Apology–forgiveness cycle in restorative justice, but how?
| Author | Masahiro Suzuki,Tamera Jenkins |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/02697580221079994 |
| Published date | 01 May 2023 |
| Date | 01 May 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/02697580221079994
International Review of Victimology
2023, Vol. 29(2) 259 –276
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/02697580221079994
journals.sagepub.com/home/irv
Apology–forgiveness cycle in
restorative justice, but how?
Masahiro Suzuki
Central Queensland University, Australia
Tamera Jenkins
Park University, USA
Abstract
The apology–forgiveness cycle is a simple but powerful process for conflict resolution. Given the
prevalence of apology and forgiveness in restorative justice (RJ), the apology–forgiveness cycle
may take place. However, there is a lack of theoretical understanding of the relationship between
apology and forgiveness in the RJ processes. After identifying key elements and impediments of
the apology–forgiveness cycle during RJ meetings based on the existing literature, we develop a
theoretical model of the apology–forgiveness cycle during RJ encounters. This typology explains
how the apology–forgiveness cycle is intertwined with the RJ process, subsequently facilitating,
blocking, and changing its sequence. There are four cycles: (1) apology facilitating forgiveness,
(2) apology without forgiveness, (3) forgiveness promoting apology, and (4) forgiveness without
apology. We conclude by offering future directions for research on the apology–forgiveness cycle
in RJ.
Keywords
Restorative justice, apology–forgiveness cycle, apology, forgiveness, typology
Introduction
To cause and receive offences is a very human and inevitable experience in our everyday life.
Therefore, it needs to be dealt with properly to avoid further conflict. What will be done in its
aftermath is critical to both effectively addressing the harm and, if appropriate and meaningful to
the parties involved, maintaining the relationship between the transgressor and the victim. In this
regard, what is called an ‘apology–forgiveness cycle’ (Tavuchis, 1991) may be an effective
Corresponding author:
Masihiro Suzuki, College of Law, Criminology and Justice, Central Queensland University, 120 Spencer Street,
Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia.
Email: m.suzuki@cqu.edu.au
1079994IRV0010.1177/02697580221079994International Review of VictimologySuzuki and Jenkins
research-article2022
Article
260 International Review of Victimology 29(2)
conflict-solving mechanism. It is a simple but powerful process. The transgressor apologies and
the victim may then forgive the transgressor or vice versa (Fehr et al., 2010; Strang et al., 2014;
Strelan et al., 2016). This sequence may, in turn, pave a path to reconciliation (Leunissen et al.,
2013; Shnabel and Nadler, 2008).
Restorative justice (RJ) is a new mode of responding to crime. While what qualifies as RJ
remains controversial (Doolin, 2007; Wood and Suzuki, 2016), RJ commonly involves a face-to-
face dialogue between a victim and an offender (Daly, 2016), who under the guidance of a trained
facilitator and in the presence of their supporters come together in one place and discuss the
offence, why it happened, and what needs to be done to repair the resultant harm (UNODC, 2020).
Restorative justice emerged in the 1970s in response to critiques towards the conventional justice
system as retributive (Zehr, 1990) and has since been utilised worldwide (Van Ness, 2001).
Although there is a variation in terms of what form of RJ is utilised and at which stage of the con-
ventional justice system RJ is situated (cf. Shapland, 2012), RJ is now an essential part of the
conventional justice system in many countries, particularly in the area of youth justice (Zinsstag
and Vangraechem, 2012).
As RJ is widely used to deal with the aftermath of a crime, questions arise in relation to the
apology–forgiveness cycle. Is the apology–forgiveness cycle something that should be aimed for
in RJ? While defining apology (cf. Slocum et al., 2011) and forgiveness (cf. Jenkins, 2019) have
both been contested, an apology can be defined as ‘an acknowledgement of an offense together
with an expression of remorse ... [and] an ongoing commitment by the offending party to change
his or her behavior’ (Lazare, 2004: 263), and forgiveness as ‘a willingness to abandon one’s right
to resentment, negative judgement, and indifferent behaviour toward one who unjustly injured us,
while fostering the undeserved qualities of compassion, generosity, and even love toward him or
her’ (Enright et al., 1998: 46–47). There is a consensus in the literature that both apology (Hayes,
2006; Stubbs, 2007) and forgiveness (Van Stokkom, 2008; Walgrave, 2011) should not be consid-
ered a primary goal of RJ. Even without apology and forgiveness, RJ can still be beneficial for
victims and offenders in terms of fairness, restoration, and legitimacy (e.g. Strang et al., 2013;
Wilson et al., 2017). However, if apology and forgiveness are offered and take place in a sequence
during RJ meetings, it has the potential to lead to what Daly (2002: 70) referred to as ‘a “nirvana”
story of repair and good will’ because the apology–forgiveness cycle may be ‘the key to reconcili-
ation, victim satisfaction, and decreasing recidivism’ (Retzinger and Scheff, 1996: 316).
To our knowledge, however, there is no research that has deeply explored the apology–forgive-
ness cycle in RJ. Some scholars only touched lightly upon it when they referred to either apology
or forgiveness in RJ. For instance, concerning the ritual of apology in RJ, Bolívar et al. (2013: 131)
mentioned that ‘an offenders’ apology could have ... a meaning independently of a victim’s will-
ingness to forgive’. Similarly, focusing on the role of forgiveness in RJ, Shapland (2020) argued
that forgiveness does not necessarily require an apology. One exception may be Retzinger and
Scheff (1996) who modelled the apology–forgiveness cycle in RJ. However, they focused solely
on one cycle where apology precedes forgiveness. As will be discussed below, there are other pos-
sible patterns of a sequential relationship between apology and forgiveness in the RJ process.
This lack of research may be, in part, because there is limited empirical and theoretical RJ litera-
ture on both apology and forgiveness. This scarcity may be related to concerns over the perceived
roles of apology and forgiveness in RJ (cf. Suzuki and Jenkins, 2020). As a result of victimisation,
victims have various needs including participation, vindication, validation, restoration, accounta-
bility, and so on (Bolitho, 2015; Daly, 2017; Pemberton and Vanfraechem, 2015). Apology is also
To continue reading
Request your trial