Receptivity to restorative justice: A survey of goal importance, process effectiveness, and support for victim–offender conferencing

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21238
• Published date: 01 December 2018
• Date: 01 December 2018

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Receptivity to restorative justice: A survey of goal

importance, process effectiveness, and support for

victim–offender conferencing

Gregory D. Paul

1

| Emily C. Swan

2

1

Department of Communication Studies, Kansas

State University, Manhattan, Kansas

2

Department of Communication Studies,

Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas

Correspondence

Gregory D. Paul, Department of Communication

Studies, Kansas State University, 702 Mid

Campus Drive South, 234 Nichols Hall,

Manhattan, KS 66506.

Email: gregpaul@ksu.edu

As the use of restorative justice processes continues to

grow in the West, it is helpful to understand the factors

that influence people’s support for the use of restorative

processes. Working from a conflict goals perspective, this

study explores how support for the use of victim–offender

conferencing following instances of first-time, nonviolent

offending by youth is influenced by perceived importance

of justice outcomes, perceived effectiveness of conven-

tional and restorative processes at accomplishing those

outcomes, and perceived appropriateness of conventional

and restorative processes. It concludes with a discussion

of implications for restorative justice research and

advocacy.

1|INTRODUCTION

A key focus of restorative justice (RJ) practitioners/advocates over the years has been to increase

awareness, understanding, and support of RJ processes. Similarly, a sizable amount of RJ scholarship

has been devoted to conceptualizing RJ (Daly, 2016; McCold, 2000; Paul & Borton, 2017; Vaander-

ing, 2011), distinguishing it from conventional (“retributive”) justice (Braithwaite, 2002; Pavlich,

2005; Wenzel, Okimoto, Feather, & Platow, 2010; Zehr, 2002), and evaluating its effectiveness

(Bergseth & Bouffard, 2007; Calhoun & Pelech, 2013; Gabbay, 2005; Latimer, Dowden, & Muise,

2005). These efforts work to increase understanding and support for an approach to justice that, at

least in the West, the public at large may be unaware of, uncertain about, or even resistant toward.

Responsiveness to existing public attitudes toward RJ is a first step toward effective education

and advocacy. Research has explored public attitudes toward RJ generally, restorative processes spe-

cifically, and openness to participating in restorative processes (e.g., Ahlin, Gibbs, Kavanaugh, &

Lee, 2017; Bazemore & Leip, 2000; Paul, 2015; Paul & Schenck-Hamlin, 2017; Roberts & Stalans,

2004). Such attitudes can influence behavior (Ajzen, 2011), are connected with other attitudes

Received: 25 June 2018 Revised: 9 August 2018 Accepted: 14 August 2018

DOI: 10.1002/crq.21238

© 2018 Association for Conflict Resolution and Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Conflict Resolution Quarterly. 2018;36:145–162. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/crq 145

(Perloff, 2010), and are rooted in prior cultural socialization (Okimoto, Wenzel, & Feather, 2009;

Paul & Borton, 2017). Exploring public attitudes toward RJ also can facilitate more strategic advo-

cacy for RJ that could be more persuasive to audiences. Working from a conflict goals perspective

(Canary & Lakey, 2006; Folger, Poole, & Stutman, 2013; Wang, Fink, & Cai, 2012; Wilmot &

Hocker, 2007), effective advocacy that demonstrates how restorative processes can effectively accom-

plish desired justice outcomes can work to build support for the use of RJ processes in communities.

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine public attitudes toward conventional and RJ

outcomes and practices, focusing on attitudes toward victim outcomes, offender outcomes, and

victim–offender interaction. It then connects the perceived importance of those outcomes and pro-

cesses, as well as the perceived effectiveness of conventional and restorative processes, to support the

use of the RJ process of victim–offender conferencing (VOC) in people’s communities. In doing so,

this study aims to contribute to both research and practice. From a research perspective, the study con-

tinues the exploration of attitudes toward RJ and aims to drill down to an elemental level to explore the

factors that influence those RJ attitudes. It is concerned with the questions “What do people think

about RJ and why do they think it?”By looking at the factors that influence support for RJ, we can

begin to expand our understanding of how RJ attitudes come into being and evolve over time. From a

practice perspective, the study is useful for crafting persuasive messages that will be effective in rein-

forcing, changing, or shaping people’s attitudes toward justice in general and RJ in particular. Design-

ing advocacy messages with audiences’existing attitudes in mind can enhance the effectiveness of that

advocacy (Perloff, 2010). Moreover, awareness of justice attitudes and beliefs can help facilitators be

more sensitive and responsive to VOC participants’needs, interests, and concerns. Finally, awareness

of justice attitudes can inform the responsive implementation of RJ practices in various settings (see

Gavin & MacVean, 2018; González, Sattler, & Buth, 2018; Nowotny & Carrara, 2018; Pointer, 2018).

2|RESTORATIVE AND CONVENTIONAL JUSTICE

Although there is no common definition of RJ, there is general consensus among researchers that RJ

prioritizes individual, relational, and community restoration, usually through the use of facilitated dia-

logic processes, following a personal harm (Daly, 2016; Gavin & MacVean, 2018; Gavrielides,

2008; Johnstone & Van Ness, 2007; Roberts, 2010; Rugge & Cormier, 2013). A commonly cited def-

inition of RJ frames it as “a process whereby parties with a stake in a specific offense collectively

resolve how to deal with the aftermath of the offense and its implications for the future”(Marshall,

1999, p. 5). Armour and Umbreit (2006) define RJ as an

alternative to the system that advocates retributive justice [that] seeks to elevate the role

of crime victims and community members; hold offenders directly accountable to the

people they have violated; and restore, to the extent possible, the emotional and material

losses of victims by providing a range of opportunities for dialogue, negotiation, and

problem solving. (p. 123)

The focus on stakeholder participation, personal accountability, and multidimensional repair are

rooted in core values such as personalization, empowerment, reintegration, learning, healing, and

growth (Borton & Paul, 2015; Braithwaite, 1999; Doolin, 2007; Okimoto et al., 2009; Roche, 2003;

Tsui, 2014; Van Ness & Strong, 2010; Zehr & Mika, 2010).

As illustrated by Armour and Umbreit’s (2006) definition, researchers and practitioners tend to

contrast RJ and conventional justice (often called “retributive justice”). These contrasts typically

146 PAUL AND SWAN