Promoting Inmates’ Positive Attitudes toward Participating in a Restorative Justice Process: The Effects of a Victim Awareness Process

• DOI: 10.1177/0032885520916820
• Author: Dana Weimann-Saks,Inbal Peleg-Koriat
• Date: 01 June 2020
• Published date: 01 June 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885520916820

The Prison Journal

2020, Vol. 100(3) 381 –398

© 2020 SAGE Publications

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0032885520916820

journals.sagepub.com/home/tpj

Article

Promoting Inmates’

Positive Attitudes

toward Participating

in a Restorative Justice

Process: The Effects

of a Victim Awareness

Process

Dana Weimann-Saks1

and Inbal Peleg-Koriat1

Abstract

In the present study, we conducted an empirical experiment to examine

whether exposure to a victim awareness procedure would affect inmates’

attitudes toward participating in a restorative-justice process. In addition,

the study sought to evaluate whether there are differences between inmates

serving their sentences in prisons with different therapeutic orientations. The

findings indicate that participants who were exposed to a victim awareness

procedure were more aware of the harm caused to the victim and showed

a higher level of positive attitudes toward participating in restorative-justice

process than those who were not. Contrary to our hypothesis, no differences

were found between the prisons.

Keywords

restorative justice, victim awareness procedure, victim-offender mediation

1The Max Stern Yezreel Valley Academic College, Affula, Israel

Corresponding Authors:

Dana Weimann-Saks, The Max Stern Yezreel Valley Academic College, 19300 Affula, Israel.

Email: Danawe@yvc.ac.il

Inbal Peleg-Koriat, The Max Stern Yezreel Vally Acadmic College,19300 Affula, Israel.

Email: Inbalp@yvc.ac.il

916820TPJXXX10.1177/0032885520916820The Prison JournalWeimann-Saks and Peleg-Koriat

research-article2020

382 The Prison Journal 100(3)

Introduction

Numerous studies have shown that retributive justice (and imprisonment) is

crucial to the sense of fairness felt by the public following a criminal act (e.g.,

Fehr & Fischbacher, 2004; Gromet & Darley, 2009; Vidmar & Miller, 1980).

This research also indicates that even when people have not been directly

victimized by the crime, they are still anxious to punish the lawbreaker.

Walmsley (2013) estimated that about 10.2 million people worldwide were

imprisoned in a variety of detention facilities, and that the prison population

on all five continents has increased more rapidly than the growth of the gen-

eral population. Nevertheless, the aspiration to achieve justice by relying on

a retributive justice system alone is problematic. According to recent crimi-

nological research, it appears that law enforcement systems all over the world

are increasingly using outdated methods of punishment that are ineffective in

terms of deterrence, rehabilitation, offender reentry into society, and in eco-

nomic costs (Carroll & Warner, 2014; Jewkes & Johnston, 2006). In addition,

many researchers argue that conventional retributive justice does not provide

a sufficient response to the needs and fears of the victims and those around

them (Barton, 1999; Gromet & Darley, 2009; O’Hear, 2006; Strang &

Sherman, 2003). Consequently, in recent years, law enforcement and social

supervision in many countries, including Israel, appear to have become more

aware of alternative methods for dealing with criminal offenses.

Restorative Justice

Many of the new alternatives being examined internationally are based on the

concept of restorative justice (RJ). The main goal of RJ is to redress the harm

caused and/or resolve the dispute by identifying the needs resulting from the

criminal act. According to the RJ approach, this can be achieved by holding an

unprejudiced guided discussion between the parties affected by the criminal

behavior with the aim of coming to agreements on what the offender, and some-

times the community, should do to address the needs of those who suffered as a

result of the criminal offense (Johnstone, 2012; Zehr & Mika, 2003). During this

process, offenders must come to terms with the results of their actions and the

suffering they have caused, and to become aware of opportunities to rectify the

harm caused. Alleviating the harm can be achieved if the offender recognizes the

damage they have caused and the extreme hardships experienced by the victim

and others who have been impacted by the offense(s); the offender has to accept

responsibility for their actions and be willing to address the needs that have

become salient as a result (Farkash, 2009; Roche, 2003).

The “classic” use of RJ implies an alternative to imprisonment, and some schol-

ars view RJ as being in opposition to retributive punishment (Bazemore, 1998;