Abstract
The myth that restorative justice is the opposite of retributive justice persists, despite a long history of rhetorical challenges. Only empirical evidence can advance the debate, so this article investigates the relationship between punishment and victim–offender communication from the victim’s perspective. Interviews with 40 victims of crime established that some victims saw victim–offender communication and punishment as alternatives, and others saw them as independent. However, more than half the participants expected that communicating with the offender would increase their satisfaction with the offender’s punishment or reported afterwards that this was in fact the case, suggesting that some victims fulfil punishment objectives through communication with the offender. The changes occurred when victims received information about the offender’s punishment, received feedback from the offender or used communication with the offender to impose a mild punishment of their own. Victims were not excessively punitive, but this study demonstrates the existence of an association between punishment and victim–offender communication from at least some victims’ perspectives. This article argues that we should not ignore or attempt to eliminate this relationship. Rather, acknowledging and examining the existence of punishment within victim–offender communication would improve practice and generate better outcomes for victims, offenders and society.
Highlights
The myth that restorative justice is the opposite of retributive justice persists, despite a long history of rhetorical challenges
In social psychology experiments participants are asked to choose between ‘restorative justice (RJ)’ and ‘punishment’ (Moss et al, 2019; Rasmussen et al, 2018), in public discourse RJ is often described as ‘non-punitive’ (e.g. Donnelly, 2015; McKend, 2020), and in RJ practice some facilitators say they would not proceed with a victim–offender meeting if the victim had ‘punitive’ motivations
Some victims appeared to fulfil their punishment objectives through communication with the offender; more than half the participants expected that communicating with the offender would increase their satisfaction with the offender’s punishment or reported afterwards that this was the case
Summary
The myth that restorative justice is the opposite of retributive justice persists, despite a long history of rhetorical challenges. Empirical evidence can advance the debate, so this article investigates the relationship between punishment and victim–offender communication from the victim’s perspective. Rather, acknowledging and examining the existence of punishment within victim–offender communication would improve practice and generate better outcomes for victims, offenders and society. In the 1990s, the punishment debate focused on the relationship between retribution and reparation. Duff (1992), for example, considered reparation as an alternative punishment (rather than an alternative to punishment), and Zedner (1994) argued that offender activities designed to make amends to the victim or community can deliver retributive goals. While the debates about reparation and victim-influenced sentencing continued, some theorists turned their attention to the relationship between retributive justice and a third type of RJ practice: communication between victims and offenders. In social psychology experiments participants are asked to choose between ‘RJ’ and ‘punishment’ (Moss et al, 2019; Rasmussen et al, 2018), in public discourse RJ is often described as ‘non-punitive’ (e.g. Donnelly, 2015; McKend, 2020), and in RJ practice some facilitators say they would not proceed with a victim–offender meeting if the victim had ‘punitive’ motivations.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
