Talking punishment: How victim perceptions of punishment change when they communicate with offenders
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/14624745211054748 |
| Published date | 01 April 2023 |
| Date | 01 April 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Talking punishment: How
victim perceptions of
punishment change when
they communicate with
offenders
Diana Batchelor
Centre for Criminology, University of Oxford, UK
Abstract
The myth that restorative justice is the opposite of retributivejustice persists, despite a long his-
tory of rhetorical challenges. Only empirical evidence can advance the debate, so this article
investigates the relationship between punishment and victim–offender communication from
the victim’s perspective. Inter views with 40 victims of crime established that some victims
saw victim–offender communication and punishment as alternatives, and others saw them as
independent. However, more than half the participants expected that communicating with
the offender would increase their satisfaction with the offender’spunishment or reported after-
wards that this was in fact the case, suggesting that some victims fulfil punishment objectives
through communication with the offender.The changes occurred when victims received infor-
mation about the offender’spunishment, received feedback from the offender or used commu-
nication with the offender to impose a mild punishment of their own. Victims were not
excessively punitive, but this study demonstrates the existence of an association between pun-
ishment and victim–offender communication from at least some victims’perspectives. This art-
icle argues that we should not ignore or attempt to eliminate this relationship. Rather,
acknowledging and examining the existence of punishment within victim–offender communica-
tion would improve practice and generate better outcomes for victims, offenders and society.
Keywords
victim, restorative justice, retributive justice, punishment, victim–offender
communication, mediation, punitive, retribution, consequences
Corresponding author:
Diana Batchelor,Centre for Criminology, University of Oxford, St Cross Building, St Cross Road, Oxford OX1
3UQ, UK.
Email: diana.batchelor@crim.ox.ac.uk
Article
Punishment & Society
2023, Vol. 25(2) 519–536
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/14624745211054748
journals.sagepub.com/home/pun
Some early proponents of restorative justice (RJ) contrasted it with retributive justice,
claiming that their foundations and objectives are diametrically opposed (Barnett,
1977; Braithwaite, 1989; Eglash, 1977; Fattah, 1998; Zehr, 1990). Others maintained
that the relationship between RJ and retributive justice was more complex (e.g. Daly
and Immarigeon, 1998; Davis, 1992; Hampton, 1992). In the ensuing decades many argu-
ments have been put forward on both sides of what Daly (2012) calls the ‘punishment
debate’.
In the 1990s, the punishment debate focused on the relationship between retribution
and reparation. Duff (1992), for example, considered reparation as an alternative punish-
ment (rather than an alternative to punishment), and Zedner (1994) argued that offender
activities designed to make amends to the victim or community can also deliver retribu-
tive goals. In the 2000s, the debate shifted to whether victims should have any type of
sentencing authority. Retributivists expressed concern that this could test both the
upper and lower limits of proportionality (Ashworth, 2002; Robinson, 2003; Wasik,
1999), but others argued that the punitive and restorative aspects of victim-influenced
sentencing are largely compatible if appropriate safeguards are in place (Roche, 2003;
O’Hear, 2005; Young and Hoyle, 2010).
While the debates about reparation and victim-influenced sentencing continued, some
theorists turned their attention to the relationship between retributive justice and a third
type of RJ practice: communication between victims and offenders. In its infancy,
communication was generally offered as an alternative to state-administered punishment
(e.g. Umbreit et al., 1994), so there was little reason to suspect anything other than an
inverse relationship between the two. However, researchers soon started to consider
whether a meeting with a victim might itself constitute punishment for the offender,
observing that such meetings are likely to entail suffering on the part of the offender
(Robinson, 2003), that making an apology is ‘burdensome’(Duff, 2002), and that
calling the offender ‘to account’is inevitably an imposition (Von Hirsch et al., 2003).
Could we not just agree with Daly then that the dichotomy between restorative and
retributive justice is a ‘nonsense’(Daly, 2016: 15), and consider the case closed?
Although Daly and many others have attempted to dispel the myth that RJ is the opposite
of retributive justice (Daly, 2002), it continues to permeate both the academic literature
and RJ practice. For example, in social psychology experiments participants are asked to
choose between ‘RJ’and ‘punishment’(Moss et al., 2019; Rasmussen et al., 2018), in
public discourse RJ is often described as ‘non-punitive’(e.g. Donnelly, 2015;
McKend, 2020), and in RJ practice some facilitators say they would not proceed with
a victim–offender meeting if the victim had ‘punitive’motivations.
1
Why does this myth that restorative and retributive justice are opposites persist?
Despite a long history and many pages of argumentation, there is a lack of empirical
evidence regarding the nature of the relationship from the perspective of stakeholders
in the justice process. A full investigation would ideally incorporate the views of offen-
ders, criminal justice practitioners and the public, but I argue that the victim’s perspective
is especially informative for two primary reasons. First and foremost, victims and offen-
ders each have a degree of control over the other’s experience when they communicate
520 Punishment & Society 25(2)
To continue reading
Request your trial