Inside the restorative justice black box
| Published date | 01 September 2017 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0269758017714549 |
| Author | Jane Bolitho |
| Date | 01 September 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Inside the restorative justice
black box: The role of memory
reconsolidation in transforming
the emotional impact of violent
crime on victims
Jane Bolitho
University of New South Wales, Australia
Abstract
This paper is concerned with why and how restorative justice works to alleviate the emotional
effects of crime on victims. It posits a new explanation for the ‘aha’ moment; the turning point
seen in some, though not all, restorative justice conferences where longstanding, negative
emotions and beliefs that have persistently dogged a victim since the crime event, affecting their
ability to enjoy the same everyday activities as in their pre-crime daily life, are seemingly elim-
inated. Focusing on victim experiences, an in-depth analysis of 20 cases collected as part of an
empirical study into post-sentencing restorative justice practice after serious crime shows how a
typical restorative process can mimic the conditions needed for ‘memory reconsolidation’, a
powerful and adaptive neurobiological mechanism that rewrites emotional memories. The
findings suggest that the process of memory reconsolidation is a unique tool in the restorative
justice ‘black box’. While the use of restorative justice within Western criminal justice systems is
routine for juvenile offenders following minor crimes, greater attention should be paid to victim-
focused models in the aftermath of crime experienced traumatically; these include post-
sentencing practices.
Keywords
Restorative justice, victims, serious crime, memory reconsolidation
Corresponding author:
Dr Jane Bolitho, School of Social Sciences, University of New South Wales Sydney, New South Wales Sydney 2052,
Australia.
Email: j.bolitho@unsw.edu.au
International Review of Victimology
2017, Vol. 23(3) 233–255
ªThe Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0269758017714549
journals.sagepub.com/home/irv
Introduction
Defined as ‘an ethos with practical goals, among which is to restore harm by including affected
parties in a (direct or indirect) encounter and a process of understanding through voluntary and
honest dialogue’ (Gavrielides, 2007: 139), restorative justice (RJ) is the creation of a safe, mediated
space for dialogue about the effects of crime and the way forward. The essence of restorative
practices is thatpeople matter and that social bonds affectbehavior (Braithwaite, 1989).The empha-
sis on voluntary, deliberative, participatory spaces consistently leads to a rich sense of procedural
justice (Tyler,2003); this is particularly borneout in research concerning victimsatisfaction with RJ
(Miller andHefner, 2015 ; Shapland et al.,2007; Strang 2002). Yet RJ ismore than procedural justice
(Van Camp and Wemmers, 2013). That RJ is the creation of a deliberatively democratic and safe
space for difficult conversation is correct, but deceptively simple. While modern Western court
systems aim to achieve a form of justice based on ‘legal truth’, RJ is designed to recognize,
appreciate and attend to the full range of harms – including emotional – as experienced by the main
parties, a not incompat ible but different kind of justice (Armour, 2006; Sherman and Strang, 2007;
Strang, 2002; Umbreit, 2001; Umbreit et al., 2003; Zehr, 2005).
The majority of government-run RJ programs in Western criminal justice systems are aimed at
juveniles and young adults who have committed minor or moderately severe crime. These pro-
grams work within a rubric that emphasizes the benefits of diversion from court (Miers, 2001) and
are usually offender oriented in that the RJ process can go ahead with or without the victim present.
Yet since the 1970s a small but persistent number of advocates have suggested that the real
potential of RJ may be in victim-oriented practices in the aftermath of serious crime (Bolitho,
2015; Gavrielides, 2012; Joyce-Wojtas and Keenan, 2016; Rugge and Cormier, 2013; Shapland,
2000, 2013; Shapland et al., 2006, 2011; Umbreit, 2008; Umbreit and Armour, 2010; Umbreit and
Vos, 2000; Umbreit et al., 2006, 2007; Walters, 2014). This is because though reactions vary,
violent crime has been associated with immediate, short-term and for some, long-lasting, debili-
tative emotional as well as physical and material harm (Herman, 1997; Janoff-Bulman, 1992;
Kilpatrick and Acierno, 2003; Shapland and Hall, 2007). Particularly after violent crime, victims
can remain intensely angry, persistently ruminate on revenge, suffer from fear, anxiety, and
following offenses involving death, even endure a ‘complicated bereavement’ where the ‘normal’
progression of grief through various stages to acceptance is interrupted by an anger that remains
ever-present, making an everyday sense of wellbeing virtually impossible to achieve (Rynearson,
2001, 2006). Furthermore, for the proportion of victims who achieve legal justice in the form of a
court case and sentencing, mixed feelings are not uncommon; arriving at a legal truth does not
necessarily alleviate emotional needs and in some cases the court process (regardless of outcome)
compounds perceptions of isolation, powerlessn ess and injustice (Herman, 2003; Parsons and
Bergin, 2010).
RJ has long been associated with emotional ‘transformation’. In fact, it is this very potential for
emotional transformation, described almost effervescently by advocates and practitioners of RJ,
which is unsettling for those outside the field (Maruna, 2011). Emerging evidence supports the
view that RJ can alleviate emotional harm (Miller, 2011; Miller and Hefner, 2015; Rynearson,
2001) and even reduce symptoms of post-traumatic stress (Angel, 2014; Gustafson, 2005). It seems
that, when successful, RJ is a catalyst for the kind of mental reshuffling needed to accommodate
the crime event and its aftermath (including for example court case(s), sentencing and experiences
with media coverage) into a manageable form that enables the re-establishment of some form of
wellbeing. Yet, very little is known about exactly why or how the RJ process shifts emotion.
234 International Review of Victimology 23(3)
To continue reading
Request your trial