Betty Vos

Homicide Survivors Meet the Offender Prior to Execution: Restorative Justice through Dialogue

This article presents two case studies that represent the first examination of any capital murder cases involving a victim offender mediation/dialogue session between a surviving family member and the death row inmate facing execution shortly after the mediation session. The 5 participants (3 surviving family members and 2 offenders) in these ground-breaking death row mediation/dialogue sessions stated that this intervention had a powerful impact on their lives; all had been moved beyond their expectations, all were relieved, all reported significant progress on their healing journeys, and all were grateful for the opportunity. Furthermore, all 5 persons pointed to the same set of components to account for their response. The authors suggest that practitioners and policy makers should give serious consideration to cautiously expanding opportunities for such restorative encounters that are initiated and requested by victims and surviving family members of severely violent crime.

Restorative justice dialogue: A multi-dimensional evidence-based practice theory

Restorative justice in the 21st century is a social movement that has moved far beyond its humble and rather marginal beginnings in North America and Europe more than a quarter of a century ago. Today restorative justice policies and practices are developing throughout the world in diverse cultural and national settings, with recent endorsements by the European Union and the United Nations. While still not the mainstream in any nation, restorative justice has clearly moved beyond the margins of social change in many locations and is beginning to enter the mainstream of criminal justice policy. The oldest, most widely used, and empirically grounded expression of this movement is restorative justice dialogue through victim–offender mediation, group conferencing, and peacemaking circles. These and related practices in which victims, offenders, support people, and other community participants have opportunities to enter into dialogue with each other to foster healing and the repair of harm represent the movement’s foundation, upon which many other restorative practices and policies are developing. This article describes the underlying characteristics of authentic restorative justice dialogue, including specific indicators of its presence. The article provides assistance to practitioners and policymakers who seek to address issues of program development, evaluation, and measurement.

Restorative justice circles: An exploratory study

Peacemaking circles have received a great deal of attention within the international restorative justice movement. The use of peacemaking circles for structuring communication and decision-making in many diverse cultures is probably as ancient as humankind. Peacemaking circles are particularly integrated and used among the many indigenous tribes of North America. This article reports on the development and use of peacemaking circles in South Saint Paul, Minnesota, representing the first exploratory study of circles in the US. The South Saint Paul initiative represents one of the oldest efforts in the US to adapt circles as a restorative justice approach within the community and schools. Peacemaking circles were found to be an effective approach to involve community members in the process of holding local offenders accountable for repairing the harm they caused, to assist crime victims, and to foster a greater sense of connectedness among all those affected by crime within the community.

Victims of Severe Violence in Mediated Dialogue with Offender: The Impact of the First Multi-Site Study in the U.S.

A small but growing number of jurisdictions across the U.S. offer victims of severe violence, including homicide, the opportunity to meet in a mediated dialogue session with their offender if they so desire. Such meetings are victim initiated and involve extensive preparation of the parties. This article reports on an intensive qualitative five-year study of mediated dialogue participants in two of the first states in the U.S. to do so, Texas and Ohio. Descriptions of the two programs and key characteristics of participants are provided, along with outcome data related to the experience of both crime victims and offenders in mediated dialogue in the context of severely violent crime.

Restorative Justice versus Community Justice: Clarifying a Muddle or Generating Confusion?

While Paul McCold’s intent to clarify the compatibility of restorative justice and community justice conceptual frameworks is laudable, his effort provides as much confusion as clarity (McCold, 2004, this issue). This piece identifies some of the conflicts inherent in the roots of the development and growth of restorative justice. It also raises concerns regarding how restorative justice theoreticians and practitioners consider community, the role of strangers, empowerment, prevention, and punishment within restorative frameworks. The authors of this piece conclude that, while it remains important to safeguard the underlying principles of restorative justice, it is also necessary to remain open to new possibilities and to new ideas.

Responding to Hate Crimes through Restorative Justice Dialogue

Hate promotes violence. Dialogue among conflicting parties and groups is one way to decrease hate and help prevent bias‐motivated crimes. Restorative justice has emerged in the last three decades as a means of giving all who are stake‐holders in a crime—victims, offenders, and the community to which they belong—a voice in how harm can be repaired and future harm prevented. The present article reports on a two‐year study of seven communities that utilized elements of a restorative justice dialogue approach as one component of responding to bias‐motivated crimes and hate‐charged situations. Following presentation of three case studies, the article highlights the invitational nature of such dialogue, the preparation of participants, and the dialogue process. It also examines factors that influence the dialogue, including the intense impact of hate crimes, the role of the media, and the involvement of outside interest groups. Finally, it explores ways to sustain the dialogue after the crisis recedes.