Survivors’ Paths Toward Forgiveness in Restorative Justice Following Sexual Violence

• Published date: 01 June 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231162108
• Author: Natalie Hadar,Tali Gal
• Date: 01 June 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2023, Vol. 50, No. 6, June 2023, 911 –928.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231162108

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2023 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

911

SURVIVORS’ PATHS TOWARD FORGIVENESS IN

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE FOLLOWING SEXUAL

VIOLENCE

NATALIE HADAR

University of Haifa

TALI GAL

University of Haifa; The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Sexual violence (SV) yields complex justice and therapeutic needs among its survivors. Restorative justice (RJ), conducted

in addition to or instead of the criminal justice process following SV, provides a platform to address these needs and repair

the harm. This study describes the dynamics of RJ processes following SV, leading to the emergence of dialogic forgiveness.

Dialogic forgiveness refers to a reduction in negative thoughts, feelings, and motivations toward the responsible person (RP),

and the emergence of positive ones within a process of mutual communication between the survivor, RP, and supporters.

Focusing on survivors’ experiences, this study, conducted in Israel, is based on 16 semi-structured in-depth interviews with

SV survivors who participated in RJ encounters, their five supporters, and five RJ facilitators. Gestures of accountability,

humanization, and gratitude were identified as crucial elements of implicit and explicit dialogic forgiveness, demonstrating

the healing power of RJ following SV.

Keywords: restorative justice; sexual violence; forgiveness; survivors; accountability

Sexual violence (SV) is a social phenomenon prevalent across all sectors, groups, and

classes (World Health Organization [WHO], 2019). Victims of SV can face a challeng-

ing spectrum of prolonged physical and mental health problems (Gewirtz-Meydan &

Finkelhor, 2020). Despite the changes that have taken place in recent decades in Israel and

elsewhere regarding the status and protection of victims of SV in criminal proceedings,

most mainstream criminal justice systems fail to provide adequate responses to the various

needs of these victims (Jordan, 2015). As a result, there is a growing trend to search for an

alternative or complementary mechanism to respond to SV.

A possible mechanism is restorative justice (RJ), here defined by the United Nations

(UN) Office on Drugs and Crime (2006) with emphasis on process, outcomes, and

stakeholders:

AUTHORS’ NOTE: We have no known conflict of interest to disclose. We acknowledge the strength and cour-

age of the survivors who participated in this research and thank Betsedek program for their contributions. We

are also thankful to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions and comments on earlier drafts of

this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Natalie Hadar, School of

Criminology, Faculty of Law, University of Haifa, 199 Aba Khoushy Ave. Mount Carmel, Haifa 3498838,

Israel; e-mail: Nataliehadr@gmail.com.

1162108CJBXXX10.1177/00938548231162108Criminal Justice and BehaviorHadar, Gal / Survivors’ Paths toward Forgiveness in RJ

research-article2023

912 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

Restorative justice is a way of responding to criminal behavior by balancing the needs of the

community, the victims, and the offenders . . . . A restorative process means any process in

which the victim and the offender and, where appropriate, any other individuals or community

members, affected by a crime, participate together actively in the resolution of matters arising

from the crime, generally with the help of a facilitator . . . . Restorative outcome means an

agreement reached as a result of a restorative process. The agreement may include referrals to

programmes such as reparation, restitution and community services, aimed at meeting the

individual and collective needs and responsibilities of the parties, and achieving the reintegration

of the victims and the offender. (pp. 6–7)

The use of RJ processes in cases of SV is controversial (Keenan, 2014; Mercer et al.,

2015). The controversy focuses mainly on two questions: Whether punishment in a severe

case such as SV should be waived or reduced; and whether RJ can protect survivors against

additional victimization and trauma resulting from the meeting with the responsible person

(RP; Daly & Stubbs, 2006; Keenan, 2014). In recent years, however, a growing number of

scholars and practitioners have recognized the benefits of RJ in cases of SV for survivors,

either as an alternative or as a complementary mechanism to the criminal process (Koss,

2014; Koss et al., 2003; McGlynn et al., 2012; Zinsstag & Keenan, 2017).

Braithwaite (2002) described forgiveness as an “emergent standard” in the RJ process, a

“gift” that a survivor may give an RP but is by no means expected, persuaded, or pushed to

grant. Accordingly, there is typically no explicit discussion about the possibility of forgiveness

during the restorative process (Armour & Umbreit, 2018). Enright and colleagues have pro-

vided a common definition of forgiveness as the “willingness to abandon one’s right to resent-

ment, negative judgment and indifferent behavior toward one who unjustly hurt us, while

fostering the undeserved qualities of compassion, generosity, and even love toward him or

her” (Enright et al., 1998, p. 47). Forgiveness is not synonymous with turning a blind eye or

justifying the harm, nor pardon, forgetfulness, denial, or reconciliation (Exline et al., 2003).

Recent years have also seen a growing interest in interpersonal dialogic forgiveness:

forgiveness that develops due to a dialog between the wrongdoer and the person harmed.

Similar to RJ, the concept of forgiveness also raises many objections, especially regarding

its appropriateness in cases of serious harm, such as SV (Lamb, 2002). However, forgive-

ness potentially contributes to emotional restoration, benefiting the forgiver’s wellbeing

and thus fulfilling the healing purpose of RJ (Armour & Umbreit, 2018).

RJ offers a fertile ground to explore dialogical forgiveness arising from the interpersonal

interaction between the survivor, RP, and community. This interaction prompts mutual gestures

that can be turning points for changes in different ways and levels. Aiming to contribute to the

theoretical knowledge about the nature of forgiveness following harm, the study presents the

perspectives of Israeli SV survivors regarding the gradual unfolding of dialogical forgiveness

during the RJ processes they participated in. The study focuses on survivors’ interpretations of

the verbal and nonverbal gestures leading, in some cases, to dialogical forgiveness.

THEORY AND LITERATURE REVIEW

SV AND ITS CONSEQUENCES ON SURVIVORS

SV is legally and culturally defined and encompasses broad types of sexual acts (Zinsstag

& Keenan, 2017). It can have devastating consequences on the survivors and their commu-

nities (Godden-Rasul, 2017; Pérez-Fuentes et al., 2013). The WHO (2019) defined SV as