Restorative Justice Behind Bars: People in Custody’s Facilitators and Barriers to Participating in Restorative Justice

• Published date: 01 October 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00938548241257608
• Author: Inbal Peleg-Koriat,Dana Weimann-Saks
• Date: 01 October 2024
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2024, Vol. 51, No. 10, October 2024, 1493 –1510.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548241257608

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2024 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1493

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE BEHIND BARS

People in Custody’s Facilitators and Barriers to

Participating in Restorative Justice

INBAL PELEG-KORIAT

DANA WEIMANN-SAKS

Yezreel Valley Academic College

Restorative justice (RJ) is a way of doing justice following an offense that is oriented toward repairing individual, relational,

and social harm. Despite indications of their contribution to rehabilitation, RJ is still used infrequently, especially in serious

offenses. We believe implementing them in prison is likely to provide access to RJ to a wider population. Twenty-three adult

correctional clients were interviewed about their attitudes toward participation in RJ while in custody. Specifically, the study

examined facilitators and barriers affecting their willingness to participate. The facilitators found included the following: (1)

Desire to seek forgiveness; (2) Expressing respect for the victim; (3) Reciprocity—the correctional client as a victim; and (4)

Desire to renew relationships. The barriers identified were as follows: (1) Fear of the victims’ reactions; (2) Disbelief in the

victim’s ability to forgive; and (3) Unwillingness to include their supporters. These facilitators and barriers are discussed with

a view to implementing RJ in prisons.

Keywords: Restorative justice; prison; rehabilitation; facilitators; barriers

INTRODUCTION

Once I asked to talk and seek forgiveness, and in prison you can’t talk to the victims [. . .] His

family doesn’t really know what happened. I was arrested as a murder suspect; in my

interrogation, I never really told the truth about what happened. To this day, after 22 years, they

don’t know what happened. They know the robber or murderer was apprehended and convicted

to life imprisonment. Today, I’m capable of telling them [. . .] Maybe it will help them? [. . .]

It’s the right thing to do, especially for them. (M, interviewed for this study)

In the criminal context, restorative justice (RJ) takes many forms, but it typically involves

a meeting between the victim, the correctional client, and, if appropriate, family members,

friends, and community representatives (Zehr, 2002). As an approach to doing justice, it

AUTHORS’ NOTE: The authors would like to thank the Israel Science Foundation (Grant No. 558/21) and

the Israel Prison Service for allowing the research to take place inside the prisons and thus strengthen its

validity. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Inbal Peleg-Koriat, Yezreel Valley

Academic College, Emek Yezreel 19300, Israel; e-mail: Inbalp@yvc.ac.il.

1257608CJBXXX10.1177/00938548241257608Criminal Justice and BehaviorPeleg-Koriat, Weimann-Saks / RESTORATIVE JUSTICE BEHIND BARS

research-article2024

1494 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

emphasizes repairing harm done to individuals, relationships, and society (Walgrave, 2013).

Following thorough preparation, the participants meet in a structured, facilitated process to

discuss the offense and its effects on the main and secondary victims (Umbreit & Armour,

2010). Preparation times vary, usually from 1 month to 2 years. The appointed facilitators

(usually two) ensure a safe space for the participants, considering the victim’s psychologi-

cal readiness as well as the justice-involved person’s riskiness and levels of sincerity and

remorse. The preparation often consists of the facilitators meeting the victim to hear about

their expectations of the process, needs, and wishes. Next, both meet the justice-involved

person and finally other family members, friends, or other supporters. The facilitators con-

duct the preparatory meetings back and forth to assess safety needs and the potential scope

of the dialogue (Jülich, 2006; Koss, 2014). This stage enables dealing with subsystems one

by one, preparing the ground for the final meeting between the justice-involved person,

victim, and supporters (Beck et al., 2017).

During RJ conferences, the victim and justice-involved person have an opportunity to

talk about what happened, and the justice-involved person has an opportunity to acknowl-

edge the harm caused and try to make amends. It is highly probable that during the process,

justice-involved persons will undergo a significant change in acknowledging their respon-

sibility for causing harm to others and for redressing it (Gal, 2015). A successful process

entails redressing the harm caused and turning over a new leaf for those involved (Hayes &

Daly, 2003).

In RJ processes, the family and significant others can be seen as a responsible commu-

nity that acts to prevent the offense from recurring and as a community of care (Beck et al.,

2017). They provide emotional support, promote the construction of adaptive meanings

regarding the offense in the case of victims, and contribute to experiences of social reinte-

gration and inclusive reactions in the case of justice-involved persons (McCold, 2000).

In evaluation studies, both victims and justice-involved persons have been more satis-

fied with RJ than with conventional processes (Poulson, 2003; Sherman & Strang, 2007).

Evidence of the effectiveness of RJ in reducing recidivism is mixed and based on a few

studies (Sherman et al., 2015; Wilson et al., 2018). In some, correctional clients partici-

pating in RJ processes tended to present lower recidivism rates than participants in con-

ventional criminal processes (Bazemore et al., 2007; Sherman & Strang, 2007). A

comprehensive study found that the likelihood of justice-involved persons committing

another offense in the 6 months following an RJ process was 33% lower than that of

justice-involved persons who had not participated in RJ. This percentage was even higher

when the RJ process constituted an addition rather than an alternative to ordinary legal

processes (Poulson, 2003). Conversely, other studies found either a slight reduction in

recidivism or none (e.g., Strang et al., 2013; Wilson et al., 2018). Despite these important

insights, however, the use of RJ processes remains infrequent internationally, especially

in serious offenses (Butler & Maruna, 2016; Peleg-Koriat & Weimann-Saks, 2019). They

are mostly used for nonserious crimes where incarceration and re-offending are not likely

(Wood, 2015).

In recent years, RJ has been increasingly discussed as part of criminal justice reform in

several countries. For example, from 2010 to 2015, 15 states in the U.S. passed laws sup-

porting RJ. However, this legislation did little to change the focus of RJ processes on minor

offenses (Cohen, 2019).