NCJ Number
199238
Journal
International Review of Victimology Volume: 9 Issue: 3 Dated: 2002 Pages: 273-288
Date Published
2002
Length
16 pages
Annotation
This article discusses why some victims do not participate in restorative justice meetings.
Abstract
The results presented here are drawn from phase 4 of a larger evaluation of the United Kingdom's Thames Valley Police restorative cautioning initiative, a full evaluation where restorative sessions were observed and formal interviews were carried out with victims. When reviewing the total of cases in 3 pilot areas from January to April 2000, it was found that in approximately 82 percent of the 334 cases where there had been an identifiable victim, the victim did not attend the restorative session. Transcriptions of the “victim absent” cautions were studied in order to see why the victims did not attend. Results show that there were four reasons why victims did not attend cautions. In over 80 percent of cases the victim had been invited to attend and either wanted to go but could not or declined the offer. For those that wanted to attend the main reasons for not doing so were practical, such as being too busy with work commitments. Victims that did not want to attend the caution made up the largest proportion of the sample (52 percent). Most cited either concern about meeting the offender or a preference to leave the matter to the police as the reason for their decision. Fear of retaliation was evident at a relatively low level. One of the most striking themes to emerge from the data concerns the quality of contact, information, and feedback between the police and the absent victim sample. The respondents’ understanding of what would happen at the caution was in most cases poor. Adequate explanation and information is crucial if victims are to fully understand what is being offered and to make an informed choice regarding participation. In addition, victim satisfaction with the restorative cautioning process as a criminal justice response to the offense is predicated on that understanding. Victim-absent cautions tended to be more offender-focused and less restorative than victim-present cautions. The perception that restorative justice requires victims to meet offenders may be to blame for these failings. 2 tables, 13 notes, 27 references