The Impact of Participation in Victim-Offender Mediation Sessions on Recidivism of Serious Offenders

• Published date: 01 September 2018
• Date: 01 September 2018
• Author: Janelle N. Beaudette,Tania Petrellis,Renée Laframboise,Jennie Thompson,Manon Buck,Lynn Stewart
• DOI: 10.1177/0306624X17752274
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X17752274

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2018, Vol. 62(12) 3910 –3927

© The Author(s) 2018

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X17752274

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Article

The Impact of Participation

in Victim-Offender Mediation

Sessions on Recidivism of

Serious Offenders

Lynn Stewart1, Jennie Thompson1,

Janelle N. Beaudette1, Manon Buck1,

Renée Laframboise1, and Tania Petrellis1

Abstract

The federal correctional agency in Canada offers victim–offender mediation services

to address serious crime. The current study used survival analysis to compare

revocation rates of 122 offenders who participated in facilitated face-to-face meetings

to a matched sample of 122 of non-participants. Results indicated that there was no

significant difference between revocation rates when offenders participated while

incarcerated, although the trend was that participants did better. When the meetings

were held in the community post-release, however, participants were significantly

more likely to spend a longer period of time under supervision in the community

without returning to custody and were less likely to be revoked than their matched

counterparts. The findings support participation in restorative justice sessions while

under community supervision for higher risk offenders with histories of serious

and violent crimes. The authors discuss how factors not controlled in the matching

procedure may have contributed to this effect.

Keywords

restorative justice, victim–offender mediation, correctional outcomes, revocation,

serious offenders

Restorative justice (RJ) is considered the “third” option to the traditional punitive

versus rehabilitation models typically employed in Western correctional systems

1Correctional Service of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Corresponding Author:

Lynn Stewart, Correctional Service of Canada, 340 Laurier Ave W, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0P9.

Email: Lynn.stewart@csc-scc.gc.ca

752274IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X17752274International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyStewart et al.

research-article2018

Stewart et al. 3911

(Leonard & Kenny, 2011; Zehr, 1990). The three pillars of the approach as articulated

by Zehr (1990) are to understand the harm that has been done and the needs that result

from that harm, to identify what must be done to right the wrong that has been com-

mitted and encourage accountability to right that wrong, and finally, to engage the

victim, offender, and the wider community in the process. RJ encourages outcomes

that promote responsibility, reparation, and healing for all (Latimer, Dowden, &

Muise, 2005; Leonard & Kenny, 2011). Rather than retribution, the relational engage-

ment of the offender, the victim(s), and the community is the cornerstone of the

approach.

Fundamentally, RJ recognizes that crime is not merely the act of breaking the law;

it is a violation of relationships and people (Zehr, 1990). Consequently, to appropri-

ately address the harm caused by the actions of the offender, it stands to reason that

those most closely related to the event (i.e., the victim, the offender, the community)

come together to discuss the offence, arrive at an understanding, and, where possible,

repair the harm caused by the crime. RJ has been developed into a comprehensive and

powerful theory of justice (Roach, 2000) and it has been argued that this model is

effective when addressing issues of victim and offender reintegration, particularly

from a community perspective (Llewellyn & Howse, 1998).

There are three main types of RJ models: (a) circles, (b) conferences, and (c) vic-

tim–offender mediation (VOM). They are all based on the principles of RJ and can be

used to address all offence types. The restorative process requires several elements to

be successful. First, participation by both the victim and the offender must be volun-

tary. The offender must be willing to accept responsibility for his or her actions and be

prepared to discuss the wrongful act. There should be open and honest dialogue

regarding the offender’s criminality and, if a face-to-face dialogue is deemed appropri-

ate, the meeting must take place in a safe environment. The presence of a third party

facilitator is required and discussions should meet the participants’ identified needs to

address the harms caused by the crime.

RJ programs differ from penal forms of justice as they do not solely focus on the

crime and the punitive consequences for the unlawful act. Instead, the focus is on who

has been harmed; how can the harms be addressed; and how the needs of all those

involved can be met. This can appeal to victims and communities that continue to deal

with the impact of crime. RJ advocates have long criticized research conducted on the

effectiveness of RJ interventions in reducing reoffending, contending that the central

goal of RJ is not a reduction in recidivism, but rather, a focus on reparation of the

harms caused by the offence.

Even if there is a lack of agreement on the goals for implementing RJ programs,

policy makers must have sound empirical evidence to support the application, or con-

tinued use, of RJ programs within government agencies. The debate continues despite

individual studies (see Bergseth & Bouffard, 2012; Bonta, Wallace-Capretta, &

Rooney, 1998; Hayes & Daly, 2003, 2004; Luke & Lind, 2002) and research reviews

and meta-analyses (see Bonta, Jesseman, Rugge, & Cormier, 2006; Bonta, Wallace-

Capretta, Rooney, & McAnoy, 2002; Latimer et al., 2005; Nugent, Williams, &