Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Restorative Justice is a framework of mutual dialogue that offers people involved in wrongdoings, a more profound understanding of the harms experienced by the victims of the offense. It does this by applying the notions of responsibility taking and accountability differently from the traditional retributive criminal justice systems: instead of passively enduring a punishment, the prepetrator proactively seeks to remediate the harm caused. The aim of this study, the first of its kind in Israel, was to examine the subjective perceptions of graduates of the Geffen Victim-Offender Mediation Program, operated by the Adult Probation Service in Israel, of their past offenses. Through narrative analysis of the personal accounts of people who offended and took part in Restorative Justice dialogue proceedings, we found that they acknowledged and took responsibility for their transgressions and their manifold consequences—coupled with remorse, shame, and a desire to make amends. Participants also noted the positive attitude of the probation officers who helped them in the process. The article discusses these findings from the perspective of positive criminology and desistance theory.

Keywords

Account theory desistance positive criminology responsibility taking restorative justice

Introduction

In recent decades, researchers in the field of criminology have pointed out that punitive policies have failed to provide significant deterrence or rehabilitation (Bazemore and Umbreit, 1995; Clute et al., 2019; Gromet and Darley, 2009). In response, alternative strength-based and holistic justice approaches have emerged for better dealing with crime. These includes, inter alia, the positive criminology and desistance theories, and practices of restorative justice (RJ), therapeutic jurisprudence, and procedural justice (e.g. Maruna, 2017; Sherman and Strang, 2012; Wenzel et al., 2008), all based on recognizing human complexity, while considering the needs of the offenders, victims, and their communities.

This study coincides with the emergence of the positive criminology perspective—a unifying approach that underpins existing theories and models that focus on the positive life influences that assist individuals to refrain from criminality and to rehabilitate, under the right conditions (Ronel and Elisha, 2011, 2020; Ronel et al., 2013). Positive criminology emphasizes the importance of developing values and strengths of individuals involved in crime, along with providing them appropriate opportunities for change, that is, to engage in strength-based programs, such as RJ (Ronel and Elisha, 2011). This view has been supported by desistance theory (Laub and Sampson, 2001) and RJ practices (Harris and Maruna, 2005), which are the object of this study.

RJ approaches usually involve facilitated dialogue between victims, perpetrators, and other parties to address the harms caused by the offense, and to afford perpetrators opportunity to make amends for these harms (Zehr, 2002). It does so by addressing the emotional, social, and material needs of the victim of the offense, while paving the way for reintegrating the perpetrators after they take responsibility for their actions (Hayes and Daly, 2003; Umbreit and Armour, 2011). However, very few studies have examined the perceptions of RJ participants in taking responsibility for their harms and the subsequent role to this may place in desistance, as this study suggests.

Restorative Justice (RJ) proceedings

The RJ approach offers the prospect of dealing with criminal harms and injustice by means of the humanistic alternative method, which involves condemning the offense, coupled with searching for a way to re-embrace the perpetrator (Hayes and Daly, 2003). This is done through practices such as victim–offender mediation, family or community group conferencing, and peacemaking circles (Umbreit and Armour, 2011).

RJ proceedings can be incorporated at various stages of the judicial procedure. In practice, however, they are rarely used as a sentencing alternative or post-adjudication (Walker et al., 2006; Wallace and Wylie, 2013; Wood, 2015). RJ proceedings are currently used in most countries worldwide, including Israel, as an integral part of the criminal justice system in cooperation with law enforcement agencies such as probation services and prisons (Gazal-Ayal and Roberts, 2019; Klar-Chalamish and Peleg-Koriat, 2021).

Studies on RJ programs have found that they offer sustainable outcomes for victims and offenders alike. This includes satisfaction, development a sense of accountability and empathy for the victim, strengthening community ties, cost savings (e.g. Crocker, 2013; Hobson et al., 2022; Johnstone, 2014; Shapland et al., 2011; Sherman and Strang, 2012; Strang et al., 2006), and recidivism reduction (Bazemore and Elis, 2007; Hayes and Daly, 2003; Kimbrell et al., 2023; Sherman et al., 2015a). The practice of RJ in serious offenses is comparatively rare and controversial, but studies have found that it offers more positive and substantial effects than traditional methods regarding serious offenses (Claes and Shapland, 2017; Sherman et al., 2015b; Van Camp, 2014). Research on RJ procedures in Israel also found them to be more effective than conventional criminal justice proceedings, and that they promote a sense of justice and healing among perpetrators and victims of the offense alike (Gal, 2015; Klar-Chalamish and Peleg-Koriat, 2021; Shachaf-Friedman and Timor, 2008; Yanay and Borowski, 2013).

Account theory

Account theory refers to the ways in which individuals distancing themselves from association with negative events to avoid negative feelings of guilt and shame. These involve the use of neutralization techniques to maintain one’s positive self-image (De Gregorio, 2009a; Fritsche, 2005; Kaptein and Van Helvoort, 2019; Maruna and Copes, 2005; Ritch and Brownlie, 2016; Schönbach, 1992; Sykes and Matza, 1957; Timor and Weiss, 2008).

Recent studies of account theories show that most individuals—be they normative or delinquent—make use of such neutralization techniques (Maruna and Copes, 2005; Moore et al., 2018; Shachaf-Friedman, 2010; Tangney and Dearing, 2003). Closely related are studies of defense mechanisms, shame management, the need to save face, the need to preserve positive self-image and identity, and the need for a sense of respect (e.g. Harris and Maruna, 2005; Kaptein and Van Helvoort, 2019; Maruna and Copes, 2005; McAlinden, 2008; Tyler et al., 2007; Zehr, 2009).

Most of these studies found that recounting a given harmful action that one has committed can evoke a variety of emotions, such as humiliation, a feeling of being disrespected, resentment, shame, guilt, or fear (e.g. Harris and Maruna, 2005; Kaptein and Van Helvoort, 2019). These intense and negative emotions can spur an individual to seek ways to cope with them. One way is to neutralize one’s actions, to provide a positive account of one’s role in a given wrongdoing, and to negate its impact on one’s self-perception (Kaptein and Van Helvoort, 2019; Moore et al., 2018; Tangney and Dearing, 2003; Tangney et al., 2011). As such, the use of neutralization may indicate the lack of more adaptive emotional coping tools.

Researchers of the field of desistance from crime, who seek to understand why and how former convicts refrain from crime over time (Maruna, 2002), point that the first step toward avoidance from crime is through early desistance narratives (e.g. Laub and Sampson, 2001; Maruna, 2002). This includes accounts—by those seeking to change their way of life—of taking personal responsibility for life and for their past misdeeds. Cid and Martí (2012) found no significant evidence that individuals who adopt such narratives do indeed completely cease to engage in criminal activities, but they do exhibit the initial signifiers of personal change that are essential for doing so. Therefore, understanding the relationship between early expectations of crime avoidance and subsequent efforts to rehabilitate can help offenders make the transition to social lives and ultimate desistance, as demonstrated by studies by Doekhie et al. (2017) and King (2012).

Responsibility taking from a Restorative Justice (RJ) perspective

The RJ notion of responsibility involves empowering those who have committed wrongdoings to take active and appropriate measures to rectify the harm they have caused (Braithwaite, 2006). This principle highlights the significance of making amends and of a collaborative exploration of the steps necessary to repair harm and foster healing (Walker, 2016). RJ processes involve voluntary dialogues, and a focus on achieving mutually agreed understandings. The overarching goal is to address the harms caused by the offense both for the victims and the offender, in a bid to create a more humane, just, and inclusive society. By using such restorative practices, people can take measures to correct their wrongs, reduce the negative impact of their actions, make amends for the harm caused, and strive toward building a safer community (Braithwaite, 2001, 2006; Hopkins, 2012; Walker, 2016; Zehr, 2002).

Responsibility and accountability are two concepts that are commonly used interchangeably. However, in the context of RJ, there is a theoretical distinction between them: responsibility is the duty or obligation to actively do what is right, while accountability is the act of being held responsible, and having to provide a public explanation of something (Braithwaite, 2001, 2006).

In the context of RJ, assuming responsibility is widely regarded as a proactive attribute that individuals must consciously adopt, rather than merely submit to accountability. It involves taking ownership of one’s deeds, responding to the needs created by the outcomes of one’s decisions, and accepting the attendant consequences (Braithwaite, 2006). Responsibility is described as a moral virtue of taking the steps needed to remediate harm (hence, “taking responsibility”). This is achieved by using an effective method known as expanding the circles of accountability (Braithwaite, 2006), namely, taking responsibility for one’s actions, and increasing one’s awareness of the wider ramifications of one’s deeds that are harmful to oneself and to others (Zehr, 2002).

The foundation of this notion is inspired by the principles of Kohlberg’s (1969) moral development theory (Braithwaite, 1989), at the core of which is the notion of “decentralizing” morality, that is, the capacity to comprehend and consider other individuals’ viewpoints, and to gradually increase and deepen that perspective (Basinger et al., 1995; Kohlberg, 1969). In restorative discourse, this engenders a better understanding the harms caused and their implications, which in turn helps wrongdoers assume active responsibility for their actions and to repair the harm caused.

The Geffen Victim–Offender Mediation Program (GVOMP) of the adult probation service in Israel

The Probation Service in Israel operates within the Ministry of Welfare under the Mandatory Probation Ordinance (Hovav, 2011). It is authorized by law to treat and supervise convicted individuals (both juvenile and adults) under a community probation order. As part of their duties, probation officers provide law enforcement agencies with risk evaluations and psycho-social assessments, as well as recommendations for punishment and treatment (Elisha and Braver, 2015). They are also authorized to examine the eligibility of both the suspects and the victims of crimes for participation in a RJ procedure (Yanay and Tauber, 2015).

The Probation Service in Israel currently runs several programs based on the principles of RJ, as an integrated part of various stages of the criminal procedure, or as an alternative to it. These programs include Family Discussion Groups for juvenile delinquents, and the Geffen Victim–Offender Mediation Program (GVOMP) for adult offenders, which was launched in 2004. The GVOMP program aims to empower both offenders and victims to ease the pain inflicted offenses, and to prevent further offenses (Bar-Shuah et al., 2008; Shachaf-Friedman, 2010; Yanay and Borowski, 2013). Much emphasis is placed on the perpetrator taking responsibility for their offense and its implications (Shachaf-Friedman and Timor, 2008).

Facilitated by trained probation officers, the GVOMP program provides a structured facilitated process for the perpetrators of crime and their victims, in a secure and respectful environment where all parties have given their voluntary consent. It is offered to adults aged 18 and above, who have been either the victim of a criminal offense, or its perpetrator. The victim of the offense must also express their consent and willingness to meet with the perpetrator. In addition, a professional assessment is required that there is no risk of repeated injury to the victims (Bar-Shuah et al., 2008).

A suspected offender can be referred to the program at various stages of the criminal procedure—before the indictment, between the indictment and trial verdict, or between a guilty verdict and sentencing. The agreement between the offender and the victim, if signed, is then presented to the judge at the end of the program. The judge can then approve the GVOMP settlement as the final verdict or impose it as a suspended conditional sentence. However, if there are doubts about the sincerity of the admission of guilt, the probation officers in charge of the program can recommend to the court to terminate the program; hence, the offender is expected to face a trial (Nitzan-Byrne and Scharzman, 2016).

A survey conducted among probation officers of the Israeli Adult Probation Service who were involved in the operation of the GVOMP program in its first decade of operation (2004–2013), revealed that of the 424 adult offenders referred to the program, just over two-thirds (67.7%) were first-time offenders, while the remainder had a prior criminal record. The majority of those referred (88.9%) were men, and the remainder women; and most were aged between 18 and 21. The offenses they had been convicted of varied from traffic violations to serious offenses such as theft, threats, extortion, or fraud; of a total of 91 offender–victim mediations that took place 88 meetings ended in a “restorative agreement.” Most of these agreements included material compensation to the victim; some included the performance of a voluntary community task, an apology to the victim, or the perpetrator’s agreement to undergo treatment (Yanay and Tauber, 2015).

The present study

Very few researchers have examined the narratives (accounts) of perpetrators that indicate their acceptance of responsibility and undertaking to desist from crime. The few examples that can be found are mainly in research of desistance (e.g. Bushway and Uggen, 2021; Cid and Martí, 2012; Laub and Sampson, 2001; Maruna, 2002, 2012). Given its contribution to rehabilitation and changing processes, this study, the first of its kind in Israel, aims to examine the narratives and accounts of graduates of RJ program in Israel that attest to their acceptance of responsibility and recognition of their victims.

Method

This study was based on the principles of qualitative research, in an effort to reveal the subjective perceptions of those who have gone through a given experience in the most authentic and in-depth manner possible (Creswell, 2013).

Participants

The participants were graduates of the GVOMP program run by the Adult Probation Service in Israel. Initial contact with the prospective participants was made by probation officers in various cities across the country. After a screening process conducted by the probation officers and the withdrawal of some candidates, we ended up with 11 participants. This small sample reflects the difficulty in recruiting eligible participants, both in terms of responsiveness and accessibility.

All but one of the study participants were men, and all were Jewish. At the time of the study, they aged between 21 and 47. Six defined themselves as secular, four as religious keepers, and one as Orthodox (conservative). Five were single, three were married, and three were divorced. Seven had completed high school, three had only elementary education, and one had attended university. The offenses they had been convicted of are diverse: burglary, robbery, theft, fraud, threats, drug-related offenses, stabbing, and physical assault causing grievous bodily harm.

All participants were interviewed between 2 months and 2 years after completing the GVOMP program. At the time the study, none had reoffended during that time.

Tools

The main research tool was semi-structured in-depth interviews, based on an interview guide that featured questions drawn from the study objectives, such as, (1) How were you put in touch with the program? (2) How do you understand the term “responsibility”? (3) How do you view your actions in the past and the victim of the offense? (4) How do you view the GVOMP program?

Procedure

The study adhered to the ethics standards of the Israeli Adult Probation Service and was approved by the IBR of Bar-Ilan University in Israel. Participants were required to sign a consent form and send it to the researchers to confirm their participation. They were informed about their rights to terminate their participation at any time. They were guaranteed anonymity and reassured that the information they provided was for research purposes only. They were met and interviewed either at a cafe or at the Probation Service premises, as they preferred. Each interview lasted about an hour, on average. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. The thematic coding of the data was performed with Naralizel software. A structural–linguistic analysis was also performed, in a bid to understand the unique manner in which the participants worded their accounts and narratives (De Gregorio, 2009b).

Results

This section presents the main themes identified in the interviews, in terms of the changes that occurred in the participants following their participation in the mediation program, through the lens of taking responsibility, as follows: (1) The no-excuses description of the offense, (2) acknowledging the consequences of the offense, (3) the moment of change, and (4) lessons for the future. The themes are accompanied by direct quotations from the participants, under pseudonyms.

The no-excuses description of the offense: “So, it was me. I did it”

Each of the participants provided a detailed description of their offenses, with shame and regret, often without justifications or excuses. These were clear and detailed accounts, notable for their use of verbs in first person-singular and active form, such that the listener can understand or even precisely visualize (at times, almost graphically) who did what, how, when, and why. However, some respondents indicated of contextual or external factors led to their offense (e.g. peer influence), which can be perceived as a means of neutralization. For example, Tony, who had been accused for aggravated assault with a knife, described his offense as follows, when on one hand, he takes full responsibility, and on the other hand, states that he was possessed:

So, it was me. I did it—and by “it,” I mean, I took the knife from the shelf and stabbed him. I pushed it into him. I saw it go in. It was as if I was possessed . . . I should have stopped, but unfortunately, I didn’t. (Tony)

Similarly, Noah, who was accused of aggravated assault committed together with others, described the offense without minimizing his part, while stating his desire to impress his friends:

There was a few of us there, but it was me who kicked him, and it was me that went on and on. I probably wanted to show off, to impress my friends, to show control. So, I kicked him all over—in the head, in the legs, and I kicked him in the stomach . . . He begged us to stop, but I didn’t. (Noah)

Roy, who had been accused of stealing from his workplace, spoke about how he did not want to use excuses to justify his offense:

I am not saying this to justify or excuse what I did. . . . Nothing can justify what I did. I am only giving you the background, not as an excuse, but for you to understand the context of what I did—I mean the stealing. (Roy)

Some participants spoke about the damage to their self-esteem and self-image once they recognized what they had done. For example, Joshua, a teacher, who had attacked a soldier on ideological grounds, admitted how torn he now felt because of his violent act, which undermined his self-perception as human and moral person:

I was like an animal—not like a human being. It harmed my human [self-]image, everything I believed I was . . . Every time something didn’t seem right to me, I’d react aggressively, violently. What kind of example am I giving, as an educator? What kind of a person am I?! (Joshua)

Acknowledging the consequences of the offense: “It wasn’t only him I was assaulting, but the whole society”

According to the participants’ accounts, the mediation process with the victim of their crime made them understand the pain and suffering they had caused, to develop empathy and to want to apologize and compensate the victim. This may be seen as another aspect of taking responsibility, which stems from recognizing the consequences of one’s offense on the victims.

For example, Daniel, who had been accused of aggravated assault on someone at a nightclub, over a romantic altercation, described the sorrow he felt toward his victim:

I thought more about the harm I caused, and that he may suffer for the rest of his life, from what he went through. I would put myself in his place. If I’m feeling bad, [I] just think about what he feels, because he doesn’t understand where this all came from, to suddenly find oneself in a hospital, out of nowhere . . . (Daniel)

Tony also expressed remorse toward his victim, with whom he now maintains a friendly relationship:

I am so sorry. I paid him the compensation, as agreed. And we’ve stayed in touch. This isn’t a normal thing with victims and perpetrators. Usually, they don’t talk, and stay away from each other, and here we are in touch—good friends. But I’m sure he was hurt—although we haven’t talked about it since . . . (Tony)

In addition to taking responsibility for the harm and injustice they inflicted on the victim, the participants talked about the multifaceted harm they had caused, in terms of the loss of security and trust incurred by the victims, their family members, and society at large. Along with the regret they expressed, they reported feelings of guilt and shame that overwhelm them to this day.

For example, Joshua pointed out that it was not only the soldier that he had assaulted who was hurt by him, but also the soldier’s family, and the democracy in society. This may be seen as taking full responsibility, while recognizing the far-reaching consequences of the offense:

It wasn’t only him that I assaulted, but the whole society. The democratic rule [of law]. And I’m a teacher! If every time something happens that I don’t like I react aggressively with violence instead of accepting it and talking about it respectfully, what kind of example am I giving?! What would our society look like, if everyone acted like this?! It could lead to civil war . . . At that moment, I caused more damage than anything else. I harmed him, I harmed my family and me, and I harmed our society . . .. (Joshua)

Daniel also recognized the far-reaching consequences of his attack, in terms of undermining of the victim’s sense of security:

He didn’t understand where it was coming from, or why, since he hadn’t done anything . . . and now he would suffer from my assault for the rest of his life because of what I had done to him . . . As much as it’s hard for me—all that’s happened since, the arrests and the police and everything—I have no right to complain, because I brought it upon myself with my own hands—but he?! He didn’t do anything . . . I sure made him feel that anything can happen out of nowhere, and that’s scary, the feeling that nowhere is safe. It’s not fair; it shouldn’t have been like that . . . (Daniel)

Roy, who had been accused of stealing from his workplace, expressed shame knowing he had violated his employer’s trust, who had been good to him, and he repaid her badly:

She trusted me, and I betrayed her trust . . . She helped me in every possible way, and I broke her trust. I hope she knows it’s just me, and not all workers are like that. Trust is everything, it’s the basis of all human relationships and interactions, and I broke her trust . . . And there’s nothing that can be done once it breaks. I’ll have to live with that shame forever. (Roy)

The moment of change: “For me it was a wake-up call”

The participants all stated that the mediation program they had taken part in had made them engage in introspection, in soul-searching, to take responsibility for their negative actions and recognize their vulnerability on many levels; and therefore, want to change, and to make amends. For example, David and Joshua described this as a “wake-up call” that prompted them to change their way of thinking and behavior:

For me, it was a wake-up call—something that came to shake me up and make me think. To think who my friends are, who are the people I associate myself with, who I am as a person, what I do or say, what I do with my life. I understood that I can’t go on like this anymore, that I should put my life in order. (David)

I couldn’t see it at the time, but with the help of the probation officer, the program instructor, I understood where I had gone wrong. What a disservice I had done to everyone, and that in fact I had gone against everything I believe in and all the values I grew up on—and that this isn’t the right way. (Joshua)

The participants noted the positive and accepting attitude of the probation officers, that is, the program coordinators, who helped them open emotionally and cooperate with the program, and thereby begin to change. Sara, for example, who describes herself as a recovering addict and had been charged with several burglaries, noted the pleasant and accepting attitude of the Probation Service:

The Probation Service helped me understand what responsibility is. They were responsible for me, it’s like giving. I would come there and feel at home. There was a lot of giving there . . . (Sara)

Similarly, Joshua and Abraham, who had been accused of assault and stabbing, respectively, also noted the positive and accepting attitude of their probation officers:

These are very difficult things that I hadn’t talked about. But the probation officer had the sensitivity to stop me and say, “Let’s talk about it a bit, tell me exactly what happened and how it happened,” and suddenly it hit me . . . Like a distress button that starts ringing, and you notice it. (Joshua)

When I spoke with the probation officer, I realized what I was doing, and I changed myself. She helped me, and it was like a psychologist, which I didn’t have before. (Abraham)

Lessons for the future: “Knowing to think about the results of your actions is a responsibility”

The participants spoke about the lessons they had learned from participating in the program, including alternative and effective ways of dealing with stressful situations in the future—actions that would not harm anyone, such as using discourse instead of force, avoiding problematic situations, and asking for help. Examples:

There are other and better ways I could have reacted, if at all. Today, I know what I should have done differently: I should’ve ignored it and got on with my day, then nothing would have happened . . . I should’ve approached him in a friendly manner, not belligerently, but in a gentle way, and say to him: “Hey bud, I know you’re doing what you have to do, but I feel very worried, and it pains me,” and that’s it. But under the circumstances, when I was so agitated from all that was going on, I am not sure I could have been so calm and friendly, so I should have just ignored it and driven away . . . (Joshua)

Today, that couldn’t have happened. Today I would have known not to get myself into such a situation to begin with. I could’ve asked for help. I could’ve done so many other things—but not like that. (Roy)

Daniel and Alex, who had been accused of aggravated assault and theft, respectively, spoke about how taking personal responsibility for one’s actions serves as a basis for moral and behavioral change. They pointed out that when one thinks in advance about the consequences of one’s actions, and chooses good over bad, one can avoid complications in the future:

For me, everything you do in life involves responsibility, because you’ve chosen to do it. These are not things that someone tells you to do, they’re things that you, yourself, decided to do. It’s a choice . . . If I’ve done something wrong, don’t run away or say, “I don’t know what happened, I was drunk, and there were other people,” but say “It was me who made my decisions, I’m the one who did it, who made the wrong choice, who had the wrong thoughts. I did I, and now I’m the one who need to deal with the consequences.” (Daniel)

Knowing to think about the results of your actions is a responsibility. Not to be tempted, not to make shortcuts. It’s about thinking about the consequences of your actions, knowing that there are red lines, knowing what is good and what is bad, what can do harm. It’s to stop and think about the consequences of my actions, and how it led to where I ended up. (Alex)

In sum, the main themes in the participants’ accounts about accepting responsibility for their past actions were evident in their detailed description of their respective offenses. They acknowledged that nothing could justify or undo what they had done, and that any attempt to do so would be misguided. They made it clear they were unable to make any excuses for their actions. They also demonstrated an understanding of the damage caused by their offense to their self-image. They made no attempt to negotiate it, but rather expressed how wrong they had acted. Moreover, they delved into the deep meaning and ramifications of their deeds and expressed empathy for the emotional state of their victims, and how scared their victims might feel. They highlighted the implications of broken human values and described the moment of change when they understood they were wrong. They also proposed alternative ways of dealing with problematic situations they might encounter in future. Their readiness to take responsibility for their past decisions reflected their determination to improve themselves and their desire to demonstrate personal growth and development.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine the subjective perceptions of participants in the Geffen Victim–Offender Mediation Program (GVOMP) run by the Adult Probation Service in Israel, with an emphasis on taking responsibility for the offense as a key element in RJ procedures that promote processes of change and rehabilitation.

The ways in which the study participants chose to describe their offenses and their myriad implications may attest to their acceptance of responsibility for their actions. They found internal validation and support in the substance of their accounts. Note that none of the participants—who all successfully completed the victim–offender mediation program they had taken part in—have re-offended since.

It has been suggested that the RJ process is a mechanism that can trigger introspection (Harris et al., 2004; Rossner, 2011, 2013), and our findings support this view. The participants’ accounts clearly indicate they have taken personal responsibility for their offenses, after a process that promoted their self-awareness and soul-searching. The participants noted that the program had enhanced their awareness and recognition of the harm they had caused and the myriad implications of their wrongdoings for the lives of their victims and their surroundings. In addition to remorse and shame, they also expressed empathy for the victims, and a desire to make amends and atone for their actions. These findings are consistent with the basic premise of RJ that responsibility is a moral and proactive virtue characterized by taking full ownership of one’s decisions and choices, recognizing the many consequences of one’s wrongdoings, and a willingness to compensate the victim of the offense (Braithwaite, 2006; Zehr, 2002). These findings are also consistent with studies in the field of desistance, that have found that taking responsibility is essential to the process of change and rehabilitation, as it indicates a change in worldview, maturity, and perspective for the future (e.g. Bushway and Uggen, 2021; Laub and Sampson, 2001; Maruna, 2002; Maruna and Copes, 2005).

Our findings also support the perspective of positive criminology that offenders are capable of reform and change, given the genuine opportunity to make amends and rehabilitate themselves in response to positive attitudes such as humanity and social acceptance, rather than punishment (Ronel and Elisha, 2011, 2020; Ronel and Toren, 2012). The GVOMP program evidently meets these criteria, as our participants noted the positive and accepting attitude of the probation officers running the program, which heightened their willingness and cooperation with the program.

We believe that the participants’ referral to the RJ procedure, coupled with their contemplation of the consequences of their actions for their victims, gave them a new perception of their deeds. The impacts of their actions upon others, and the need to deal with these, was part of what they knew was required of them. Their self-identity may have been renegotiated by using new socio-cultural references to evaluate it. They acknowledged the criticism of the adverse aspects of their actions and expressed the desire to rectify the damage they have caused, and to compensate the victims of their respective offenses. Their readiness to compensate the victims of their crimes confirms that their sentiments were genuine.

The notion of a victim-oriented discussion or compensation for harm caused played some part in the participants’ efforts to negotiate a self-identity during the interviews. This may be related to the concept of social learning (Akers, 2017). That is, in preparing for an RJ dialogue, the individual learns of new values by which to assess their own behavior. These findings bear out other studies that found that RJ creates the time and space to consider these issues (Gavrielides, 2017; Hobson et al., 2022; Kimbrell et al., 2023; Robinson and Shapland, 2008; Rossner, 2011, 2013; Shapland, 2016; Sherman et al., 2015a).

Most of the existing research on the acceptance or denial of responsibility adopt the structural positivistic social-interactionism approach (Brites et al., 2015; Fritsche, 2005; Tabbert, 2013; Timor and Weiss, 2008; Wagner et al., 2017), whereby the negative techniques that people use to downplay their responsibility are identified and assessed. Based on Braithwaite’s reintegrative shaming model (Braithwaite and Roche, 2001), as well as the RJ philosophy (Karp, 2019) and the positive criminology perspective (Ronel and Elisha, 2011, 2020), we offer a different view on responsibility taking: the more the participants adopt an active attitude regarding their adverse actions, the more likely they were to take responsibility and adopt a behavioral change. Naturally, further studies, with larger samples, are needed to confirm this. If they do, however, it may illustrate what Gibbs et al. (2013) referred to as a greater degree of decentralization and of seeing the wider context of one’s behavior, which is essential to gauging one’s responsibility.

One of the techniques used by the respondents was to differentiate between their current and past behaviors as a means of maintaining a positive self-image. Some respondents, however, pointed to contextual or external factors that led to their offending, such as peer influence. Some studies have referred to this as a means of minimization or neutralization (Kaptein and Van Helvoort, 2019; Timor and Weiss, 2008). Contrary to that view, we argue that minimization or neutralization is, in fact, indicative that the offender understands that his past behavior is unacceptable (Glavaničová and Pascucci, 2021; Moore et al., 2018; Shachaf-Friedman, 2010; Tangney and Dearing, 2003). That is, it is not necessarily a sign of downplaying responsibility, but rather a sign of a change (or intent to change) of one’s behavior, following learning of new values.

Desistance is a developmental and ongoing process in which an ex-offender maintains a crime-free lifestyle. Desistance differs from rehabilitation and reintegration, since a person can stop crime, but still not adapt to life in the normative community. However, unlike most traditional criminological theories, which focus on factors that lead people to crime, reintegration model focuses on factors that assist ex-offenders to desist from crime and successfully integrate into the community (Davis et al., 2012). Successful reintegration requires extensive social assistance, such as intervention programs in a positive and inclusive atmosphere (Ronel and Elisha, 2011). RJ and the Good Life model are good examples of this, as they focus on developing the offender’s strengths which are essential for successful reintegration (Laub and Sampson, 2001; McNeill et al., 2012; Walgrave et al., 2021; Wincup, 2019). Reintegration process also requires a change in the definition and self-identity of the offender. Maruna (2002) relates to the separation between one’s behavior and identity, as an adaptive mechanism that promotes desistance, as it allows ex-prisoners to construct a new self-identity, through adopting pro-social roles and community involvement (“making good”; Maruna and Copes, 2005). That said, if this is not accompanied by an explicit description of alternative behaviors and other means of responsibility taking, it may indeed be a means of minimizing responsibility. However, this conclusion needs further investigation.

Support to this can be found in studies on sex offenders conducted from a positive criminology perspective (Kewley et al., 2021). For example, Elisha et al. (2012) found that while initially the respondents denied their offenses, to avoid negative consequences and preserve their self-image, they managed to take personal responsibility for their actions and expressed a desire to change their way of life, following the social inclusion, family support, and therapy, they underwent in prison. Consistent with the reintegration concept of Braithwaite (1989, 2001, 2006), the distinction between the perpetrators’ negative act and their self-identity, allowed them to make the necessary change, to take responsibility and express shame, remorse, and regret for their actions. Hence, RJ reflects the perspective of positive criminology in that it embodies values of inclusion, acceptance, humanity, compassion, and love, while considering the needs of the perpetrator, the victim, and their surroundings (Ronel and Elisha, 2020).

Note that none of the participants in this study was convicted of sexual offenses. Generally, RJ practices are not applied to sex offenders as an alternative to imprisonment; however, certain principles of RJ are used in community re-entry programs for them (Bohmert et al., 2018). Along with the notion that taking responsibility may be less important to desistance in the case of sex offenders (Farmer et al., 2015), some studies point to certain therapeutic elements of RJ, such as apology, which have psychological benefits for victims and perpetrators (Marino, 2023). Furthermore, against the barriers facing released sex offenders, such as stigmatic shaming, it was found that reintegrative shaming combined with social support and acceptance, led to the development of shame, responsibility taking, and empathy for the victim (Roseman et al., 2009), which in turn promote successful re-entry processes and recidivism reduction among released sex offenders (Bohmert et al., 2018; Jonesa and Sims, 2016; Wilson et al., 2009).

Analysis of the participants’ narratives in the search for the discursive means they used to signal their understanding of the harms they have inflicted, yielded interesting insights. These broaden the path of research on signals of desistance (Maruna, 2012) and the impact of the RJ dialogues on the participants. That is, participation in RJ proceedings requires a capacity for self-reflection, and an ability to accept and acknowledge the adverse impacts of one’s deeds. Establishing which individuals have such abilities, and how to prepare them for such a vulnerable position, should be critically assessed. This is especially relevant with offenders from an oppressed background. The participants in this study were able and willing to account for their behavior, to observe it and discuss it. It remains to be seen whether those who chose not to participate would have responded differently.

The main limitation of this study is the small number of its participants, due to the difficulty in recruiting suitable candidates. Clearly, the study participants are not representative of all graduates of the GVOMP program of the Adult Probation Service in Israel, or similar programs elsewhere. In addition, we also have no information as to the mindsets of those who failed to complete the program, which might have yielded other insights that we have been unable to obtain. Therefore, we recommend that similar studies be conducted on larger and more diverse samples, to reach more valid conclusions.

The innovation of this study is that it is the first of its kind in Israel. The findings support the premises of the RJ approach regarding the importance of taking responsibility in promoting change and rehabilitation processes. The findings also strengthen the notion of the positive criminology, regarding the importance of an inclusive and supportive framework to promote change and rehabilitation processes.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Esthi Shachaf-Friedman

Ety Elisha

Author biographies

Esthi Shachaf-Friedman, PhD in Criminology, M.A. B.Sw. Lecturer, Department of Criminology at Ashkelon Academic College, Israel, is an Expert in restorative justice, victimology, rehabilitation of offenders, re-entry.

Ety Elisha, PhD in Criminology, Senior lecturer, Department of Criminology at Yezreel Valley College, Israel, is an Expert in rehabilitation of offenders, prison, reintegration, re-entry, positive criminology. She served as a public representative in parole boards in Israel.

References

Akers

(2017) Social Learning and Social Structure: A General Theory of Crime and Deviance. New York: Routledge.

Bar-Shuah

Freud

Sharif

(2008) The restorative justice approach and the offender-victim mediation program in the probation service for adults. In: Mell

Hovav

Golan

(eds) Addiction, Violence, and Sexual Offenses: Mandatory Treatment. Jerusalem, Israel: Carmel, pp. 306–334 (in Hebrew).

Basinger

Gibbs

Fuller

(1995) Context and the measurement of moral judgement. International Journal of Behavioral Development 18(3): 537–556.

Bazemore

Elis

(2007) Evaluation of restorative justice. In: Johnstone

Van Ness

(Eds) Handbook of Restorative Justice. Uffculme: Willan Publishing, pp. 397–425.

Bazemore

Umbreit

(1995) Rethinking the sanctioning function in Juvenile Court—Retributive or restorative responses to youth crime. Crime & Delinquency 41(3): 296–316.

Bohmert

Duwe

Hipple

(2018) Evaluating restorative justice circles of support and accountability: Can social support overcome structural barriers? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 62(3): 739–758.

Braithwaite

(1989) Crime, Shame, and Reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Braithwaite

(2001) Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Braithwaite

(2006) Accountability and responsibility through restorative justice. In: Dowdle

(ed.) Rethinking Public Accountability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 33–51.

10.

Braithwaite

Roche

(2001) Responsibility and restorative justice. In: Bazemore

Schiff

(eds) Restorative Community Justice: Repairing Harm and Transforming Communities. New York: Rockefeller University Press, pp. 63–84.

11.

Brites

JDA

Ladera

Perea

, et al. (2015) Verbal functions in psychopathy. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 59(14): 1536–1549.

12.

Bushway

Uggen

(2021) Fostering desistance. Contexts 20(4): 34–39.

13.

Cid

Martí

(2012) Turning points and returning points: Understanding the role of family ties in the process of desistance. European Journal of Criminology 9(6): 603–620.

14.

Claes

Shapland

(2017) Desistance from crime and restorative justice. Restorative Justice 4(3): 302–322.

15.

Clute

Taylor

Bunn

(2019) Unitive justice and re-entry culture change. Richmond Public Interest Law Review 23(2): 215–254.

16.

Creswell

(2013) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

17.

Crocker

(2013) Implementing and evaluating restorative justice projects in prison. Criminal Justice Policy Review 26(1): 45–64.

18.

Davis

Bahr

Ward

(2012) The process of offender reintegration: Perceptions of what helps prisoners reenter society. Criminology & Criminal Justice 134(4): 446–496.

19.

De Gregorio

(2009a) Narrating a crime: Contexts and accounts on deviant actions. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches 3(2): 177–190.

20.

De Gregorio

(2009b) The role of offender experience and crimes in shaping accounts. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling 6(2): 101–116.

21.

Doekhie

Dirkzwager

Nieuwbeerta

(2017) Early attempts at desistance from crime: Prisoners’ prerelease expectations and their post-release criminal behavior. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 56(7): 473–493.

22.

Elisha

Braver

(2015) Israel’s Juvenile Probation Service: Developments in legislation and methods of intervention. In: Timor

Ben-Baruch

Elisha

(eds) Youth at Mess: Juvenile Delinquents in Israel: Methods of Prevention, Enforcement, and Rehabilitation. Jerusalem, Israel: Magnes, pp. 38–66 (in Hebrew).

23.

Elisha

Idisis

Ronel

(2012) Window of opportunity: Social acceptance and life transformation in the rehabilitation of imprisoned sex offenders. Aggression and Violent Behavior 17: 323–332.

24.

Farmer

McAlinden

A-M

Maruna

(2015) Understanding desistance from sexual offending: A thematic review of research findings. Probation Journal 62(4): 320–335.

25.

Fritsche

(2005) Predicting deviant behavior by neutralization: Myths and findings. Deviant Behavior 26(5): 483–510.

26.

Gal

(2015) Child Victims and Restorative Justice: A Needs-Rights Model. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

27.

Gavrielides

(2017) Restorative Justice: Ideals and Realities. New York: Routledge.

28.

Gazal-Ayal

Roberts

(2019) Alternatives to imprisonment: Recent international developments. Law & Contemporary Problems 82: 1–9.

29.

Gibbs

Basinger

Fuller

, et al. (2013) Moral Maturity: Measuring the Development of Sociomoral Reflection. New York: Routledge.

30.

Glavaničová

Pascucci

(2021) Alternative semantics for normative reasoning with an application to regret and responsibility. Logic and Logical Philosophy 30(4): 653–679.

31.

Gromet

Darley

(2009) Retributive and restorative justice: Importance of crime severity and shared identity in people’s justice responses. Australian Journal of Psychology 61(1): 50–57.

32.

Harris

Maruna

(2005) Shame, shaming and restorative justice: A critical appraisal. In: Sullivan

Tifft

(eds) Handbook of Restorative Justice. New York: Taylor & Francis, pp. 452–462.

33.

Harris

Walgrave

Braithwaite

(2004) Emotional dynamics in restorative conferences. Theoretical Criminology 8(2): 191–210.

34.

Hayes

Daly

(2003) Youth justice conferencing and re-offending. Justice Quarterly 20: 725–764.

35.

Hobson

Twyman-Ghoshal

Banwell-Moore

, et al. (2022) Restorative justice, youth violence, and policing: A review of the evidence. Laws 11(4): 62.

36.

Hopkins

(2012) Tempering idealism with realism: Using restorative justice processes to promote acceptance of responsibility in cases of intimate partner violence. Harvard Journal of Law & Gender 35: 311–355.

37.

Hovav

(2011) The Legal and Organizational Arrangement of the Probation Services in Israel. Jerusalem, Israel: The Israeli Ministry of Welfare and Social Services (in Hebrew).

38.

Johnstone

(2014) Restorative Justice in Prisons: Methods, Approaches, and Effectiveness. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Available at: https://hull-repository.worktribe.com/output/1739096

39.

Jonesa

Sims

(2016) Reintegrative shaming, redemption, and acceptance: A survey of Christian church goers in eastern North Carolina. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice 14(4): 348–370.

40.

Kaptein

Van Helvoort

(2019) A model of neutralization techniques. Deviant Behavior 40(10): 1260–1285.

41.

Karp

(2019) The Little Book of Restorative Justice for Colleges and Universities: Repairing Harm and Rebuilding Trust in Response to Student Misconduct. New York: Simon & Schuster.

42.

Kewley

Pemberton

Rahman

(2021) Preventing Sexual Harm: Positive Criminology and Sexual Abuse. New York: Routledge.

43.

Kimbrell

Wilson

Olaghere

(2023) Restorative justice programs and practices in juvenile justice: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis for effectiveness. Criminology & Public Policy 22(1): 161–195.

44.

King

(2012) Transformative agency and desistance from crime. Criminology & Criminal Justice 13(3): 317–335.

45.

Klar-Chalamish

Peleg-Koriat

(2021) From trauma to recovery: Restorative justice conferencing in cases of adult survivors of intrafamilial sexual offenses. Journal of Family Violence 36: 1057–1068.

46.

Kohlberg

(1969) Stage and sequence: The cognitive developmental approach to socialization. In: Goslin

(ed.) Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, pp. 347–480.

47.

Laub

Sampson

(2001) Understanding desistance from crime. Crime and Justice 28: 1–69.

48.

Marino

(2023) Restoration, retribution, and sexual assault: The value of apologies. University of Philadelphia. Available at: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9809&context=penn_law_review

49.

Maruna

(2002) Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Theoretical Criminology 6: 227–234.

50.

Maruna

(2012) Elements of successful desistance signaling. Criminology & Public Policy 11(1): 73–86.

51.

Maruna

(2017) Desistance and restorative justice: It’s now or never. Restorative Justice: An International Journal 4(3): 289–301.

52.

Maruna

Copes

(2005) Excuses, excuses: What have we learned from five decades of neutralization research? Crime and Justice 32: 221–320.

53.

McAlinden

(2008) The shaming of sexual offenders: Risk, retribution, and reintegration. The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice 47(3): 338–339.

54.

McNeill

Farrall

Lightowler

Maruna

(2012) Reexamining evidence-based practice in community corrections: Beyond ‘a confined view’ of what works. Justice Research and Policy 14(1): 35–60.

55.

Moore

Milam

Folk

, et al. (2018) Self-stigma among criminal offenders: Risk and protective factors. Stigma and Health 3: 241–252.

56.

Nitzan-Byrne

Scharzman

(2016) Restorative Justice at the adult probation service. In: Yanai

Gal

(eds) From Injury to Righting Wrongs: Restorative Justice and Integral Discourse in Israel. Jerusalem, Israel: Magnes, pp. 101–122 (in Hebrew).

57.

Ritch

Brownlie

(2016) Everyday dramas of conscience: Navigating identity through creative neutralisations. Journal of Marketing Management 32(9–10): 1012–1032.

58.

Robinson

Shapland

(2008) Reducing recidivism: A task for restorative justice? The British Journal of Criminology 48(3): 337–358.

59.

Ronel

Elisha

(2011) A different perspective: Introducing positive criminology. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 55(2): 305–325.

60.

Ronel

Elisha

(2020) Positive criminology: Theory, research, and practice. In: Erez

Ibarra

(eds) The Oxford Encyclopedia of International Criminology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 231–259.

61.

Ronel

Toren

(2012) Positive victimology: An innovation or “more of the same”? Temida 15(2): 171–180.

62.

Ronel

Frid

Timor

(2013) The practice of positive criminology: A vipassana course in prison. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 57(2): 133–153.

63.

Roseman

Ritchie

Laux

(2009) A restorative justice approach to empathy development in sex offenders: An exploratory study. Journal of Addictions and Offender Counseling 29: 96–109.

64.

Rossner

(2011) Emotions and interaction ritual: A micro analysis of restorative justice. The British Journal of Criminology 51(1): 95–119.

65.

Rossner

(2013) Just Emotions: Rituals of Restorative Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

66.

Schönbach

(1992) Handbook of language and social psychology. British Journal of Social Psychology 31(2): 165–169.

67.

Shachaf-Friedman

(2010) Restorative justice and responsibility: Perceptions of offenders regarding responsibility taking, following restorative justice proceedings. PhD Thesis, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel (in Hebrew).

68.

Shachaf-Friedman

Timor

(2008) Family-group conferencing in Israel: The voices of victims following restorative justice proceedings. In: Ronel

Jaishankar

Bensimon

(eds) Trends and Issues in Victimology. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 57–87.

69.

Shapland

(2016) Forgiveness and restorative justice: Is it necessary? Is it helpful? Oxford Journal of Law and Religion 5(1): 94–112.

70.

Shapland

Robinson

Sorsby

(2011) Restorative Justice in Practice: Evaluating What Works for Victims and Offenders. New York: Taylor & Francis.

71.

Sherman

Strang

(2012) Restorative justice as evidence-based sentencing. In: Petersilia

Reitz

(eds) The Oxford Handbook of Sentencing and Corrections. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 215–243.

72.

Sherman

Strang

Barnes

, et al. (2015a) Twelve experiments in restorative justice: The Jerry Lee program of randomized trials of restorative justice conferences. Journal of Experimental Criminology 11(4): 501–540.

73.

Sherman

Strang

Mayo-Wilson

, et al. (2015b) Are restorative justice conferences effective in reducing repeat offending? Findings from a Campbell Systematic Review. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 31(1): 1–24.

74.

Strang

Sherman

Angel

, et al. (2006) Victim evaluations of face-to-face restorative justice conferences: A quasi-experimental analysis. Journal of Social Issues 62(2): 281–306.

75.

Sykes

Matza

(1957) Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review 22(6): 664–670.

76.

Tabbert

(2013) Crime through a Corpus: The Linguistic Construction of Offenders, Victims and Crimes in the German and UK Press. Huddersfield: University of Huddersfield.

77.

Tangney

Dearing

(2003) Shame and Guilt. New York: Guilford Press.

78.

Tangney

Stuewig

Hafez

(2011) Shame, guilt, and remorse: Implications for offender populations. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology 22(5): 706–723.

79.

Timor

Weiss

(2008) Sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic indications of behavior disorders: Analysis of a prisoner’s discourse. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 52(1): 112–126.

80.

Tyler

Sherman

Strang

, et al. (2007) Reintegrative shaming, procedural justice, and recidivism: The engagement of offenders’ psychological mechanisms in the Canberra RISE drinking-and-driving experiment. Law & Society Review 41(3): 553–586.

81.

Umbreit

Armour

(2011) Restorative Justice dialogue: Impact, opportunities, and challenges in the global community. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 36: 65–77.

82.

Van Camp

(2014) Victims of Violence and Restorative Practices. New York: Routledge.

83.

Wagner

Hamilton

Anderson

, et al. (2017) Identity work, techniques of neutralization, and defiance: Exploring the relationships among older adult gamblers. Symbolic Interaction 40(3): 352–377.

84.

Walgrave

Ward

Zinsstag

(2021) When restorative justice meets the Good Lives Model: Contributing to a criminology of trust. European Journal of Criminology 18(3): 444–460.

85.

Walker

(2016) Re-entry circles for the innocent: The psychological benefits of restorative justice and taking responsibility in response to injustice. In: Gavrielides

(ed.) The Psychology of Restorative Justice: Managing the Power Within. New York: Routledge, pp. 139–158.

86.

Walker

Sakai

Brady

(2006) Restorative circles: A reentry planning process for Hawaii inmates. Federal Probation 70(1): 33–37.

87.

Wallace

Wylie

(2013) Changing on the inside: Restorative justice in prisons—A literature review. The International Journal of Bahamian Studies 19(1): 57–69.

88.

Wenzel

Okimoto

Feather

, et al. (2008) Retributive and restorative justice. Law and Human Behavior 32(5): 375–389.

89.

Wilson

Cortoni

McWhinnie

(2009) Circles of support and accountability: A Canadian national replication of outcome findings. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 21: 412–430.

90.

Wincup

(2019) Living “good lives”: Using mentoring to support desistance and recovery. Addiction Research & Theory 27(1): 37–46.

91.

Wood

(2015) Why restorative justice will not reduce incarceration. The British Journal of Criminology 55(5): 883–900.

92.

Yanay

Borowski

(2013) From a court orientation to a victim orientation: The paradigm shift in Israel’s Juvenile Probation Service. European Journal of Criminology 10(6): 675–689.

93.

Yanay

Tauber

(2015) Offender-Victim Mediation—Gefen Program in the Probation Service for Adults, Committee Survey 2004–2013. Jerusalem, Israel: The Israeli Ministry of Welfare and Social Services (in Hebrew).

94.

Zehr

(2002) Journey to belonging. In: Weitekamp

Kerner

(eds) Restorative Justice: Theoretical Foundations. Uffculme: Willan Publishing, pp. 21–31.

95.

Zehr

(2009) The intersection of restorative justice with trauma healing, conflict transformation and peacebuilding. Journal for Peace and Justice Studies 18(1–2): 20–30.

Signifiers of desistance from a positive criminology perspective: The case of responsibility taking in restorative proceedings

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Restorative Justice (RJ) proceedings

Account theory

Responsibility taking from a Restorative Justice (RJ) perspective

The Geffen Victim–Offender Mediation Program (GVOMP) of the adult probation service in Israel

The present study

Method

Participants

Tools

Procedure

Results

The no-excuses description of the offense: “So, it was me. I did it”

Acknowledging the consequences of the offense: “It wasn’t only him I was assaulting, but the whole society”

The moment of change: “For me it was a wake-up call”

Lessons for the future: “Knowing to think about the results of your actions is a responsibility”

Discussion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

Author biographies

References