Victims and restorative justice: the importance of the institutional framework Inge Vanfraechem ESC, Porto 5 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)