GENERAL NOTICE

In January 2025, this online platform will be integrated into Boomportaal (www.boomportaal.nl), after which this platform will be discontinued. From that moment on, this URL will automatically redirect to Boomportaal.

DOI: 10.5553/TIJRJ.000144

The International Journal of Restorative JusticeAccess_open

Article

How can the victim-offender mediation process contribute to a lower risk of reoffending? A synthesis literature review

Keywords restorative justice, victim-offender mediation, recidivism, synthesis review
Authors
DOI
Show PDF Show fullscreen
Abstract Author's information Statistics Citation
This article has been viewed 80 times.
This article been downloaded 48 times.
Suggested citation
Jiska Jonas-van Dijk, Sven Zebel, Jacques Claessen e.a. , 'How can the victim-offender mediation process contribute to a lower risk of reoffending? A synthesis literature review', (2023) The International Journal of Restorative Justice 207-234

    Although it has been shown that participation in victim-offender mediation (VOM) can be associated with a lower risk of reoffending, it remains unclear how the VOM process may explain this relationship. Through a synthesis literature review, which included 53 articles, this article provides an overview of mechanisms in three phases of the VOM process that might contribute to a lower risk of reoffending. These are the preliminary phase (before the VOM encounter), the execution phase (VOM encounter) and the outcome phase (after VOM encounter). The findings of the review indicate that although a possible self-selection bias in the preliminary phase may (partly) account for the negative association with recidivism, multiple fundamental conditions and working mechanisms in the VOM process and encounter can help explain a psychological change within the offender and hence a lower recidivism risk. However, the review reveals remaining knowledge gaps regarding the contribution of VOM to reduced reoffending. To fill these gaps, we offer a number of recommendations for future research, such as examining how the fundamental conditions and working mechanisms of VOM interact with each other and produce a psychological change within the offender. This could help to find best practices that maximise the beneficial outcomes of VOM.

Dit artikel wordt geciteerd in

    • 1 Introduction

      The practice of and research into restorative justice has continued to expand in recent years (D’Souza & L’Hoiry, 2019). Contrary to the conventional criminal justice system, restorative justice does not focus on imposing a punishment on the offenders to reach justice (Bradshaw & Roseborough, 2005; Okimoto, Wenzel & Feather, 2012; Wenzel, Okimoto, Feather & Platow, 2008). Instead, its central aim is to resolve the conflict and repair the relationship between the parties directly involved in a crime – victim, offender and the broader community (Bazemore & Umbreit, 2001; Claessen & Roelofs, 2020). The theory of restorative justice emphasises that every party involved has specific needs after an offence and that these needs have to be met for justice to be done (McCold & Wachtel, 2003; Wenzel et al., 2008; Zehr, 2015). In order to fulfil these needs, the parties who have a direct stake in the case should be personally involved.
      Different programmes of restorative justice exist in practice. Victim-offender mediation (VOM) is one of the best known, next to restorative justice conferencing (Bradshaw & Roseborough, 2005; Coates, Umbreit & Vos, 2006). In VOM, a voluntary conversation is organised between the victim and the offender in the presence of a trained mediator. In this way, VOM acknowledges that an offence happened between two people in the context of a broader community that can only be resolved with the active involvement of the victim and the offender (Bradshaw & Roseborough, 2005). Before the conversation takes place, the mediator typically has an intake meeting with the victim and the offender separately (Claessen & Roelofs, 2020; Hansen & Umbreit, 2018). During this intake meeting, the aim of mediation is explained, and stakeholders are asked what they wish to discuss. After these meetings, the mediator determines whether the case is suitable for mediation, whether the stakeholders have a constructive intention and motivation towards each other, and whether bringing the victim and the offender together could potentially hurt one of them. In cases where parties do not wish to meet face to face, other forms of indirect communication can be used as well, such as shuttle mediation or letter exchange (Bouffard, Cooper & Bergseth, 2017; Jonas-van Dijk, Zebel, Claessen & Nelen, 2020).
      VOM distinguishes itself from restorative justice conferencing through its strong emphasis on the interaction between victim and offender. Restorative justice conferencing is more inclusive than VOM in that the former also has a strong emphasis on involving family members of the parties, support persons and members of the community (Bradshaw & Roseborough, 2005; Hansen & Umbreit, 2018). Therefore, restorative justice conferencing focuses not only on restoring the harm done to the victim, but also on what the offender can do to make things right within and towards the community. During a conference, all parties can explain how the crime impacted their lives. When the harm has been addressed fully, all stakeholders together decide what the offender can do to repair the harm (Strang, Sherman, Mayo-Wilson, Woods & Ariel, 2013). In addition, Sherman et al. (2015) state that facilitators in restorative justice conferencing have a controlling role that is less prominent than it is in the case of the mediator in VOM. Given the important differences between VOM and other restorative justice programmes, this research focuses solely on VOM.

    • 2 VOM and recidivism

      Although reducing reoffending is not the primary aim of VOM (Zehr, 2015), a fair share of research has focused on this relationship. Most findings favour VOM responses over conventional criminal justice responses as a way of dealing with crime and preventing reoffending, with observation time periods between VOM and the possibility to reoffend varying from 1 to 13.5 years (Bergseth & Bouffard, 2007, 2013; Bouffard et al., 2017; Claessen, Zeles, Zebel & Nelen, 2015a, 2015b; Jonas-van Dijk et al., 2020; Nugent & Paddock, 1995, 1996; Roy, 1993a; Stewart et al., 2018; Stone, 2000; Umbreit, Coates & Roberts, 2000). This favourable association between VOM and reoffending is shown for both juvenile and adult offenders and holds when controlling for age, gender, race, family structure, number of siblings and prior offending record (Bergseth & Bouffard, 2013; Jonas-van Dijk et al., 2020; Nugent & Paddock, 1996).
      However, other studies indicate that VOM does not seem to have a different association with reoffending, compared with conventional criminal justice (Boriboonthana & Sangbuangamlum, 2013; Gomis-Pomares, Villanueva & García-Gomis, 2021; Jara, García-Gomis & Villanueva, 2016; Niemeyer & Shichor, 1996; Roy, 1993b; Umbreit, 1994; Umbreit & Coates, 1993; Villanueva, Jara & García-Gomis, 2014). In a study of Niemeyer and Shichor (1996) there was even a slightly higher, non-significant risk of reoffending for offenders who participated in VOM. However, this study suffered from problems with the comparison group.
      The current state of research shows no conclusive evidence for a causal relationship between VOM and reoffending. Yet there are indications that (aspects of) the VOM process may contribute to a lower risk of reoffending, for example when self-selection effects are explicitly accounted for (Jonas-van Dijk et al., 2020). The follow-up question, which has not been thoroughly examined to date, is what conditions or mechanisms of the VOM process could explain the favourable association with reoffending (see also, Bolitho, 2017; Suzuki & Yuan, 2021). Therefore, the aim of this article, is to provide as complete an overview as possible of what is currently known about the VOM process and its outcomes. This will then be interpreted in relation to the risk of offenders’ reoffending. Therefore, the research question in this review study is as follows:

      How can the VOM process contribute to a lower risk of reoffending based on the insights from existing empirical research?

      Through a literature review, we aim to add to existing research by filling the knowledge gap about how the VOM process might be related to a reduced risk of reoffending. Filling this gap could shed more light on what is so far unknown and offer starting points for new research. Also, discovering under what circumstance VOM elicits (the most) beneficial outcomes might help to identify best practices, which can be used to optimise the VOM process.
      We divided the VOM process into three phases to answer the research question. The first phase occurs before the actual encounter – the preliminary phase. For this phase, we search for studies that examined reasons for offenders to participate, case characteristics related to participation, and any other factors that explain why, when and which offenders participate in VOM. This will shed light on whether or not a self-selection bias exists. In most studies that have examined the relation between VOM and reoffending, a comparison is made between offenders who did or did not participate in VOM. However, as VOM is a voluntary process, pre-existing differences might exist between these two groups, which might also explain a lower risk of reoffending (Jonas-van Dijk et al., 2020; Latimer, Dowden & Muise, 2005).
      The second phase, the actual encounter, is called the execution phase. In this phase, an overview of studies will be provided that help to explain the immediate psychological impact of the VOM encounter on offenders and identify the key working elements of VOM that may explain this impact. The last phase is the outcome phase of VOM. For this phase, studies will be collected that examined the effects of the VOM process on the offender in terms of behavioural changes and their perception of the justice process as an outcome of the VOM process.
      With this information collected about the three phases, an overview that is as complete as possible can be given of the VOM process and its elements. In the Conclusion, we will state how findings for the three phases can explain a lower risk of reoffending. This will be done by connecting the studies found to existing theories put forward to explain the impact of VOM on reoffending.

    • 3 Theories that might explain the relationship between VOM and ­reoffending

      Different theories have been put forward to explain the relationship between participation in restorative programmes and a lower risk of reoffending. Although these theories have been proposed more often with programmes like conferencing, we believe that some of these might be applicable to VOM as well. One such theory is Braithwaite’s theory of reintegrative shaming (Bradshaw & Roseborough, 2005). This states that there are two different ways to respond to deviant behaviour. When the offender is responded to in a stigmatising way, this person is labelled as deviant. According to labelling theory, the person will be likely to act in accordance with this label and therefore has an increased risk of reoffending (Bernburg & Krohn, 2003). However, when the offender is responded to in a reintegrative way, the act of the offender is disapproved, but the offender is treated as an essentially good person (Braithwaite, Braithwaite & Ahmed, 2018). It is expected that within restorative justice, the offender experiences the ability to reintegrate, instead of being labelled as a criminal.
      According to Daly and Hayes (2001), reintegrative shaming is closely connected to elements of the procedural justice theory. This theory explains that the chance of offenders obeying the law is higher when they perceive the justice process as fair and just (Tyler, Sherman, Strang, Barnes & Woods, 2007). For justice to be perceived as just, respect, decision-maker neutrality, being treated fairly and having a say are important elements (Tyler, 1990 as cited in Daly & Hayes, 2001). As restorative justice programmes are expected to adhere to all these elements of procedural justice, this could explain a lower risk of reoffending (Hipple, Gruenewald & McGarrell, 2014). This lower risk is also related to the defiance theory in which it is postulated that the risk of reoffending is increased when offenders perceive the sanction as unfair and humiliating (Hipple et al., 2014). Since offenders have a say in the outcome in restorative justice, it is expected that they perceive their sanction as more just, and, accordingly, restorative justice can contribute to law-abiding behaviour.
      In this review, we examine what is currently known about (what happens during) the VOM process and what the outcomes of this process are for offenders. These findings will be interpreted in light of the proposed theories that offer explanations for the favourable relationship between VOM and reoffending.

    • 4 Method

      4.1 Realist synthesis review

      A realist synthesis review method was used to answer the research question. Synthesising literature brings together existing evidence for a theory (Wong, Westhorp, Pawson & Greenhalgh, 2013). Therefore, this type of review is theory driven, because it tries to clarify the underlying assumptions of how an intervention, and therefore a theory, should work (Pawson, Greenhalgh, Harvey & Walshe, 2004). As Pawson et al. (2004) state, ‘Interventions are theories’ (4). We considered this the best approach to advance the aims of our study, since VOM is an intervention based on a theory of restorative justice and the question for this review is, what aspects of this intervention/theory could contribute to reducing the risk of reoffending? We wished to examine whether theories put forward to explain the underlying relationship between VOM and reoffending can be supported by evidence from empirical research.
      Another reason to use this type of review is that much research in the field of restorative justice is qualitative in nature. Therefore, qualitative and quantitative research need to be combined to obtain a complete review. A realist synthesis uses the dimensions of relevance (does the study address the theory) and rigour (do the generated and credible data come from trustworthy methods) to decide whether a study meets the inclusion criteria (Pawson et al., 2004: 22; Wong et al., 2013), instead of the research design. A realist synthesis can therefore provide a complete overview of how the process of an intervention works. In addition, it can reveal knowledge gaps that might be examined in the future. On the other hand, because all types of research design are included in the synthesis review, no causality can be inferred from the results, which could be viewed as a weakness. However, the aim of a synthesis is not to find evidence for causality but rather to describe and map the complete process. The steps to perform the synthesis are based on the process sketched by Pawson et al. (2004).

      4.2 Inclusion criteria

      Only research that has examined VOM empirically in the criminal justice context is included in this review. However, some programmes have a different name but entail the same structure as VOM. We therefore included all research in which a restorative justice programme is examined that can be described as VOM, following the definition used in this research: a restorative justice programme in which preparation can eventually lead to a conversation between the victim and the offender in the presence of a trained mediator. Accordingly, we excluded programmes based on family group conferencing and peace-making circles or other programmes that included more participants with a primary stakeholder role in addition to the victim and offender since this is what distinguishes VOM from restorative justice conferencing (Hansen & Umbreit, 2018). Also, programmes in which a meeting was organised with a person representing a victim, instead of the direct victim or bereaved family members were excluded. The type of programme concerned had to be clear from the programme description. If the study lacked a clear programme description or if it was uncertain whether it concerned VOM or a type of conferencing, the study was not included in the review. The mediated contact in the included studies comprised direct (e.g. face to face) or indirect contact (e.g. letter exchange or shuttle mediation). Studies that focused on the experience of victims during a VOM process were also excluded, since this review focused on offenders. Given the language proficiencies of the researchers involved in this article, only studies written in either English or Dutch were included in the review.
      The most important inclusion criterion in this synthesis review is the relevance of the empirical research reported. This is superior to the specific methodological approach of the studies concerned. In addition to this, research should contain unique, primary empirical data (outcomes). This means that former reviews and meta-analyses were not included in this current synthesis review. Besides relevance, we also considered the rigour of the study. These quality standards of relevance and rigour were based on Wong et al. (2013: 35): studies that were relevant to the review of sufficient rigour were identified and included in the review.

      4.3 Sampling

      A systematic approach was adopted to sample and identify relevant articles. The search engines used were: JSTOR, PsycINFO, Scopus, SpringerLink, Taylor & Francis, Web of Science, Wiley Online Library, Social science research network and HeinOnline. These databases cover psychological, social and criminological research, where we expected to find the most appropriate studies. Besides scientific journals, we also included book chapters, dissertations and theses. The search terms used covered all three examined phases of VOM and can be found in Table 1 (search done in November 2020). Snowballing was also used when studies referred to specific other relevant articles. The first author used snowballing until saturation of data.

      Table 1 Search queries used for the realist synthesis review
      Characteristic OR profile OR participation
      OR motivation
      AND offender
      AND victim-offender mediation OR victim-offender reconciliation program OR victim-offender meeting OR restorative justice program
      Mechanisms OR process OR predictor
      Impact OR outcome OR results OR effects
      Reoffending OR reoffend OR recidivism OR desistance OR relapse

      The search query resulted in 1922 hits. After a first scan of the title and the abstract and filtering out double occurrences, 106 articles were left for further examination. Studies excluded from the original 1922 hits often explained the application of restorative justice in a specific country or were cases where mediation was mentioned in the article but not in the context of criminal justice. Another reason to exclude articles was when it was not clear, based on the description of the programme, whether it concerned restorative justice conferencing or VOM (e.g. Miers et al., 2001), no distinction was made between data drawn from restorative justice conferencing or a VOM programme, data from different programmes were treated as one data set (e.g. Calhoun & Pelech, 2010), or victim representatives were used in the VOM programme (e.g. Vieira, 2003). After reading the abstract, description of the study’s aim and programme, 41 of these 106 articles met the inclusion criteria and could be used for this review. Snowball sampling based on these 41 articles added another 12 relevant articles.
      Of the 53 relevant studies, 18 (34 per cent) used a qualitative research design, 28 (53 percent) a quantitative design and 7 (13 per cent) combined both research designs. Most of the studies concerned programmes in North America (N = 31, 57 per cent), of which 28 were in the US. Twenty-one programmes were located in Europe. This is interesting because VOM is used mainly as a restorative justice programme in Europe, whereas in the US, restorative justice conferencing is more commonly used as (well as) a restorative justice practice (Zinsstag, Teunkens & Pali, 2011). Therefore, we would have expected to include more studies examining a European practice. An explanation could be that these studies are written in a language other than English or Dutch and so could not be included in this literature review. Another explanation is that most research into restorative justice has been done in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the US (Lanterman, 2021).
      The relevant studies were completely read. A summary was made of the programme examined in a study, together with the research aims and outcomes. For the actual synthesis, we adopted a thematic content analysis, using inductive coding (Burnard, Gill, Stewart, Treasure & Chadwick, 2008). When all studies were summarised, the first author coded the findings. As a first step, the first author indicated the phase to which a research finding belonged: preliminary, execution, or outcome. The first author then coded all findings of the included studies, using Atlas.ti. Subsequently, themes were searched for in the codes. Table 2 provides an overview of all relevant articles used for this review. It also shows the phase(s) that an article was found to fit.

    • 5 Results

      5.1 Preliminary phase: when and why do offenders (not) participate in VOM?

      The preliminary phase is when cases are referred to VOM, victim and offender receive the option for VOM and decide whether to participate or not. The review showed that the chance of VOM being used in a case depends on different case characteristics. First, it can depend on the type of offence (Kirkwood, 2010; Martire, 2015; Niemeyer & Shichor, 1996; Wyrick & Costanzo, 1999). For example, participation rates are higher for property offences compared with personal offences (Martire, 2015; Niemeyer & Shichor, 1996; Wyrick & Costanzo, 1999). Type of offender is another influencing characteristic. Participation rates are higher when the offender is white (Wyrick & Costanzo, 1999), male (Kirkwood, 2010; Wyrick & Costanzo, 1999), younger (Kirkwood, 2010; Martire, 2015; Wyrick & Costanzo, 1999) and a first-time offender (Kirkwood, 2010; Martire, 2015).
      Time elapsed since the offence is a process characteristic related to whether or not VOM takes place. According to Martire (2015), participation rates of victims and offenders are higher when the number of days between offence and referral is lower. However, in a study by Wyrick and Costanzo (1999), participation rates were found to be lower for property crimes when the time elapsed was longer. The converse was true for personal offences. Zebel et al. (2017) also observed an effect of time elapsed but only for victims: the probability of a victim participating after a serious offence increased over time but decreased over time after a minor offence. Borton (2012) found no relationship between time elapsed and severity of the crime. Research shows that when offenders are contacted first or when they initiate contact themselves, the chances of VOM starting are higher (Kirkwood, 2010).
      Offenders have different internal motivations to participate in VOM. These can be divided into altruistic, or victim-focused reasons and reasons for the offender’s own benefit, which we call self-focused (Meléndez, 2015). Self-focused reasons include the wish of offenders to keep their records clean or to impress the court, to move on and feel better, to find closure and to be forgiven (Abrams et al., 2006; Choi, 2008; Lauwaert & Aertsen, 2016; Meléndez, 2015; Roberts, 1995; Umbreit, 1999; Umbreit & Coates, 1993). Offenders also participate so they can communicate on equal terms, settle the difference with a third party present, and in the hope that the victim might drop the case (Meléndez, 2015; Roberts, 1995). They also want to clarify their own role and provide an explanation (Choi, 2008; Lauwaert & Aertsen, 2016) so that victims would understand them and feel less negatively disposed towards them (Pabsdorff et al., 2011; Tong et al., 2017; Umbreit, 1999).

      Table 2 Overview of the literature used in the realist synthesis review
      Author(s)Country of programmeProgramme/sample characteristicsAlternative or supplemental to traditional justice systemType of researchPhase examined
      Abrams, Umbreit and Gordon (2006) US Juvenile offenders, age 15-24 (n = 7) Alternative Qualitative Preliminary
      Execution
      Outcome
      Bergseth and Bouffard (2007) US Juvenile offenders, mean age 14.7 (n = 330) Alternative Quantitative Outcome
      Bergseth and Bouffard (2013) US Juvenile offenders, mean age 14.95 (n = 551) Alternative Quantitative Outcome
      Boriboonthana and Sangbuangamlum (2013) Thailand Adult offenders (n = 477) Supplemental Qualitative and quantitative Execution
      Outcome
      Borton (2012) US Adult offenders, mean age 31 (n = 212) Supplemental Quantitative Preliminary
      Bouffard, Cooper and Bergseth (2017) US Juvenile offenders, mean age 14.97 (n = 551) Alternative Quantitative Outcome
      Choi (2008) US Juvenile offenders, age 13-17 (n = 37) Supplemental Qualitative Preliminary
      Execution
      Choi and Gilbert (2010) US Juvenile offenders, age 13-17 (n = 37) Supplemental Qualitative Execution
      Choi, Green and Gilbert (2011) US Juvenile offenders, age 13-17 (n = 37) Supplemental Qualitative Execution
      Choi and Everson (2009) US Juvenile offenders, age 13-17 (n = 37) Supplemental Qualitative Execution
      Claessen at al. (2015a) The Netherlands Juvenile and adult offenders, mean age 36 (n = 1314) Supplemental Quantitative Outcome
      Claessen et al. (2015b) The Netherlands Young (age < 23) and adult (age > 23) offenders (n = 1314) Supplemental Quantitative Outcome
      De Mesmaecker (2013) Belgium Juvenile and adult offenders, age 15-76 (n = 54) Supplemental Qualitative Preliminary
      Execution
      Gerkin (2009) US Juvenile and adult offenders (n = 14) Alternative Qualitative Preliminary
      Execution
      Gomis-Pomares et al. (2021) Spain Juvenile offenders, age 14-18 (n = 104) Alternative Quantitative Outcome
      Jara, García-Gomis and Villanueva (2016) Spain Juvenile offenders, age 14-18 (n = 210) Alternative Quantitative Outcome
      Jonas-van Dijk et al. (2020) The Netherlands Juvenile and adult offenders, mean age 36 (n = 1314) Supplemental Quantitative Outcome
      Kirkwood (2010) Scotland Juvenile and adult offenders, mean age 31 (n = 3184) Alternative Quantitative Preliminary
      Lauwaert and Aertsen (2015) Austria
      Belgium
      Austria: juvenile and young adult offenders, age 14-21 (n = 31)
      Belgium: adult offenders, age 24-69 (n = 25)
      Alternative
      Supplemental
      Qualitative Preliminary
      Execution
      Lauwaert and Aertsen (2016) Belgium Repeating offenders, men, age 24-69 (n = 25) Supplemental Qualitative Preliminary
      Execution
      Outcome
      Outcome
      Martire (2015) Canada Juvenile offenders, age 12-19 (n = 1180) Alternative Quantitative Preliminary
      Meléndez (2015) Barcelona, Spain Adult offenders, age 18-70 (n = 40) Alternative Qualitative and quantitative Preliminary
      Execution
      Outcome
      Meléndez (2020a) Barcelona, Spain Adult offenders, age 18-70 (n = 40) Alternative Qualitative and quantitative Execution
      Meléndez (2020b) Barcelona, Spain Adult offenders, age 18-70 Alternative Qualitative and quantitative Execution
      Messmer (2019) North America Juvenile offenders (n = 46) Alternative Quantitative Execution
      Miller and Hefner (2015) Australia and US Interviewed facilitators Supplemental Quantitative Preliminary
      Execution
      Outcome
      Niemeyer and Shichor (1996) US Juvenile offenders (n = 100) Supplemental
      Alternative
      Quantitative Preliminary
      Outcome
      Nugent and Paddock (1995) US Juvenile offenders, age 7-18 (n = 241) Alternative Quantitative Outcome
      Nugent and Paddock (1996) US Juvenile offenders, age 7-18 (n = 241) Alternative Quantitative Outcome
      Pabsdorff et al. (2011) Scandinavia Juvenile and adult offenders, age 15-55 (n = 31) Alternative and supplemental Qualitative Execution
      Poulson and Elton (2002) US Juvenile offenders (n = 433) Alternative Quantitative Outcome
      Presser and Hamilton (2006) US Juvenile offenders, age 12-17 (n = 14) Supplemental Qualitative Execution
      Roberts (1995) Ukraine Juvenile and adult offenders (n = 10) Supplemental Quantitative and qualitative Preliminary
      Execution
      Outcome
      Roy (1993b) US Juvenile and adult offenders, age 11-37 (n = 59) Alternative Quantitative Outcome
      Roy (1993a) US Juvenile offenders, age 15-17 (n = 446) Alternative Quantitative Outcome
      Rypi (2016) Sweden Case study Supplemental Qualitative Preliminary
      Execution
      Rypi (2017) Sweden Juvenile offenders (n = unknown) Supplemental Qualitative Outcome
      Stewart et al. (2018) Canada Juvenile and adult offenders, mean age 34/35 (n = 244) Supplemental Quantitative Outcome
      Stone (2000) US Juvenile offenders, age < 17 (n = 455) Alternative Qualitative Outcome
      Szmania (2006) US Interviewed mediators (n = 5) Supplemental Qualitative Execution
      Tong et al. (2017) US Adult offenders (n = 31) Supplemental Qualitative Preliminary
      Execution
      Top (2013) The Netherlands Juvenile and adult offenders (n = 90) Supplemental Qualitative Execution
      Umbreit (1992) US Juvenile offenders, age 7-18 (n = 823) Alternative and supplemental Quantitative Outcome
      Umbreit (1993b) US Juvenile offenders, age 10-19 (n = 206) Alternative and supplemental Quantitative Outcome
      Umbreit (1994) US Juvenile offenders, age 10-18 (n = 441) Alternative and supplemental Quantitative Outcome
      Umbreit (1999) US Juvenile and adult offenders, average age 24 (n = 610) - Quantitative and qualitative Outcome
      Umbreit and Coates (1993) US Juvenile offenders, age 7-18 (n = 948) Alternative and supplemental Quantitative and qualitative Preliminary
      Execution
      Outcome
      Umbreit et al. (2000) US Four offender groups from different programmes Alternative and supplemental Quantitative Preliminary
      Execution
      Outcome
      Van Denderen et al. (2020) The Netherlands Adult offenders, mean age 42 (n = 57) Supplemental Qualitative Preliminary
      Execution
      Villanueva et al. (2014) Spain Juvenile offenders, age 14-18 (n = 210) Alternative Quantitative Outcome
      Wyrick and Costanzo (1999) US Juvenile and adult offenders, mean age 18 (n = 2363) Alternative and supplemental Quantitative Preliminary
      Zebel, Schreurs and Ufkes (2017) The Netherlands Youth and adult offenders, mean age 21 (n = 199) Supplemental Quantitative Preliminary
      Zebel (2012) The Netherlands Juvenile and adult offenders (n = 63) Supplemental Quantitative Execution
      Outcome

      Some offenders participate (also) to explain to the victim what happened, apologise to the victim and show regret, make amends, help the victim, and/or restore the relationship with the victim if they are related. These are all victim-focused motivations (Choi, 2008; Kirkwood, 2010; Lauwaert & Aertsen, 2016; Miller & Hefner, 2015; Tong et al., 2017; Umbreit & Coates, 1993; van Denderen et al., 2020). Roberts (1995) and Van Denderen et al. (2020) found that offenders also participate in VOM to live peacefully and restore the relationship with the victim. It should be noted that some of these victim-focused motivations might also be self-focused. For example, apologising could be a way to restore an offender’s social image. However, the distinction between the two types of motivations is that self-focused motivations are focused exclusively on the offender and not on the victim.
      Besides reasons for participation, offenders also have reasons not to participate in VOM: they do not want to admit guilt (Niemeyer & Shichor, 1996; Roberts, 1995), they want to work out problems themselves or they live too far away (Roberts, 1995). Sometimes offenders are also advised not to participate by their lawyers or parents (Roberts, 1995), which can be seen as an external factor.
      In some cases, offenders do not want to participate because they are unfamiliar with or do not trust the VOM process (Roberts, 1995). On the other hand, unfamiliarity may have led some offenders to actually participate because they did not know they had a choice (Abrams et al., 2006; De Mesmaecker, 2013; Umbreit et al., 2000). Other researchers report that parties are often not aware of the goals of VOM (Gerkin, 2009; Pabsdorff et al., 2011; Tong et al., 2017). All of these reasons emphasise the importance of good preparation in the preliminary phase. The mediators play a key role in preparing the execution phase and the parties involved. They need to prepare parties to ensure they follow the restorative standards and do not harm each other in the process (Rypi, 2017). According to Rypi (2016) mediators determine during the preparation whether offenders are remorseful and take responsibility and whether victims will not show too much anger towards the offender during VOM. If offenders and victims have feelings not in accordance with these prescriptive rules, this could have a negative impact on the outcomes of VOM (Rypi, 2016).
      In conclusion, the studies found suggest that three main factors play a key role in the chances of VOM taking place: case characteristics (offence, offender and referral process characteristics), offender motivations (internal [victim- and self-focused] and external), and the degree of preparation of parties, in which the mediator plays a key role.

      5.2 Execution phase: what are the key working elements of VOM?

      Multiple studies included in the review have observed mediation encounters and asked parties about their experiences with a VOM encounter. This provides a picture about what happens during an encounter and how this impacts the offender. One important recurring element in multiple studies is the role of the mediator. First of all, mediators have an important role in opening and initiating the conversation between the victim and the offender (Pabsdorff et al., 2011). Research by Szmania (2006) revealed that the opening statements of the mediator often offer encouragement, set the tone for the mediation and explain the role of the mediator. The mediator therefore has a crucial role in facilitating a constructive dialogue so that parties can socially interact, which is important for the effectiveness of the VOM meeting (Pabsdorff et al., 2011). In addition, research suggests that offenders may experience no tension or nervousness owing to the helpful work of the mediator (Meléndez, 2020b), which is important as many offenders can be very nervous and anxious at the start of the process (Abrams et al., 2006; Choi et al., 2011). Further, offenders state they find it helpful that the mediator keeps things under control, offers encouragement and listens with empathy (Choi, 2008; Choi & Gilbert, 2010; Pabsdorff et al., 2011; Szmania, 2006).
      During the VOM process mediators need to remain neutral and should not be biased towards one of the parties (De Mesmaecker, 2013). This is another strong point of mediation that emerges in the studies according to offenders. They did not feel judged, as they often do in traditional justice. VOM offers offenders the opportunity to settle the conflict outside of a court setting where they feel they are viewed as a criminal (Lauwaert & Aertsen, 2015). Offenders indicate that they experience getting a second chance, having a voice, being empowered and maintaining dignity (Choi, 2008; Miller & Hefner, 2015). In that sense, VOM has a humanising impact on the offender since during VOM offenders might feel that they are perceived as more human (Abrams et al., 2006). This can also be seen in the finding that victims perceive and understand the offender in a more human way owing to their participation in VOM (Abrams et al., 2006; Meléndez, 2020a). The findings suggest that VOM is a place for offenders to show their good side and confirm their pro-social identity (Lauwaert & Aertsen, 2016; Meléndez, 2015, 2020a).
      Another crucial element of the VOM encounter that emerges is the interaction itself with the victim. The findings show that VOM can help the victim and the offender to find common ground and understand each other (Choi, 2008; Choi et al., 2011; Meléndez, 2020a). Within a constructive dialogue, the interaction can heighten the offender’s feelings of empathy and shame and increase the taking of responsibility (Choi et al., 2011; Meléndez, 2015; Top, 2013). Offering an apology during the encounter can also help to empathise with the victim (Choi & Severson, 2009). Furthermore, the conversation can also help to restore the relationship with the victim (Lauwaert & Aertsen, 2016; Van Denderen et al., 2020) or, at least, not worsen the relationship (Meléndez, 2020b).
      This interaction with the victim is also a learning opportunity for the offender (Choi, 2008). Different studies indicate that by talking to victims and hearing the consequences of the crime for them, offenders may realise the full impact, see different aspects of the crime and understand the extent of the harm caused (Abrams et al., 2006; Choi et al., 2011; Lauwaert & Aertsen, 2016; Marsh & Maruna, 2016; Miller & Hefner, 2015; Tong et al., 2017). Especially in cases where no physical harm has been inflicted on the victim, offenders may not realise that there is an actual victim. As Choi et al. (2011) puts it, VOM helps them to put a human face on the crime. VOM also helps offenders to take the victims’ point of view (Lauwaert & Aertsen, 2016; Meléndez, 2020b), which may consequently result in an immediate impact on the offender: it can make them empathise more with the victim, elicit feelings of remorse and accountability (Meléndez, 2020b; Miller & Hefner, 2015) and result in feelings of shame and guilt (Abrams et al., 2006). Notably, however, Meléndez (2020b) observed only a few offenders who feel remorseful or guilty during VOM. This suggests that VOM does not always produce a change in the offenders’ feelings of remorse and guilt. Importantly, Meléndez (2020b) argues that when offenders do not think that mediation helped them to appreciate the victim’s point of view, this might be owing to lack of involvement of offenders in the mediation encounter. Abrams et al. (2006) indicate that this development of empathy and seeing the victim in a different light, as an immediate impact of VOM on offenders, might explain a lower risk of reoffending.
      A study by Messmer (2019) might further explain this increased awareness of the impact of the crime as an immediate outcome of VOM. They compared the social interaction within VOM meetings with the interaction in diversion conversations with a social worker. The findings indicated that during a VOM meeting, the discussion of the consequences of the offence becomes more important for the victim, which means that during VOM, the consequences of the offence are discussed in more detail. Also, Pabsdorff et al. (2011) postulate that during VOM, the main focus is on what happened, why it happened and how offenders can take responsibility. This focus on the consequences of the crime and the offenders’ responsibility might make offenders more aware of the impact of their actions. This might also explain why Boriboonthana and Sangbuangamlum (2013) found that offenders thought they were held more accountable in a VOM meeting than in a court hearing.
      During the interaction between victims and offenders, the mediator keeps playing an important role. The mediator has to control and monitor the conversation, in terms of the content discussed and the power dynamics. Presser and Hamilton (2006) show that power dynamics are different in every VOM encounter and can be used for different purposes. For example, they explain that adult victims often have more control in a VOM encounter than a juvenile offender, but they argue that this does not always have a negative impact. This control resulted in the victim teaching the offender a valuable lesson and/or empathising more strongly with the offender. However, in cases in which the victim is a police officer who interacts with offenders in a punitive and authoritarian manner, this might arouse irritation (Marsh & Maruna, 2016). Similarly, Gerkin (2009) argued that efforts should be made to prevent offenders from experiencing victim lecturing during VOM. Victim lecturing means that the victim is talking down to the offenders, for example by warning them of the consequences should they reoffend. It communicates that the victim feels they have a superior position to the offender, resulting in a negative balance of power (Gerkin 2009). It would therefore seem that power imbalance does not necessarily have to be a bad element, as long as offenders do not experience it as authoritarian power and feel treated with respect.
      Another learning process during the VOM encounter is that offenders can learn how to deal with future behaviour, to prevent them from reoffending. Different studies indicated that VOM led to offenders using reasoning, self-reflection, and consequential thinking (Meléndez, 2015; Tong et al., 2017; van Denderen et al., 2020). Meléndez (2015, 2020b) also drew the conclusion that VOM can contribute to the offenders’ problem-solving skills in daily life. Although discussing future behaviour seems to be an important element of VOM, it is not always discussed during VOM meetings (Pabsdorff et al., 2011).

      5.3 Outcome phase: what are the outcomes of VOM for offenders?

      Now that important key working elements of VOM have been identified, the question about what the outcomes of the VOM process can be for offenders remains. We started this article by indicating a number of studies that report findings that suggest that the VOM process might contribute to a reduced risk of reoffending (e.g. Claessen et al., 2015b; Jonas-van Dijk et al., 2020). A second outcome observed of VOM is that offenders who participated in VOM more often complete the restitution agreement, compared with offenders who did not participate in VOM (Roy, 1993a; Umbreit, 1993a, 1994; Umbreit & Coates, 1993). This might constitute an important explanation for a lower risk of reoffending. That is, various studies show that offenders who complete their treatment (completers) have a lower risk of reoffending than non-completers, even when controlling for a multitude of pre-existing differences between these two groups (Butzin, Scarpitti, Nielsen, Martin & Inciardi, 1999; Hanson & Bussiere, 1998; Zebel, Alberda & Wartna, 2014). This might well apply to offenders who participate in VOM and complete the restitution arrangements that were set up. However, a self-selection effect might once again be playing a role here: offenders who complete their treatment or arrangements might differ at the beginning of the process from non-completers.
      A third outcome is that VOM can support the desistance process of offenders (Abrams et al., 2006; Lauwaert & Aertsen, 2016). In this desistance process offenders attempt to disentangle themselves from their criminal behaviour pattern (McNeill, Farrall, Lightowler & Maruna, 2012). Both Abrams et al. (2006) and Lauwaert and Aertsen (2016) conclude that a VOM process in itself does not seem to initiate the desistance process but functions as a support for the process that has already started. According to research from Meléndez (2015), new problem-solving skills, a pro-social identity and new bonds formed as a result of VOM can support offenders in their desistance process. Lauwaert and Aertsen (2015, 2016) indicated that the open-mindedness, non-judgemental attitude and willingness to listen to and understand the victim and the non-judgemental attitude of the mediator were of great importance for their desistance process. These findings suggest that learning new skills and the humanising impact of VOM during the execution phase are apparently important elements for the desistance process. However, some offenders also indicated that their participation in the VOM process was not related to their desistance process (Lauwaert & Aertsen, 2015).
      A final outcome of the VOM process that has received considerable attention by different researchers is its perceived fairness. Various scholars claim that a VOM process is perceived as fairer than the conventional justice process (Abrams et al., 2006; Boriboonthana & Sangbuangamlum, 2013; Umbreit, 1992, 1999; Umbreit et al., 2000). In line with this, offenders are also (more) satisfied with or positive about a VOM process (Boriboonthana & Sangbuangamlum, 2013; Meléndez, 2015; Poulson & Elton, 2002; Umbreit, 1993b; Zebel, 2012). According to Abrams et al. (2006), this post-VOM satisfaction is due to offenders being able to obtain closure and clarification during VOM. Obtaining closure is another positive outcome of VOM for offenders that is observed (Abrams et al., 2006; Lauwaert & Aertsen, 2016). In the study by Abrams et al. (2006), obtaining closure was a predictor for perceived fairness of the process. However, not every study shows that offenders are more satisfied after VOM compared with the conventional criminal justice system; sometimes, no differences are observed (Umbreit, 1992, 1993b, 1994; Umbreit & Coates, 1993). Importantly, no study observed that offenders were less satisfied after a VOM process compared with offenders whose case was dealt with in the conventional justice system without VOM.
      Recapitulating these outcomes, we can conclude that most studies indicate beneficial outcomes of VOM in terms of reoffending, completing restitution, contributing to the process of desistance, perception of fairness, satisfaction with the process and obtaining closure. However, a minority of studies did not find a difference between VOM and the conventional justice system without VOM.
      All findings of the literature review can be found in Figure 1. It should be noted that the relations indicated in the figure have not been tested directly in the studies included in the review. This means that no causality can be assumed. However, this figure does provide an idea about what happens during an encounter and how this may impact the offender. As can be seen, some of the outcomes of VOM do not have a direct relation with elements that might be present in a VOM encounter. Based on the review, it is not yet clear exactly what elements of VOM influence the extent to which offenders perceive VOM as fairer and more just or find closure. Assumptions can be made based on the working elements of VOM, but the studies included in the review do not provide a direct relationship between the working elements and the outcome variables, except for desistance.

    • 6 Conclusion

      Previous research shows that participation in VOM is related to a lower risk of reoffending. However, possible explanations for this relationship remain unclear. Therefore, the current literature review aimed to answer the question how can the VOM process contribute to a lower risk of reoffending based on the insights from existing empirical research?
      In the Introduction to this article, we proposed that a self-selection bias might explain the correlation between VOM participation and a lower risk of reoffending. As long as no random assignment experimental design is used to examine the relation between VOM and reoffending, this self-selection bias will be a plausible explanation. In line with this, the literature review showed that offenders have different motivations for participating in VOM, such as taking responsibility, willingness to apologise or expressing regrets. Other research has already indicated that these feelings are related to a lower risk of reoffending (Hosser, Windzio & Greve, 2008; Vaish, Carpenter & Tomasello, 2016). However, it is not clear if these motivations differ from motivations of offenders who are unwilling to participate in VOM. Since randomly assigning offenders to VOM or conventional justice is ethically challenging, given that participation in VOM is voluntary, future research could examine whether the feelings and motivations of offenders willing to participate differ from those unwilling to participate. If differences exist between these groups of offenders, it will be clearer if a self-selection bias exists. Depending on the differences, this might explain a lower risk of reoffending for offenders who participate in VOM. On the other hand, knowing what motivates offenders to participate in VOM could be used in the preparation phase. If, for example, offenders who participate feel more responsible, a victim-impact conversation with non-willing offenders might possibly trigger feelings of responsibility and consequently motivate offenders to participate.

      Schematic overview of the (working) elements of the VOM process found in the realist synthesis review that could be related to the risk of reoffending
      /xml/public/xml/alfresco/Periodieken/TIJRJ/TIJRJ_2023_2


      Once the victim and the offender are willing to participate in VOM, it is important to have a constructive dialogue. Based on the review, a constructive power balance between victim and offender emerged as an important element for a constructive dialogue. In addition, the conversation enables parties to understand each other (Choi, 2008), which presumes a balance in perspective. On top of that, research from Top (2013) indicated that when the victim positively reacts to gestures of the offender, this increases feelings of sympathy for the victim and more taking of responsibility in the offender. This means that a balanced interaction with the victim in terms of conversation and understanding can lead to increased feelings and emotions, which have been related to a lower risk of reoffending (e.g. empathy, responsibility taking, guilt and shame) (Hosser et al., 2008; Vaish et al., 2016).
      The humanising impact of VOM could also explain a lower risk of reoffending. Owing to the non-judgemental attitude of the mediator and the victims changing their perspective of the offender, the offender might perceive gaining a second chance and not being treated as a criminal. This supports the reintegrative shaming theory, which proposes that when the offender is responded to in a reintegrative way, the act of the offender is disapproved, but the offender is treated as a good person (Bradshaw & Roseborough, 2005). In addition, the humanising element also seems to be of importance for the desistance process of offenders. Therefore, the humanising element of the VOM encounter can explain a lower risk of reoffending after participation.
      What might be underlying this humanising effect could be that owing to VOM, victims can explain the offender’s behaviour, leading to the victims conceding the offender’s behaviour. Miller, Gordon and Buddie (1999) argue that people who can explain criminal behaviour often condone that behaviour more strongly. However, Miller et al.’s study did not focus on the relationship between a direct victim and the offender but between an observer and the perpetrator. Therefore, what exactly underlies the humanising effect remains a matter of speculation, since it has not been systematically examined. It might be interesting for future research to examine the factors that underlie this so that these can be used to improve the conversation between victims and offenders and amplify the humanising impact of VOM, which in turn could lead to a lower risk of reoffending.
      The learning element is one last important element in the encounter, which is not part of a theory. This learning is two-fold. Hearing the victim’s story may help the offenders to understand and realise the true impact of their crime. Also, discussing future behaviour during VOM can help offenders to learn new problem-solving skills. These skills can be used in the future to prevent someone from reoffending. However, it has been observed that discussing future behaviour is not always part of a VOM encounter (Pabsdorff et al., 2011). Given the learning impact it might have, it could be an interesting consideration for practitioners to focus more on this aspect during a VOM encounter, while keeping the autonomy of the stakeholders in mind. However, Meléndez (2020b) emphasises that it is also important to talk about what happened in the past as this can shed light on criminogenic factors that caused the offender to show deviant behaviour, for example substance abuse. This can make offenders aware of what caused their criminal behaviour.
      The previously named elements can all be part of a constructive VOM encounter. However, for a constructive dialogue to take place, the parties need to be actively involved and to voluntarily participate in the conversation (De Mesmaecker, 2013). Properly preparing offenders for the encounter seems to be an important aspect of motivating offenders to actively participate in VOM as it enables them to make a voluntary, autonomous decision to participate. Voluntary participation is one of the three fundamental principles of restorative justice. The other two are a neutral mediator and confidentiality (De Mesmaecker, 2013). The mediator plays an important role in ensuring that these principles are adhered to, which is also revealed in the literature review. The mediator needs to properly prepare the offender and ensure the offender can make the voluntary decision to participate. Also, the mediator needs to make the parties aware that the encounter is confidential. That might enable parties to feel safer and be more open to talk. Lastly, based on the current literature review, the neutral attitude of the mediator already appears to be an important factor for the offender’s positive experience with VOM. Failure to adhere to these three principles might prevent a constructive dialogue from taking place. Therefore, the elements found in the current review might be subdivided into fundamental conditions, which should always be present in a VOM process (voluntary participation, proper preparation, neutral and non-judgemental mediator) and working mechanisms, which may vary in every encounter (e.g. balance of power, humanising impact, learning, mutual understanding, finding common ground). For future research it would be interesting to examine the impact of the degree of adherence to fundamental conditions on the impact that working mechanisms have on the outcomes of VOM: what would happen during an encounter when one or more of the fundamental conditions are not (sufficiently) adhered to? Does this result in the absence of some of the working mechanisms or in a lower impact of the working mechanisms on the outcomes of VOM?
      The literature review clearly shows that VOM can positively impact offenders. The high satisfaction and fairness rates of VOM offer support for the procedural justice and defiance theory. The finding that almost all offenders perceive mediation as fair and are satisfied after the process (more than after a traditional justice process without mediation) could explain a lower risk of reoffending since the chance of offenders obeying the law is higher when they perceive the justice process as fair and just (Tyler et al., 2007). Besides being able to obtain closure, what underlies this perceived fairness and satisfaction remains unclear. The possibility of having a say in the settlement and being treated humanely and respectfully might contribute greatly to the perceived fairness. Hence, it would be worth examining the underlying factors that explain a high perceived fairness and satisfaction so that practitioners and programme designers can take these into account.
      Offenders who participated in VOM were also shown to complete their restitution agreement more often compared with offenders who did not participate (Roy, 1993a). Since completing treatment has already been related to a lower risk of reoffending (Zebel et al., 2014), this finding might also explain a lower risk of reoffending for participation in VOM. The good lives model (GLM) could offer an explanation here as well. The GLM is a rehabilitation theory that helps offenders to develop and implement a life plan that does not correspond with criminal behaviour (Willis, Prescott & Yates, 2013). According to this model, ‘humans [are] by nature active, goal-seeking beings who are consistently engaged in the process of constructing a sense of purpose and meaning in their lives’ (Ward & Brown, 2004: 246). This is reached when primary human goods are achieved, such as relatedness, which can manifest itself by being reliable and honest (Ward & Brown, 2004). It could therefore be the case that offenders who participate in VOM and have a say in the agreement consequently aim to reach their primary good of relatedness, by fulfilling their agreement and staying away from criminal behaviour.
      A last positive (observed) outcome effect of VOM is that it can benefit the desistance process. However, quite often, the offender had already started the desistance process, and VOM could then contribute to this. In turn, this also indicates that the motivation of offenders willing to participate in VOM might already be different from offenders unwilling to participate – pointing to the role of a self-selection bias.

      6.1 Answering the research question

      This literature review provides a good overview of what is currently known about the VOM process and how it can explain a lower risk of reoffending. Theories and processes put forward to explain the underlying effects of VOM seem to be reasonable explanations: the theory of reintegrative shaming, the procedural justice theory, the defiance theory and the self-selection bias. In addition, the review showed fundamental conditions that might underlie a constructive dialogue. This constructive dialogue with its working mechanisms can impact the feelings and emotions of the offender. As a result, this can support their desistance process and seem to influence the perceived fairness and satisfaction levels. Eventually, all these factors may impact the risk of reoffending.
      On the other hand, this review also shows which research gaps still exist. Much remains unknown about the fundamental conditions and working mechanisms: for example, what is necessary to properly prepare offenders, how can an effective interaction ritual be achieved, what actually makes the VOM process fairer, and why exactly are offenders more satisfied after a VOM process? Future research could focus on these questions to further improve the VOM process. Figuring out what is most effective in the VOM process could potentially maximise the outcomes.

      6.2 Limitations

      Although this literature review provides a good overview of the current status of research into VOM, the results should be interpreted in light of certain limitations. This review builds on both qualitative and quantitative data. Therefore, the relations proposed between the different elements are not causal relationships. Instead, they reveal a pattern of how the VOM process could be related to a lower risk of reoffending. In addition, this review used only literature written in either English or Dutch. More research might have been published but not included owing to the authors’ language proficiencies.

    • References
    • Abrams, L.S., Umbreit, M. & Gordon, A. (2006). Young offenders speak about meeting their victims: implications for future programs. Contemporary Justice Review, 9(3), 243-256. doi: 10.1080/10282580600827835.

    • Bazemore, G. & Umbreit, M. (2001). A comparison of four restorative conferencing models. Juvenile justice bulletin, February 2001. Retrieved from https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/184738.pdf (last accessed 27 October 2022).

    • Bergseth, K.J. & Bouffard, J.A. (2007). The long-term impact of restorative justice programming for juvenile offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(4), 433-451. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2007.05.006.

    • Bergseth, K.J. & Bouffard, J.A. (2013). Examining the effectiveness of a restorative justice program for various types of juvenile offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57(9), 1054-1075. doi: 10.1177/0306624X12453551.

    • Bernburg, J.G. & Krohn, M.D. (2003). Labeling, life chances, and adult crime: the direct and indirect effects of official intervention in adolescence on crime in early adulthood. Criminology, 41(4), 1287-1318. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2003.tb01020.x.

    • Bolitho, J. (2017). Inside the restorative justice black box: the role of memory reconsolidation in transforming the emotional impact of violent crime on victims. International Review of Victimology, 23(3), 233-255. doi: 10.1177/0269758017714549.

    • Boriboonthana, Y. & Sangbuangamlum, S. (2013). Effectiveness of the restorative justice process on crime victims and adult offenders in Thailand. Asian Journal of Criminology, 8(4), 277-286. doi: 10.1007/s11417-013-9160-8.

    • Borton, I.M. (2012). Effect of time and relationships on victim-offender dialogue completion in felony cases. Contemporary Justice Review: Issues in Criminal, Social, and Restorative Justice, 15(4), 399-412. doi: 10.1080/10282580.2012.734566.

    • Bouffard, J., Cooper, M. & Bergseth, K. (2017). The effectiveness of various restorative justice interventions on recidivism outcomes among juvenile offenders. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 15(4), 465-480. doi: 10.1177/1541204016647428.

    • Bradshaw, W. & Roseborough, D. (2005). Restorative justice dialogue: the impact of mediation and conferencing on juvenile recidivism. Federal Probation, 69, 15.

    • Braithwaite, J., Braithwaite, V. & Ahmed, E. (2018). Reintegrative shaming 1. In S. Henry & M.M. Lanier (eds.), The Essential Criminology Reader (pp. 286-296). New York: Routledge.

    • Burnard, P., Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E. & Chadwick, B. (2008). Analysing and presenting qualitative data. British Dental Journal, 204(8), 429-432. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.292.

    • Butzin, C.A., Scarpitti, F.R., Nielsen, A.L., Martin, S.S. & Inciardi, J.A. (1999). Measuring the impact of drug treatment: beyond relapse and recidivism. Corrections Management Quarterly, 3(4), 1-7.

    • Calhoun, A. & Pelech, W. (2010). Responding to young people responsible for harm: a comparative study of restorative and conventional approaches. Contemporary Justice Review: Issues in Criminal, Social, and Restorative Justice, 13(3), 287-306. doi: 0.1080/10282580.2010.498238.

    • Choi, J.J. (2008). Opening the “black Box”: a naturalistic case study of restorative justice (PhD dissertation). University of Kansas, USA.

    • Choi, J.J. & Gilbert, M.J. (2010). “Joe everyday, people off the street”: a qualitative study on mediators’ roles and skills in victim-offender mediation. Contemporary Justice Review: Issues in Criminal, Social, and Restorative Justice, 13(2), 207-227. doi: 10.1080/10282581003748305.

    • Choi, J.J., Green, D.L. & Gilbert, M.J. (2011). Putting a human face on crimes: a qualitative study on restorative justice processes for youths. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 28(5), 335-355. doi: 10.1007/s10560-011-0238-9.

    • Choi, J.J. & Severson, M. (2009). “What! What kind of apology is this?”: the nature of apology in victim offender mediation. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(7), 813-820. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.03.003.

    • Claessen, J. & Roelofs, K.J.M. (2020). Herstelrecht(voorzieningen) en mediation in strafzaken [Restorative justice (services) and mediation within criminal cases]. In J. Boksem, P.A.M. Mevis, D.J.M.W. Paridaens & C. Waling (eds.), Handboek Strafzaken – online. Deventer: Wolters Kluwer.

    • Claessen, J., Zeles, G., Zebel, S. & Nelen, H. (2015a). Bemiddeling in strafzaken in Maastricht II. Onderzoek naar de samenhang tussen bemiddeling en recidive [Mediation within criminal cases in Maastricht II. Examining the relation between mediation and recidivism]. Nederlands Juristenblad, 29, 2015-2025.

    • Claessen, J., Zeles, G., Zebel, S. & Nelen, H. (2015b). Bemiddeling in strafzaken in Maastricht III. Onderzoek naar recidive bij jeugdigen en volwassenen [Mediation within criminal cases in Maastricht III. Examining recidivism under youth and adults]. Tijdschrift voor Herstelrecht, 15(4), 9-24. doi: 10.5553/TvH/1568654X2015015004003.

    • Coates, R.B., Umbreit, M.S. & Vos, B. (2006). Responding to hate crimes through restorative justice dialogue. Contemporary Justice Review, 9(1), 7-21. doi: 10.1080/10282580600564784.

    • D’Souza, N. & L’Hoiry, X. (2019). An area of untapped potential? The use of restorative justice in the fight against serious and organized crime: a perception study. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 21(2), doi: 10.1177/1748895819858379.

    • Daly, K. & Hayes, H. (2001). Restorative justice and conferencing in Australia. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

    • De Mesmaecker, V. (2013). Victim-offender mediation participants’ opinions on the restorative justice values of confidentiality, impartiality and voluntariness. Restorative Justice, 1(3), 334-361. doi: 10.5235/20504721.1.3.334.

    • Gerkin, P.M. (2009). Participation in victim – offender mediation: lessons learned from observations. Criminal Justice Review, 34(2), 226-247. doi: 10.1177/0734016808325058.

    • Gomis-Pomares, A., Villanueva, L. & García-Gomis, A. (2021). Disentangling the impact of victim-offender mediation in youth recidivism. Anuario de Psicologia Juridica, 31(1), 85-89. doi: 10.5093/APJ2021A8.

    • Hansen, T. & Umbreit, M. (2018). State of knowledge: four decades of victim-offender mediation research and practice: the evidence. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 36(2), 99-113. doi: 10.1002/crq.21234.

    • Hanson, R.K. & Bussiere, M.T. (1998). Predicting relapse: a meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(2), 348-362. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.66.2.348.

    • Hipple, N.K., Gruenewald, J. & McGarrell, E.F. (2014). Restorativeness, procedural justice, and defiance as predictors of reoffending of participants in family group conferences. Crime & Delinquency, 60(8), 1131-1157. doi: 10.1177/0011128711428556.

    • Hosser, D., Windzio, M. & Greve, W. (2008). Guilt and shame as predictors of recidivism: a longitudinal study with young prisoners. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(1), 138-152. doi: 10.1177/0093854807309224.

    • Jara, P., García-Gomis, A. & Villanueva, L. (2016). Impact of type of intervention on youth reoffending: are gender and risk level involved? Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 23(2), 215-223. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2015.1042418.

    • Jonas-van Dijk, J., Zebel, S., Claessen, J. & Nelen, H. (2020). Victim–offender mediation and reduced reoffending: gauging the self-selection bias. Crime and Delinquency, 66(6-7), 949-972. doi: 10.1177/0011128719854348.

    • Kirkwood, S. (2010). Restorative justice cases in Scotland: Factors related to participation, the restorative process, agreement rates and forms of reparation. European Journal of Criminology, 7(2), 107-122. doi: 10.1177/1477370809343036.

    • Lanterman, J.L. (2021). Models versus mechanisms: the need to crack the black box of restorative justice. British Journal of Community Justice, 17(1), 60-77.

    • Latimer, J., Dowden, C. & Muise, D. (2005). The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: a meta-analysis. The Prison Journal, 85(2), 127-144. doi: 10.1177/0032885505276969.

    • Lauwaert, K. & Aertsen, I. (2015). Desistance and restorative justice. Mechanisms for desisting from crime within restorative justice practices. Leuven: European Forum for Restorative Justice.

    • Lauwaert, K. & Aertsen, I. (2016). With a little help from a friend: desistance through victim-offender mediation in Belgium. Restorative Justice, 4(3), 345-368. doi : 10.1080/20504721.2016.1245913.

    • Marsh, B. & Maruna, S. (2016). Desistance and restorative justice: learning from success stories of Northern Ireland’s youth justice agency. Restorative Justice, 4(3), 369-387. doi: 10.1080/20504721.2016.1243855.

    • Martire, R. (2015). An exploration of the cases referred to victim-offender mediation within the framework of the juvenile justice system (PhD Dissertation). Université de Montréal, Canada. Retrieved from https://papyrus.bib.umontreal.ca/xmlui/handle/1866/11476 (last accessed 27 October 2022).

    • McCold, P. & Wachtel, T. (2003). In pursuit of paradigm: a theory of restorative justice. Paper presented XIII World Congress of Criminology, 10-15 August 2003, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

    • McNeill, F., Farrall, S., Lightowler, C. & Maruna, S. (2012). How and why people stop offending: discovering desistance. Insights Evidence Summary to Support Social Services in Scotland, 15, 1-12.

    • Meléndez, A. (2015). Restorative justice and desistance the impact of victim-offender mediation on desistance from crime (PhD Dissertation). Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain. Retrieved from 1https://ddd.uab.cat/record/138427 (last accessed 26 October 2022).

    • Meléndez, A. (2020a). The challenge of a face-to-face meeting: when offenders meet their victims during mediation. Revista De Victimologia, 11, 67-94. doi: 10.12827/RVJV.11.05.

    • Meléndez, A. (2020b). The role of criminogenic needs and emotions in restorative justice: Offenders’ experiences in victim-offender mediation. European Journal of Probation, 13(2). doi: 10.1177/2066220320948374.

    • Messmer, H. (2019). Features of procedural fairness: Communication in decision-making about diversion and victim-offender mediation. In K.F. Röhl & S. Machura (eds.), Procedural Justice (pp. 137-160). London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780429444524.

    • Miers, D., Maguire, M., Goldie, S., Sharpe, K., Hale, C., Netten, A., Uglow, S., Doolin, K., Hallam, A., Enterkin, J & Newburn, T. (2001). An exploratory evaluation of restorative justice schemes (Crime Reduction Research Series Paper 9). London: Home Office.

    • Miller, A.G., Gordon, A.K. & Buddie, A.M. (1999). Accounting for evil and cruelty: is to explain to condone? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 254-268. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_8.

    • Miller, S. & Hefner, M. (2015). Procedural justice for victims and offenders?: exploring restorative justice processes in Australia and the US. Justice Quarterly, 32(1), 142-167. doi: 10.1080/07418825.2012.760643.

    • Niemeyer, M. & Shichor, D. (1996). A preliminary study of a large victim/offender reconciliation program. Federal Probation, 60(3), 30-34.

    • Nugent, W.R. & Paddock, J.B. (1995). The effect of victim-offender mediation on severity of reoffense. Mediation Quarterly, 12(4), 353-367. doi: 10.1002/crq.3900120408.

    • Nugent, W.R. & Paddock, J.B. (1996). Evaluating the effects of a victim-offender reconciliation program on reoffense. Research on Social Work Practice, 6(2), 155-178. doi: 10.1177/104973159600600202.

    • Okimoto, T.G., Wenzel, M. & Feather, N. (2012). Retribution and restoration as general orientations towards justice. European Journal of Personality, 26(3), 255-275. doi: 10.1002/per.831.

    • Pabsdorff, M.L., Rytterbro, L.L., Sambou, S. & Uotila, E. (2011). Victim-offender mediation: observations from Scandinavia. Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 1(2), 1-15. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=1737385 (last accessed 26 October 2022).

    • Pawson, R., Greenhalgh, T., Harvey, G. & Walshe, K. (2004). Realist synthesis: an introduction. Manchester: ESRC Research Methods Programme, University of Manchester. Retrieved from https://www.betterevaluation.org/sites/default/files/RMPmethods2.pdf (last accessed 26 October 2022).

    • Poulson, B. & Elton, K. (2002). Participants’ attitudes in the Utah juvenile victim-offender mediation program. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 53(1), 37-45. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-6988.2002.tb00054.x.

    • Presser, L. & Hamilton, C.A. (2006). The micropolitics of victim-offender mediation. Sociological Inquiry, 76(3), 316-342. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-682X.2006.00158.x.

    • Roberts, T. (1995). Evaluation of the victim offender mediation project. Final Report Victoria, Langley, BC: Focus Consultants.

    • Roy, S. (1993a). Two types of juvenile restitution programs in two midwestern counties: a comparative study. Federal Probation, 57(4), 48-53.

    • Roy, S. (1993b). Victim meets offender: a comparative study on juveniles and adults in a midwestern county. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 9(2), 117-133. doi: 10.1177/104398629300900204.

    • Rypi, A. (2016). The feeling rules of victim offender mediation. International Journal of Work Organisation and Emotion, 7(2), 83-97. doi: 10.1504/IJWOE.2016.078074.

    • Rypi, A. (2017). “You don’t have to say straight out …”: directed impression management at victim–offender mediation pre-meetings. Sociological Focus, 50(3), 261-276. doi: 10.1080/00380237.2017.1283182.

    • Sherman, L., Strang, H., Mayo-Wilson, E., Woods, D.J. & Ariel, B. (2015). Are restorative justice conferences effective in reducing repeat offending? Findings from a Campbell systematic review. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31(1), 1-24. doi: 10.1007/s10940-014-9222-9.

    • Stewart, L., Thompson, J., Beaudette, J.N., Buck, M., Laframboise, R. & Petrellis, T. (2018). The impact of participation in victim-offender mediation sessions on recidivism of serious offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(12), 3910-3927. doi: 10.1177/0306624X17752274.

    • Stone, K.J. (2000). An evaluation of recidivism rates for resolutions Northwest’s victim-offender mediation program (PhD Dissertation). Portland State University, USA. doi: 10.15760/etd.2288.

    • Strang, H., Sherman, L., Mayo-Wilson, E., Woods, D. & Ariel, B. (2013). Restorative justice conferencing (RJC) using face-to-face meetings of offenders and victims: effects on offender recidivism and victim satisfaction. A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 9(1), 1-59. doi: 10.4073/csr.2013.12.

    • Suzuki, M. & Yuan, X. (2021). How does restorative justice work? A qualitative metasynthesis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 48(10), 1347-1365. doi: 10.1177/0093854821994622.

    • Szmania, S.J. (2006). Mediators’ communication in victim offender mediation/dialogue involving crimes of severe violence: An analysis of opening statements. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 24(1), 111-127. doi: 10.1002/crq.161.

    • Tong, S., Waters, B., Bryant, R., Williams, E. & Norman, J. (2017). Mediating serious crime: an analysis of victim and prisoner. Unpublished. Retrieved from https://repository.canterbury.ac.uk/item/887vv/mediating-serious-crime-an-analysis-of-victim-and-prisoner-mediation (last accessed 26 October 2022).

    • Top, B. (2013). De impact van slachtoffer-daderbemiddeling op het leven van de dader [The impact of victim-offender mediation on the life of the offender] (PhD Dissertation). University of Twente, the Netherlands.

    • Tyler, T.R., Sherman, L., Strang, H., Barnes, G.C. & Woods, D. (2007). Reintegrative shaming, procedural justice, and recidivism: the engagement of offenders’ psychological mechanisms in the Canberra RISE drinking-and-driving experiment. Law and Society Review, 41(3), 553-586. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5893.2007.00314.x.

    • Umbreit, M.S. (1992). The impact of mediating victim offender conflict: an analysis of programs in three states. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 43(1), 21-28. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-6988.1992.tb00716.x.

    • Umbreit, M.S. (1993a). Crime victims and offenders in mediation: an emerging area of social work practice. Social Work (United States), 38(1), 69-73. doi: 10.1093/sw/38.1.69.

    • Umbreit, M.S. (1993b). Juvenile offenders meet their victims: the impact of mediation in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Family Court Review, 31(1), 90-100. doi: 10.1111/j.174-1617.1993.tb00284.x.

    • Umbreit, M.S. (1994). Crime victims confront their offenders: the impact of a Minneapolis mediation program. Research on Social Work Practice, 4(4), 436-447. doi: 10.1177/104973159400400402.

    • Umbreit, M.S. (1999). Victim-offender mediation in Canada: the impact of an emerging social work intervention. International Social Work, 42(2), 215-227. doi: 10.1177/002087289904200209.

    • Umbreit, M.S. & Coates, R.B. (1993). Cross-site analysis of victim-offender mediation in four states. Crime & Delinquency, 39(4), 565-585. doi: 10.1177/0011128793039004010.

    • Umbreit, M.S., Coates, R.B. & Roberts, A.W. (2000). The impact of victim-offender mediation: a cross-national perspective. Mediation Quarterly, 17(3), 215-229. doi: 10.1002/crq.3900170303.

    • Vaish, A., Carpenter, M. & Tomasello, M. (2016). The early emergence of guilt-motivated prosocial behavior. Child Development, 87(6), 1772-1782. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12628.

    • Van Denderen, M., Verstegen, N., de Vogel, V. & Feringa, L. (2020). Contact between victims and offenders in forensic mental health settings: An exploratory study. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 73. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2020.101630.

    • Vieira, T.A. (2003). Emotions and young offenders’ suitability for victim-offender mediation. Paper presented at 111th American Psychological Association, 7-10 August 2003, Toronto, Canada.

    • Villanueva, L., Jara, P. & García-Gomis, A. (2014). Effect of victim-offender mediation versus dispositions on youth recidivism: the role of risk level. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 14(4), 302-316. doi: 10.1080/15228932.2014.950508.

    • Ward, T. & Brown, M. (2004). The good lives model and conceptual issues in offender rehabilitation. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10(3), 243-257. doi: 10.1080/10683160410001662744.

    • Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T.G., Feather, N.T. & Platow, M.J. (2008). Retributive and restorative justice. Law and Human Behavior, 32(5), 375-389. doi: 10.1007/s10979-007-9116-6.

    • Willis, G.M., Prescott, D.S. & Yates, P.M. (2013). The good lives model (GLM) in theory and practice. Sexual Abuse in Australia and New Zealand, 5(1), 3-9.

    • Wong, G., Westhorp, G., Pawson, R. & Greenhalgh, T. (2013). Realist synthesis. RAMESES training materials. London: The RAMESES Project.

    • Wyrick, P.A. & Costanzo, M.A. (1999). Predictors of client participation in victim-offender mediation. Mediation Quarterly, 16(3), 253-267. doi: 10.1002/crq.3890160305.

    • Zebel, S. (2012). Een quasi-experimenteel onderzoek naar de effecten van de Nederland slachtoffer-dadergesprekken [A quasi-experimental study into the effects of Dutch victim-Meetings]. In I. Weijers (ed.), Slachtoffer-dadergesprekken in de schaduw van het strafproces [Victim-offender conversations in the shadow of the criminal process] (21-44). The Hague: Boom Lemma.

    • Zebel, S., Alberda, D.L. & Wartna, B.S.J. (2014). Recidive na een reclasseringscontact [Recidivism after probation contact]. The Hague: Boom Lemma.

    • Zebel, S., Schreurs, W. & Ufkes, E.G. (2017). Crime seriousness and participation in restorative justice: the role of time elapsed since the offense. Law and Human Behavior, 41(4), 385-397. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000242.

    • Zehr, H. (2015). The little book of restorative justice: revised and updated. Intercourse: Good Books.

    • Zinsstag, E., Teunkens, M. & Pali, B. (2011). Conferencing: a way forward for restorative justice in Europe. Leuven: European Forum for Restorative Justice.


Print this article
Button_em_en