Is there more to restorative justice than mere compliance to procedural justice? : a qualitative reflection from the victims' point of view

Multiple evaluative studies have demonstrated that victims of crime, irrespective of the type of crime, are satisfied with their participation in a restorative intervention. However, the theoretical explanation for victim satisfaction with restorative practices has, until recently, remained largely neglected. The research presented in this dissertation concerns the exploration of factors contributing to victim satisfaction with the restorative approach and their relation to the procedural justice theory. The theory of procedural justice predicts that the perception of fairness is not only related to the favourability of the outcome but also to the appreciation of certain procedural factors and that a procedure can be assessed irrespective of its outcome. Procedures in which authorities are perceived as trustworthy, neutral and respectful and in which disputants feel involved are more appreciated and perceived as fair.  Our research objective is to verify whether victims’ appreciation of restorative justice complies with the procedural justice model. In other words, does the procedural justice theory explain victim satisfaction with the restorative approach or is there more to restorative justice than procedural justice? We also examined the appreciation of the restorative approach relative to its timing in the criminal justice proceedings, i.e. before and after penal adjudication.  As such we could observe whether the absence or availability of a judicial decision colours victims’ evaluation of restorative justice.  In search of parallels between the theory of restorative justice and procedural justice, we consulted victims of violent crime about their experiences with the restorative approach. Semi-directive interviews were conducted with victims of violent crime who had participated in victim-offender mediation, family group conference or victim-offender encounters in Canada (N=13) and in Belgium (N=21). Of these, 14 respondents participated in the restorative intervention before adjudication and 14 after judicial adjudication. We found that the restorative approach complies very well with the procedural justice model. However, it also exceeds the procedural justice model in being flexible, providing care, centring on dialogue and permitting prosocial justice motives to be addressed. Finally, the appreciation for restorative interventions is positive both when it is used before and after adjudication. Whether restorative justice precedes or follows adjudication is, however, related to victims’ satisfaction with the criminal justice system. Victims who participated in a restorative intervention after adjudication were generally dissatisfied with the criminal justice proceedings, while victims who participated prior to adjudication were generally satisfied with the criminal justice system. Moreover, victims appreciate the complementary nature of the restorative approach in relation to the judicial proceedings.  The findings suggest that restorative justice is appropriate in cases of violent crime and as such that restorative justice should be made more available to victims of violence both prior and after adjudication. Nevertheless, because of its complementary nature, investment in the capacity of the criminal justice system to better respond to victims’ procedural and interactional needs is also required.

Keyphrases: Canada, Recherche qualitative, Restorative justice, Procedural justice, Interactional justice, Victims, Canada, Belgium, Qualitative research