychological injury. Results confirm this hypothesis. Furthermore the results show that subjects with high material damage were more satisfied with a restorative agreement than subjects with little material damage. Some implications for further research will be discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
de KeijserJ.W. (1998). Het meten van attitudes ten anzien van straf: Theorie, praktijk en toepassingen. Gedrag en Organisatie. 11–1, 15–25..
2.
EmmenM.A.HielkemaH.M. (1995). Strafrecht en alternatieve geschilbeslechting. Rechtshulp. 8–1,40–45.
3.
GalawayB. (1984). A survey of the acceptance of restitution as an alternative to imprisonment for property offenders. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology. 17, 108–117.
4.
GandyJ.T.GalawayB. (1980). Restitution as a sanction for offenders: A public's view. In Victims Offenders and Alternative Sanctions (HudsonJ.GalawayJ. eds) pp. 89–100. Lexington Books; Lexington, MA.
5.
GroendijkC. (1992). Smartegeld en voorspelbaarheid: Een statistische analyse van de rechterlijke uitspraken over immateriële schade bij letsel. Instituut voor Informatica en Recht, Vrije Universiteit; Amsterdam.
6.
GreenbergM.S.RubackR.B. (1992). After the Crime: Victim Decision Making. Plenum Press; London.
7.
HudsonJ. (1992). A review of research dealing with views on financial restitution. In Restorative Justice on Trial: Pitfalls and Potentials of Victim-offender mediation (International Research Perspectives) (MessmerH.OttoH.U. eds) pp. 239–278. Kluwer Academic Publishers; Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
8.
LindenberghS. (1995). Smartegeld, geen straf: (On)mogelijkheden van punitive damages in het schadevergoedingsrecht. Nemenis. 5, 126–132.
9.
MarshallT.F. (1992). Restorative justice on trial in Britain. In Restorative Justice on Trial: Pitfalls and Potentials of Victim-offender Mediation-International Research Perspectives. (MessmerH.OttoH.U., eds) pp. 15–28. Kluwer Academic Publishers; Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
10.
ModdeJ.VermontR.WiegmanO. (1995). Procedurële rechtvaardigheid en normovertrednd gedrag. In Fundementele Sociale Psychologie (9th edition) (EllemersN.de VriesN.VonkR., eds) pp. 107–117.
11.
SchneiderH.J. (1992). From criminal policy to victim policy: New tendencies in the reform of criminal law, criminal procedure and correction. In International Faces of Victimology (DavidS. BenKirchhoffG.F, eds) pp. 166–195. WSV Publishing; Mönchengladbach.
12.
ShaplandJ. (1984). Victims, the criminal justice system and compensation. British Journal of Criminology. 24, 131–149.
13.
ShaplandJ.WilmoreJ.DuffP. (1985). Victims in the Criminal Justice System. Gower Publishing Company; Vermont.
14.
SmitJ. (1992). The role of probation in restitution procedures. In Restorative Justice on Trial: Pitfalls and Potentials of Victim-Offender Mediation (International Research Perspectives) (MessmerH.OttoH.U., eds) pp. 387–395. Kluwer Academic Publishers; Dordreeht, The Netherlands.
15.
Sorgdrager schrapt steun aan dading. (1996, November 21). Nieuwe Rotterdamse Courant, p. 2.
16.
TeeuwissenJ.G. (1994). Smartegeld in de praktijk: Het onweegbare gewogen. Verkeersrecht (12th edition): Smartegeld; Uitspraken vande Nederlmulse rechter over de vergoeding van immateriele schade.ANWB, 6–12.
17.
ThibautJ.KelleyH.H. (1959). The Social Psychology of Groups. Wiley; New York.
18.
TylerT.R.LindE.A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 25, 115–191.
19.
UmbreitM.S. (1994). Victim Meets Offender: The Impact of Restorative Justice and Mediation. Criminal Justice Press; Monsey; New York.
20.
UmbreitM.S. (1990). The meaning of fairness to burglary victims. In Criminal Justice, Restitution and Reconciliation. (GalawayB.HudsonJ., eds) pp. 47–58. Criminal Justice Press; Monsey, New York.
21.
van DijkJ.Sagel-GrandeH.I.ToornvlietL.G. (1995). Actuele Criminologie. Konijklijke Vermande bv; Lelystad.
22.
van HeekeT.WemmersJ. (1992). Schadebemiddelingsproject Middleburg. Gouda Quint bv; Arnhem.
23.
van Wassenaer van CatwijckA.J.O. (ed.) (1994). Smartegeld: Uitspraken van de Nederlandse rechter over de vergoeding van immateriele schada. 12th edition, 's Gravenhage; ANWB.
24.
WalgraveL. (1995). Restorative justice for juveniles: Just a technique or a fully fledged alternative? The Howard Journal. 34 (3), 228–249.
25.
WalgraveL. (1994). Beyond rehabilitation: In search of a constructive alternative in the judicial response to juvenile crime. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research. 2, 57–75.
26.
WeitekampE. (1992). Can Restitution serve as a reasonable alternative to imprisonment? An assessment of the situation in the USA. In Restorative Justice on Trial: Pitfalls and Potentials of Victim-offender Mediation (International research perspectives) (MessmerH.OttoH.U., eds) pp. 81–104. Kluwer Academic Publishers; Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
27.
WemmersJ.M. (1996). Victims in the Criminal Justice System. Kugler Publications; Amsterdam.
28.
WemmersJ.van Hecke (1992). Strafrechtelijke dading. Ministerie van Justitie, WODC: Den Haag.
29.
WittebroodK.ter VoertM.J. (1997). Netherlands survey on criminality and law enforcement 1996: Documentation of the survey. NISCALE Technical Report Series, TR 97–04; Leiden.
30.
WrightM. (1995). Victims, mediation and criminal justice. Criminal Law Review, March, 187–199.
