Victims and restorative justice: the importance of the institutional framework

Inge VanfraechemESC, Porto5 September 2015

Outline of the presentation

• Victims’ experiences of victimsation• Victims and restorative justice• A European research project• Societal ecology• The importance of the institutional framework

– Victims’ view– Professionals’ impact

Victims’ experiences of victimisation (1)

• Crime is different from harm: wrongfulness and injustice, thus:– Specific link to justice system– Translating needs and interests into rights

• Harmfulness– Ensuring safety– Emotional, financial, material, social

consequences

Victims’ experiences of victimisation (2)

• Wrongfulness:– Myth of the vengeful victim– Felt impact ~ punitiveness– Replacing retribution? Complementarity of repair

and retribution• Needs related to procedure

– Interactional justice: respect and recognition– Procedural justice

Victims and restorative justice

• Restorative justice as one way to address these issues => its promise: non-domination, meeting victims’ needs and empowerment

• Ambivalent position: offender-focus?– RJ-CJS– RJ implemented within offender-oriented

organisations– Offender-oriented theory and research

A European research project (1)

• Until 2010 research mostly focused on offender and system elements (except for Strang 2002 and Dignan 2005);

• Initiative European Forum for Restorative Justice: project to gain more insight into the needs, experiences and position of victims in RJ programmes.

A European research project (2)

• Micro-level: personal experience of victims in Austria, Finland and the Netherlands on the offer, the communication process, the results and the judicial context;

• Macro-level: origins and goals of the programmes, institutional context, background of mediators, and cooperation with other organisations such as victim support.

Societal ecology as inspiration for comparison (1)

• Outset: Austria as offender-oriented, Finland as neutral and the Netherlands as victim-oriented;

• Complexity: other factors are at play;• ‘Societal ecology’:

– Various consequences of a singular reform;– Singular reform takes place in broader socio-

political field.

Societal ecology as inspiration for comparison (2)

• ‘Societal ecology’ in the three countries– The Netherlands: strong victim support,

abolitionism and punitiveness;– Austria: strong movement in search for

alternatives, especially for young offenders, professionalism of Neustart, close link to CJS and favourable reception by judiciary, media and public;

Societal ecology as inspiration for comparison (3)

– Finland’s ‘Europeanising’ criminal policy, i.e. reducing imprisonment rates, focus on social development and bring CJ closer to people.

The importance of the institutional framework (1)

• Victims’ view– Victims are generally content with the RJ

programme and would recommend it to others;– They preferred the model they had experienced

(in connection to or seperate from CJS);– Differences in severity of victimisation experience

were less pronounced than expected;– Negative evaluations seemed more likely when

scheme was closely related to CJS;

The importance of the institutional framework (2)

• Victims’ view– Victims’ expectations and experiences are shaped

by the institutional context: focus on communication when seperate and on outcome when link to CJS;

– Motivation for reporting to police linked to punishment (80% in the Netherlands) or not (35-36% in Austria and Finland)

=> Satisfaction is the same but experiences are not!

The importance of the institutional framework (3)

• Professionals’ impact– Legislative framework can lead to legitimacy and

accessibility, but also to depency of CJS; – Continuum of RJ-CJS relations, but usually an

impact on judicial decisions;– Institutional context determines timing and

importance of agreement;– Access for victims is often limited although non-

participating victims find a general offer important;

The importance of the institutional framework (4)

• Professionals’ impact– Mediator’s offer can influence victims’ attendance;– Flexibility of practice can offer recognition and

empowerment;– Preparation as fundamental (institutional

framework determines room for it);– Follow-up: always (37%) to never (10%);– Suitablity of victims (victim support-RJ

practitioners’ view);

The importance of the institutional framework (5)

• Professionals’ impact– Consequences for offender more clear than for

victims;– Risk of an offender-oriented practice ~ standards

of CJS and CJS as gatekeeper;– Victim support has more protective attitude and

the empowering role of RJ professionals does not always correlate well with the institutional context.

Questions and further information

Vanfraechem, Bolivar & Aertsen, Victims and restorative justice (Routledge 2015)

inge.vanfraechem@law.kuleuven.be