Victim-centred restorative justice: Program design and implementation

By Patricia Hughes

Introduction

If restorative justice (RJ) is to better respond to victims than the criminal justice system (CJS) does, RJ programs must be designed to respond to victims’ needs. This article addresses how restorative practices have evolved, from early efforts to help offenders, particularly young offenders, to a philosophy of RJ that shifts the role of victims as contributors to RJ to one that positions victims as central to RJ processes. This article further considers what is required to satisfy victims’ needs in the design and implementation of RJ programs.

The term “restorative justice” is used to refer “to a variety of practices.” There is a distinction (and a confusion) between “restorative justice” and “restorative practices” or “restorative principles” (O’Mahony and Doak 2017; OPPAGA 2020; Paul and Borton 2021). For example, courses for offenders to learn about empathy and so-called restorative cautioning by police in Australia and the United Kingdom do not include or necessarily include victims and are therefore not “fully restorative” (O’Mahony and Doak 2017; Chiste 2013; Pali 2016; OPPAGA 2020).

In its full sense, as a coherent philosophical approach, and the way RJ is used in this article, restorative justice “refers to ‘an approach to justice that seeks to repair harm by providing an opportunity for those harmed and those who take responsibility for the harm to communicate about and address their needs in the aftermath of a crime.’” (Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers of Justice and Public Safety 2018, n.p.). It is “concerned with accomplishing restoration (or the rectifying of wrongs) along multiple dimensions (relational, material, financial, and moral), typically through direct, facilitated dialogue between affected stakeholders (typically victims, wrongdoers, and their supporters)” (Paul and Borton 2021, p.9.). It focuses on “needs” rather than “rights,” and on righting wrongs rather than punishing offenders (LCC 1999; Hughes and Mossman 2004).

RJ is “relationship-based,” whereas the CJS is “event-based” (LCC 2003). That is, RJ focuses on the harm created by an offence, not the contravention of the law. In gender-based violence (GBV) cases, where a victim often experiences stigma, on the reintegration of the victim and not only the offender, into the community, this is different from offender reintegration in property crime cases (where RJ began) because there is no stigma attached to property crimes (Herman 2005). Because the offender is known to have committed an offence and has admitted doing so and the victim is known to have been affected by the offence (i.e., is a victim), guilt or innocence is not an issue: “Nor is there an expectation that crime victims compromise and request less than they need to address their losses.” Furthermore, “while many other types of mediation are largely ‘settlement-driven,’ victim-offender mediationFootnote 1 is primarily ‘dialogue-driven.’ emphasizing victim healing, offender accountability, and restoration of losses” (Umbreit 1999, 216).

Restorative justice can occur at any stage of the criminal process: “to diversion from formal court process, to actions taken in parallel with court decisions, and to meetings between victims and offenders at any stage of the criminal process (arrest, pre-sentencing, sentencing, and prison release)” (Daly 2000, 168 [emphasis in original]).

Three caveats help to frame the scope of this article:

After briefly outlining the evolution of RJ – from being focused more on helping offenders (particularly young offenders) avoid imprisonment and begin to reintegrate into their community to programs that pay more attention to victims – this article sets out what is required for RJ practice to be more consistent with RJ philosophy in its emphasis on victim-centredness.

Evolution of Restorative Justice towards a victim-centred philosophy

In the beginning…

Restorative justice principles and practices arose from legal, religious, political, and social sources, resulting in a “complicated web” of RJ methods (Crosier 2022). In Canada, the legal systems of Indigenous communities were characterized by both punitive and restorative responses to wrongdoing long before RJ emerged into mainstream society (Chartrand and Horn 2016). The use of RJ in Indigenous communities today is not a separate undertaking, but just one element in a holistic approach to justice (Shah et al 2017; Mi’kMaq Confederacy PEI).Footnote 7

In Indigenous communities, sentencing and healing circles are based on Indigenous values and practices that reflect the communities they serve. The circles both preceded criminal justice RJ or their absorption into the CJS (Evans et al. 2018). The Mi’kmaq Confederacy of Prince Edward Island’s Indigenous Justice Program shows the range of circles that respond to offenders, victims, and communities: conflict-resolution circles (to prevent crime); early intervention circles (occurring at pre-and post-charge stages to develop a healing plan); healing circles (to assist with recovery); sentencing circles; and reintegration circles (to help offenders who have completed their sentence to reintegrate into the community).Footnote 8

The first RJ approaches in western systems arose from efforts in the 1970s to provide alternatives to the CJS for youthful offenders (Zehr and Umbreit 1982; Shah et al. 2017; Hansen and Umbreit 2018). Victims were sometimes involved in these efforts but were not the focus. Sometimes, however, they were not even involved; for example, community reparative boards would meet with the offender and decide reparations (Weisberg 2003).

Over the last 40 years or so, many national and other levels of government have implemented or provided a framework for programs called “restorative justice” set up by civil organizations in one form or another (Pavelka 2016; Banwell-Moore 2019; Sewak 2019; OPPAGA 2020; Earthen 2020; Paul and Borton 2021; Hobson 2022). For example, the European Forum for Restorative Justice has over 40 country members; it has published statements of RJ values and principles. The European Union CouncilFootnote 9 enacted the binding Victims’ Rights Directive in 2012, which includes provisions about RJ (European Forum n.d.). As well, in 2020, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime released an updated handbook on RJ programs (UNODC 2020).

There are several models of RJ: they may be offender-focused – if the victim is involved at all, they are there mainly to help explain the impact of the offence; they may include victims “on paper”, but in practice efforts to ensure that victims participate are small and RJ may go ahead without the victim; victims may be involved, but the dynamic of the RJ may result in the victim’s role being diminished; or they may be victim-centred, meaning that RJ processes are planned around the needs and choices of the person who has been harmed, prioritizing their safety and avoiding unintentionally retraumatizing or revictimizing them (NZLC 2015; O’Mahony and Doak 2017; Woolford and Nelund 2019; Young and Dhanjal 2021; Hobson et al. 2022; Victoria State Government 2023; Government of New Brunswick 2022).

One of the most common forms of RJ, and one with the greatest potential to be victim-centred and “integrated into criminal justice systems around the world,” is victim-offender mediation (VOM), also referred to as victim-offender dialogue (Young and Dhanjal 2021, 52; also see Hansen and Umbreit 1999). In VOM, the victim and offender meet face-to-face, or, when the victim prefers, through alternative means of communication (e.g., Zoom), along with members of the affected community; both victims and offenders may wish to have supporters present, who may be family or others (such as victim advocates for victims). Hansen and Umbreit (2018) stress that, unlike other forms of RJ, VOM emphasizes “the interaction between the victim … and the offender …, rather than other interactions with family members, support people, or members of the wider community” (who may be participants) (p.100). From the early days of RJ, it has been recognized that both the victim and the offender must participate voluntarily and “extreme sensitivity and patience must be exercised in encouraging victim involvement” (Umbreit 1986, p.56).

Another form of RJ is family group conferencing (FGC), described by Umbreit and Zehr (1996) as tending to be about “retributive justice” (24), with more victim and community involvement because FGC can include family and supporters of both the victim and the offender. This enables the offender’s family to explain their own contribution to – and feelings of disappointment and shame about – the offender’s behaviour, and provides both the offender and the victim opportunities to reintegrate into the community. Because of the interaction among several participants, however, the victim’s voice may be lost (Umbreit and Zehr 1996; Hughes and Mossman 2004; Zehr 2015; Sewak 2019). FGC provides an example of how a model that includes victims should not automatically be considered “victim-centred.”

In Canada, RJ receives official recognition as a form of “alternative measure” under section 717 of the Criminal Code (CC),Footnote 10 requiring the offender’s free and informed consent to participate; the offender’s acceptance of responsibility; and sufficient evidence to prosecute; among other requirements. Notably, under section 717 the victim’s consent is not required. As a result, RJ processes can proceed with just the offender.

Restorative justice processes are also enabled through section 718.2(e) of the CC, which states that all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders. For example, under Nova Scotia’s Restorative Justice Program Protocol, following a guilty plea or a finding of guilt the court may pause to refer a case to a RJ process or to hear from victims or family members, the results of which may inform sentencing decisions.Footnote 11

The federal, provincial, and territorial governments work together to fund and support RJ programs. In one program, run at the federal level, Correctional Service Canada (CSC) offers restorative opportunities to victims to communicate with the federal offender who harmed them. This program also offers RJ to members of offenders’ families and offenders (Correctional Service Canada: Restorative Justice 2022). Victims can request a meeting with the offender who harmed them; however, offenders cannot make a direct request, but must go through an intermediary.Footnote 12

Governments at all levels in Canada have implemented RJ processes although they vary in how they function and even, in a few instances, whether they make victim involvement a mandatory part of the program’s design.Footnote 13 To be clear, making victim participation a mandatory part of the design does not mean that victims must participate; rather, the issue is whether the process will go ahead with just the offender (or with the offender and the community) if the victim declines to participate. However, a program that does not make victim participation mandatory as part of the design, in which the victim can choose whether to go ahead – a critical factor in decisions about the appropriateness of RJ for an offence – raises doubts about whether the program complies with the victim-centred paradigm.

Courts also apply principles and practices that share some similarities with the philosophy of RJ. However, these processes do not always include victims. Of particular significance is the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC)’s endorsement of the use of restorative principles by courts in the sentencing of Indigenous offenders “alongside or in the place of other, more traditional sentencing principles,” based on the unique factors affecting the offender’s life as an Indigenous person, whether they live in an Indigenous community or not. For example, the court might not impose a prison sentence when traditional principles would warrant one (R. v. Gladue 1999).

The Move Towards a Philosophy of Victim-Centred RJ

The seed of victim-centred RJ in Canada can be found in the failure of the CJS to respond adequately to victims’ justice needsFootnote 14 because the criminal justice system sees crime as a violation of the state or society, and prosecutors represent the state, not the victim. The impact of crime on victims had been recognized as early as the 1970s (Zehr and Umbreit 1982). Even so, despite many efforts to respond to victims’ needs in the CJS – victim impact statements (VIS), legislation setting out the rights of victims, criminal injuries compensation, prosecutors maintaining contact with victims or victims’ families, improvements in sexual assault procedures and, recently, permitting victim representations about a proposed publication ban on the names of sexual assault victimsFootnote 15 – victims remain “peripheral to the justice process” (Zehr 2015, 37). Victims are merely “witnesses” to their own harm rather than central to the process as the person who was harmed; they have little to no part to play in deciding what happens to the offender; in sexual assault cases, in particular, they may be revictimized by police and defence counsel, and left feeling irrelevant to the system in other ways (Herman 2005; Young andDhanjal 2021; LEAF 2023).

In contrast, foundational to restorative justice philosophy and practice is a commitment to recognizing victim harms, fulfilling victim needs, and ensuring that victims can be fully engaged actors at all stages of the process. Victim-centred or victim-focused RJ has been described as an “authentic inquiry into the needs of victims and survivors; not as an instrument for offender rehabilitation or treatment, but as individual needs that stand on their own merit” (Bargen et al. 2019, 6, 8; also see LCC 2003; Evans 2022). As Canada’s Principles and Guidelines for Restorative Justice Practice in Criminal Matters (2018) notes, “those who have been harmed are central in deciding what is needed to repair it” (n.p.). One community-based RJ program in British Columbia has stated that it follows a victim-centred approach, which means addressing the harm done to victims  informs everything we do” (Restorative Justice Victoria n.d.).

It is important to note that a victim-centred approach to RJ does not dismiss or ignore offenders. Rather, it takes into account the needs of, and is also intended to benefit, offenders. However, it seeks to keep the needs of those harmed by crime as central to the design and delivery of RJ. This reduces the risk of further harm to victims through their participation in RJ, where typical RJ programs and processes are more focused on meeting offender or system needs. RJ must remain victim-centred. For example, “Where offenders are provided with help to change their lives, but victims are not provided help to deal with their trauma, victims feel betrayed by the offender orientation of restorative justice” (Mika et al. 2004, 3).

Designing Victim-Centred Restorative Justice

The foremost principle for designing an RJ program that ensures victims are recognized as “key stakeholders in justice” (Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers of Justice and Public Safety 2018, from Zehr and Mika 1998) is the need to involve victims in designing RJ programs; and the victim in a particular RJ process must be involved in planning the session. This constitutes the philosophical imperative of the centrality of the victim. It requires an ongoing review that allows RJ programs to incorporate how victims are affected by crime as their needs  evolve. The design establishes a framework of principles and requirements to implement in practice (for example, victim choice is a RJ principle, realized in a particular RJ process by the victim, who decides, among other aspects, when and how to meet with the offender).

Before considering some of the elements illustrating the principle of victim choice, it is helpful to comment on gender-based violence (GBV) cases and RJ. Although some of the issues these cases raise may seem to be (or are) particularly relevant to GBV cases, they also serve as lessons for RJ more generally.

A Special Case? Restorative Justice and Gender-based Violence

The use of RJ in GBV cases remains contentious despite its increased acceptance and research that demonstrates that victims of GBV and other serious personal offences can benefit more from RJ than victims of other offences (Sewak et al. 2019; Why Me? n.d.). RJ is increasingly considered preferable to the CJS (“more effective”) for victims of sexual assault because RJ “empower[s] [the victim’s] voice, validat[es] their experience and facilitate[es] relationship reparation” (Sewak et al. 2019, 5; also see Randall 2013; Community Legal Centres NSW; LEAF 2023). Victims can confront the offender in a safe environment and affect the outcome (Randall 2013; Coker 2019).

Nevertheless, valid concerns about the use of RJ in these cases persist, and some jurisdictions, including Nova Scotia, Ontario, and British Columbia (in the last, available only in “rare cases”), continue to have a moratorium on the use of RJ in sexual assault or intimate partner violence (IPV) cases (NSRJP; BCRJ; LEAF 2023).Footnote 16 The Tungasuvvingat Inuit program in Ontario, for example, explicitly excludes sexual assault and spousal and child abuse.Footnote 17

Concerns about the use of RJ in GBV cases are linked to the nature of the violence and include apprehension for the victim’s safety or the risk of manipulation by the offender. Depending on the RJ model, the victim’s voice and preferences may be at odds with those of others involved (such as other family members or community members in a conferencing context) (Randall 2013; Mercer and Sten Madsen 2015; Crosier 2022). There is a risk that the “learning experience” of IPV, that victims “must comply with perpetrator wishes and subvert their own in order to avoid further violence,” might be imported into the RJ process (Wood and Russell 2021, 3).Footnote 18 These concerns must be addressed in RJ if RJ is to be used in GBV cases. Taking a victim-centred approach means they can be.

Victims of gendered violence who do want to participate in RJ want to do so for the same reasons that victims of other crimes want to participate (as Mercer and Sten Madsen (2015) indicate, partly “for the impact and aftermath of the harm to be more profoundly and widely considered”). They point out that RJ can allow a new relationship to develop with community members, with an offender, and with RJ practitioners, when the victim wishes it. RJ also provides an opportunity for the victim to reclaim their voice, not as a “victim,” but as a “survivor” (Mercer and Sten Madsen 2015, 10–13; also see Why Me? n.d.; LEAF 2023).

Regardless, there remain risks beyond those ordinarily associated with RJ: the nature of the harm (including the myths and [cultural] stereotypes associated with sexual violence and its sometimes acceptance or tolerance), power imbalances arising from familial and other connections, the significant vulnerability of young victims, and the mixed responses or “dual loyalties” of other family and community members (Daly and Stubbs 2006; Mercer and Sten Madsen 2015; Berlin 2016; Armstrong 2021; Crosier 2022). Indeed, victims may want to know why people who knew about the abuse did not intervene (Herman 2023). In RJ models with an outcome based on group consensus, “[v]ictims may be pressured to accept certain outcomes, such as an apology, even if they feel it is inappropriate or insincere” (Daly and Stubbs 2006, 17). Offenders may treat victims’ experiences not as a source of empathy but as fodder for offenders to manipulate the victim or to gain pleasure from the victim’s participation (Wood and Russell 2021).

In some ways, then, GBV cases pose a special challenge for RJ; in other ways, however, they share issues with other types of cases that must be addressed if the victim is to remain central to the process. Taking the concerns with RJ in GBV into account in designing an RJ program that addresses a range of crimes highlights what is needed to ensure that the philosophical promise of victim-centred RJ is realized in practice. This means abiding by the RJ principles of repairing harm and doing no more harm.

Recommendations for improving RJ for GBV cases should be considered for RJ more generally: these should include trauma-informed approaches that, preferably, apply to everyone involved (Ponic et al. 2016); cross-sector collaboration and (GBV) training for RJ practitioners (EVABC 2021, n.p.; NZLC 2015; Goodmark 2018); flexible schedules, increasing information, providing support during the process (including support animals, where feasible and appropriate), for the offender as well as the victim (Bargen et al. 2019; Ha 2020); and facilitators who understand trauma, the dynamics of racism, and cultural and other social inequalities, and are ready to challenge victim-blaming and manipulation by the offender (Crosier 2022).

Victim Choice in Design and Implementation

Victim choice in a specific RJ process begins at the beginning: whether to participate in RJ. Participation in restorative justice is voluntary for both victims and offenders; in a truly victim-centred framework, however, RJ will not go ahead if the victim does not want to participate, whether directly or indirectly, as discussed below.Footnote 19 For victims to make this decision, however, they must know that RJ is available.

In Canada, victims are not automatically told about RJ when they become involved with the CJS. Rather, they are entitled to information about RJ under paragraph 6(b) of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights Act (CVBR),Footnote 20 when they request it, and under subsection 26.1(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act,Footnote 21 when they have registered under that legislation. However, some jurisdictions have adopted a policy of proactively informing victims about their rights under the CVBR.

Regardless of the kind of wrongdoing, some programs inform victims about RJ only when they consider it “safe”; even victim services may not refer victims if they believe it will save them from “distress” (Van Camp and Wemmers 2016). This has been described as “protective” because it suggests that someone else, other than the victim, is better equipped to determine whether victims are “ready” or “suitable” for RJ. By comparison, when victim services provide information on RJ opportunities proactively, without victims asking for it, victims can make that decision – whether to pursue RJ – for themselves.

A study of Belgian and Canadian victims indicated that the proactive approach to providing information about RJ used in Belgium resulted in greater satisfaction among victims; even then, the way in which information is delivered matters, with personal contact likely more effective (Van Camp and Wemmers 2016). The Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime has recommended that providing victims information about RJ should be proactive (O’Sullivan 2016, 26; Illingworth and Ferrara 2021).

Once the victim has decided to participate, the organizers of the program or facilitators will discuss several issues relevant to planning the session. Referring to FGC, Umbreit and Zehr (1996) state that holding the session in the most “victim-sensitive manner possible” means that victims choose when and where to meet, how to arrange the room, go first if they want to, are informed of the risks and benefits, should not be pressured or told to trust the facilitator’s judgment; and that facilitators be trained in trauma-informed practices and in cultural and ethical issues (Bargen et al. 2019; Bargen et al. 2018).

The recognition that victims (and, of course, offenders) are not homogenous needs to be integrated into RJ design. Operationalizing this principle requires taking into account the specific relevant characteristics and factors of victims (and offenders) in practice, to the extent possible. Victims differ in many ways, including, for example, in their economic status, culture or ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender expression, religion, age; some knew the offender, some did not; some are isolated, others are part of a supportive circle. The same offence may leave lasting scars, physical and emotional, or little imprint. Furthermore, “[s]ome victims will be traumatised by what may appear to be a relatively trivial offence; others may be able to find closure and healing soon after falling victim to a serious offence” (O’Mahony and Doak 2017, p. 52; also see Zehr and Umbreit 1982; Bargen 2019). For some, financial reparation may be important, but others may consider it an attempt to “buy them off.” These factors may affect why they experienced the wrongdoing, how the offence has affected them, and what they need from RJ.

The main element of an RJ process is the opportunity for the victim to meet and communicate with the offender. However, not all victims want to meet with the offender face-to-face. A victim may prefer a letter, an audio recording, or “shuttle mediation.” Appointing a representative or a surrogate victim who has experienced similar wrongdoing may act as a substitute and keep the actual victim informed of what transpires (LCC 2003; O’Mahony and Doak 2017).Footnote 22 For example, Restorative Justice Victoria offers a “victim healing circle” for victims who do not want to meet with the offender; for other people, it might include a “surrogate offender” who can answer questions for the victim (Restorative Justice Victoria n.d.). Computer-mediated communicative RJ may be preferable to in-person meetings (Paul and Borland 2021), but it must be remembered that domestic (and other) abuse may take place online or manifest as cyber “terrorism.” A victim’s concerns about online abuse need to be addressed by the facilitator assisting the victim selecting an alternative way to speak with the offender.

The Importance of the Facilitator

The facilitator for an RJ process must be trained to address the many issues that can arise during the process. For example, the facilitator should provide information and guidance about the choices victims (and, as appropriate, the offender) can make during the preparatory period before the RJ process.Footnote 23 Preparation is crucial and may, in some cases, take months (Urban et al. 2011; Mercer and Sten Madsen 2015; Restorative Justice Victoria n.d.). Proper preparation with the victim and offender individually in IPV cases, including how to express themselves and how to share information between one another through the facilitator, may help to alleviate the prospect of the offender manipulating the victim (Urban et al. 2011; Wood and Russell 2021). Timing matters and assessing “the right time” for the process to begin requires the facilitator’s careful consideration (although the actual decision rests with the victim): some victims may be ready for an RJ process soon after the event to address it, whereas other victims may not and may need more time, perhaps even after a formal CJS process has begun or concluded. A post-RJ-process follow up with the victim and offender individually is also integral to the success of the process. Like preparation, it may take considerable time if there are outstanding issues, or if the victim, in particular, is still experiencing trauma.

Facilitators must be sensitive to language. Edwards and Haslett (2011) found that those who committed violence and those who experienced it spoke about it differently. The focus of the former “has often been on having the facilitators understand, in detail, their position in the conflict, or how the other person was behaving in a way that was unfair or unreasonable,” while the person who has experienced violence speaks “much more about the fear, shame, pain, and/or how the event(s) have altered the way that they think or behave” (896). The offender speaks of “conflict,” which involves both them and the victim. The victim speaks of violence, which affects only them. Facilitators must be aware of the language they use, that, even if it is well intended (to appear non-judgmental or to “create a safe space for dialogue,” for example), they must ensure that “victims’ experiences of violence are accurately named and validated in order to ensure that victims do not suffer further harm” (Edwards and Haslett 2011, 899).

Facilitators must be cognizant of what the victim is seeking through the RJ process. The victim may want to ask questions (for instance, why me? were you following me?). They want to express their feelings about the nature of their harm (for example, in robbery cases, victims may be upset not only by the loss of money but the feelings of hurt).Footnote 24 By listening to the victim, the offender may gain empathy and a greater understanding of what the victim experienced. The offender may apologize; however, the victim is not required to accept the apology. The victim may forgive the offender, but they are not required to do so. The victim may want a say in determining the reparation by the offender (for example, restitution or volunteer work in the community) (Zehr and Umbreit 1982; Umbreit 1989; LCC 2003; Zehr 2015; Bargen et al. 2019; Ha 2020; Ndegwa and McDonald 2023). Facilitators need to be aware that a victim’s interest in the offender’s fate or background could lead to the victim placing the offender’s needs before their own, and eventually feeling “used” by the offender and even the RJ process (Bargen et al. 2019; Ha 2020).

A Short Note on Funding for RJ

The federal and provincial governments financially support RJ programs.Footnote 25 However, given the extensive role facilitators sometimes play, the need for training in various skills, the length of time it may take to implement RJ processes effectively, and other resource requirements, organizations offering RJ also seek funding from other sources. As Restorative Justice Victoria explains, “While restorative justice services are becoming more integrated within the Canadian legal system, they are not yet considered a part of it and therefore are not funded through the same structures as the police and court system in Canada. The province of British Columbia (BC) only provides restorative justice programs $2,500 yearly and their operating insurance. Like all restorative justice programs in BC, Restorative Justice Victoria is a non-profit organization and is required to do extensive fundraising to deliver programming.”Footnote 26 Funding often takes the form of time-limited project grants. A guidebook for victims about RJ notes, “A significant amount of funding is required to develop and sustain restorative justice programs.” And yet, the guidebook also cautions that the purpose of RJ is not to cut costs in the CJS, but rather to provide a process more responsive to victims (and offenders) (Restorative Justice in Canada 2022, 5). Providers and advocates maintain that they need sustainable core funding. As the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) recommends in Avenues to Justice, “Provincial/territorial and federal governments must establish long-term and sustainable funding for RJ/TJFootnote 27 programs specific for sexual violence. Such funding needs to also include ongoing supports such as counselling services or other culturally appropriate modalities of healing for survivors and people who cause harm.” (n.p.)

The Benefits of Victim-Centred RJ

In addition to answers to their questions, the benefits of RJ for victims may be considerable: the fact of being part of the process, gaining back some of the control they lost; alleviating concerns about whether the offender will return to harm them; satisfying their need to feel vindicated; accepting that the offender’s conduct was not their (the victim’s) fault (Hughes and Mossman 2004; O’Mahony and Doak 2017; Coker 2019; Bargen et al. 2019; Wood and Russell 2021). Furthermore, “[b]ecause [RJ] is flexible and less formal, it may be less threatening and more responsive to the individual needs of victims” (Daly and Stubbs 2006, 18).

For victims, the emotional impact of RJ may be more important than financial reparation (where that would be appropriate). “Simple gestures,” such as a handshake, an apology, or an undertaking not to repeat the offence, might not undo the harm, but “may still carry a beneficial role in helping victims move beyond anger and a sense of powerlessness by communicating that the offender has a personal desire to make amends” (O’Mahony and Doak 2017, 50). Victims also want “validation” from family and community: “They want their communities to take a clear and unequivocal stand in condemnation of the offence” (Herman 2005, 585).

Marshall (2018) suggests that the victim and offender “can effectively draw a line under the experience”: while this may be true in some cases, it may be unrealistic in others, since the offender may agree to pay restitution (such as a scheduled repayment to the victim) subsequent to the RJ encounter. Furthermore, even if the victim has overcome some of the feelings engendered by the wrongdoing, they may not all have dissipated. Indeed, some of the victims in the Department of Justice’s 2019 “A Listening Project” considered the RJ process to be only the positive start of a longer recovery process (Bargen et al. 2019).

Lessons can be learned by those designing RJ programs, as well as facilitators of specific RJ processes, from the reasons victims decline to participate in RJ: they do not think it is worth the effort; they are afraid of or are too angry with the offender; they believe the offender has ulterior motives in wanting to participate; too much time has passed or the victim believes the offender’s intent is to restore a previous (unwanted) relationship. Victims can also leave dissatisfied with their RJ experience: they felt rushed or pressured to participate, had inadequate preparation, lack of information, the facilitator was overbearing, they considered the process overly offender-centric, they felt pressures to forgive the offender, or they did not believe in the sincerity of the offender’s remorse or apology (LCC 2003, 47–48; O’Mahony and Doak 2017; Evans et al. 2018; Hansen and Umbreit 2018).Footnote 28 Some of these reasons can be addressed when speaking to victims about participating in RJ, if the occasion arises. Others can inform the planning for a specific RJ process.

A Note on the Involvement of “Community”

Canada’s Guidelines and Principles (2018) defines a community as “[a] group of people living in the same geographical area, or a group with a shared culture, identity or occupation.” A community may also be formed online (Paul and Borland 2021). It may be difficult to identify “the community” for the purposes of RJ, especially when the offender and victim do not live in the same area or are strangers; even identifying Indigenous communities is complicated by the movement of Indigenous people to urban areas (Berlin 2016; Manikis 2019; Manikis 2022).

Community involvement may be as a stakeholder or victim (as in the case of hate crimes, for example ([Fashola 2011]), or as a participant in determining reparation or to subsequently assist in the offender’s reintegration. Indigenous participants in the Department of Justice’s “A Listening Project” in 2019 said the community’s involvement and community-based ceremonial practices played a significant role for them in the RJ process (Bargen et al. 2019; Evans et al. 2019).

Community involvement may sometimes have negative ramifications for victims, however. Importantly, communities are not always benign towards victims and the predominant views may not be consistent with the goals of victims: for example, it may be that the predominant view in a community tends to be one of blaming victims’ conduct when they are sexually assaulted. As Herman writes, “[v]ictims often perceive quite accurately that their abusers are acting with the tacit permission, not active complicitly, of family, friends, church, or community” (2005, 572). Communities also have their own internal power struggles, which affect their involvement in RJ (LCC 1999; Hughes and Mossman 2004; O’Sullivan 2016; O’Mahony and Doak 2017; Wood and Russell 2021). If preparation includes members of the community, facilitators may learn about these issues and address them then or be prepared to deal with them in the RJ session, as they would any concerns about behaviour revealed during the preparation for RJ.

The design of victim-centred RJ requires appropriate facilitator training given their significant responsibilities,Footnote 29 as well as provision for their own safety. Some form of review incorporated into the design would help to maintain the standards for RJ processes and an emphasis on victims without short-changing offenders. Staff burnout has been identified as a difficulty for RJ programs and it may be that support is required for facilitators and others whose work with victims (and with offenders) may cause them trauma and stress (Badets 2023).

Conclusion

Victim-centred restorative justice program design requires victims to participate to ensure that the processes envisioned by the design encompass victim needs. Victims also need to be involved in planning the actual RJ processes in which they participate. This requires an ongoing review as victims’ needs and how to meet them may change over time. As Mika et al. (2004) write, victim community advocates should “[d]evelop guidelines and standards for programming in the victim community, including restorative justice initiatives that seek to ensure and maximize victim input and impact, and minimize further harm to victims” (6) (see also Bargen et al. 2018).

Victim-centred RJ may be accomplished relatively quickly, without serious challenges. Sometimes, though, it may take time and challenges will occur. The philosophy of RJ views crime fundamentally as a violation of people and relationships and sees victims, offenders and affected communities as key stakeholders in justice, but especially victims, who are directly affected (Zehr and Mika 1998). RJ philosophy begins with the questions: Who has been hurt? What are their needs? And, who is obligated to address them? (Zehr 2015, 193). How these questions can be translated into practice should be well known. If the future of RJ is to be more victim-centred, offering victims a true alternative to their experience in the criminal justice system, it will require education about the philosophy of RJ and what victim-centred practice entails; training for facilitators to enhance their understanding of, and capacity to deliver, victim-centred, trauma-informed RJ services; an ongoing commitment to develop and maintain practices that are faithful to RJ philosophy and principles; and significant funding so that RJ can reach its full potential in serving victims and survivors of crime.

References

Acorn, Annalise. 2004. Compulsory Compassion: A Critique of Restorative Justice. Vancouver, Toronto: UBC Press, 2004.

Badets, Nadine. “Supporting Victims of Crime Participate in Restorative Justice.” 2023. Victims of Crime Research Digest, No. 16, 26: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/rd16-rr16/pdf/rsd_vcrd2023-eng.pdf.

Banwell-Moore, Rebecca Mary. 2019. Restorative Justice: Understanding the Enablers and Barriers to Victim Participation in England and Wales [Thesis]. https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/26923/.

Bargen, Catherine, Alan Edwards, Matthew Hartman, Jennifer Haslett and Aaron Lyons. 2018. Serving Crime Victims through Restorative Justice: A Resource Guide for Leaders and Practitioners. AB: Alberta Restorative Justice Association. https://www.justoutcomesconsulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/serving-crime-victims-through-restorative-justice.pdf

Bargen, Catherine, Aaron Lyons, and Matthew Hartman. 2019. Crime Victims’ Experiences of Restorative Justice: A Listening Project (Department of Justice Canada). https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/cverj-vvpcj/cverj-vvpcj.pdf.

Berlin, Meagan. 2016. Restorative Justice Measures for Aboriginal Offenders: Developing an Expectation-Led Definition for Reform of Restorative Justice Practices. Appeal: Review of Current Law and Law Reform, vol. 21, no. 3, 2016 CanLIIDocs 74. https://canlii.ca/t/6rr.

British Columbia Crime Reduction through Restorative Justice (BCRJ). 2010. Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/safety/crime-prevention/community-crime-prevention/restorative-justice.

Burford, Gale. 2018. Keeping Complexity Alive: Restorative and Responsive Approaches to Culture Change. The International Journal of Restorative Justice vol. 1, no. 3, 356.: https://web.archive.org/web/20190429084146id_/https://www.elevenjournals.com/tijdschrift/IJRJ/2018/3/IJRJ_2589-0891_2018_001_003_002.pdf.

Burnett, Tamera, and Mandi Gray. 2023. “Avenues to Justice: Restorative and Transformative Justice for Sexual Violence.“ Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF). https://www.leaf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Avenues-to-Justice-Report-LEAF.pdf.

Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime. July 2022. Restorative Justice in Canada: What Victims Should Know (“Restorative Justice in Canada”). https://crcvc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Restorative-Justice_DISCLAIMER_Revised-July-2022_FINAL.pdf.

Chartrand, Larry, and Kanatase Horn. 2016. A Report on the Relationship between Restorative Justice and Indigenous Legal Traditions in Canada. Department of Justice Canada. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/rjilt-jrtja/index.html.

Chiste, Katherine Beaty. 2013. “The Origins of Modern Restorative Justice: Five Examples from the English-Speaking World” vol. 46, no. 1, UBC Law Review 33, 2013 CanLIIDocs 893. https://canlii.ca/t/7n6l6.

Coker, Donna. 2019. Feminist Response to Campus Assault in the Republican Era: Crime Logic, Intersectional Public Health, and Restorative Justice. In The Politicization of Safety: Critical Perspectives on Domestic Violence Responses, ed. Jane K. Stoever. New York: New York University Press, 2019, 171.

Community Legal Centres NSW. N.d. “Restorative Justice After Sexual Assault.” https://www.clcnsw.org.au/restorative-justice-after-sexual-assault.

Correction Service Canada Restorative Justice. 2022. https://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/restorative-justice/003005-5002-en.shtml.

Crosier, Kate. 2022. Restorative Justice and Gender-Based Violence (Project Willow: YWCA-CJI-CMW). https://thefeministshift.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Lit-Review-RJ-GBV.pdf.

Daly, Kathleen, 2000. Restorative Justice in Diverse and Unequal Societies.” Law in Context: A Sociological Journal vol. 17, 167. https://heinonline-org.greatlibrary.idm.oclc.org/HOL/Page?public=true&handle=hein.journals/lwincntx17&div=14&start_page=167&collection=fijournals&set_as_cursor=10&men_tab=srchresults.

Daly, Kathleen, and Julie Stubbs. 2006. “Feminist Engagement with Restorative Justice.” Theoretical Criminology vol. 10, 9. https://heinonline-org.greatlibrary.idm.oclc.org/HOL/Page?public=true&handle=hein.journals/thcr10&div=4&start_page=9&collection=agopinions&set_as_cursor=32&men_tab=srchresults.

Edwards, Alan and Jennifer Haslett. 2011. “Violence is Not Conflict: Why It Matters in Restorative Justice Practice.” Alberta Law Review vol. 48, no. 4, 893. https://albertalawreview.com/index.php/ALR/article/view/138/138.

Ending Violence Association of BC and Just Outcomes (EVABC). 2021. Restorative Justice and Gender-Based Violence: Revisiting the Conversation in British Columbia, Victims of Crime Research Digest, no. 14, n.p. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/rd14-rr14/p3.html#c.

European Forum for Restorative Justice. “Connecting People to Restore Just Relations.” https://www.euforumrj.org/en.

Evans, Jane, Susan McDonald, and Richard Gill. 2018. Restorative Justice: The Experiences of Victims and Survivors. Victims of Crime Research Digest, no. 11, 27. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/rd11-rr11/rd11-rr11.pdf.

Fashola, Sidikat (2011). Understanding the Community Impact of Hate Crimes: A Case Study. Victims of Crime Research Digest, no. 4. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/rd4-rr4/p4.html#sec4.

Federal-Provincial-Territorial Meeting of Ministers Responsible for Justice and Public Safety. “Principles and Guidelines for Restorative Justice Practice in Criminal Matters (Principles and Practice).” 2018. https://scics.ca/en/product-produit/principles-and-guidelines-for-restorative-justice-practice-in-criminal-matters-2018/.

Gladue, R. v., 1999 CanLII 679 (SCC), [1999] 1 SCR 688. https://canlii.ca/t/1fqp2; https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1695/index.do.

Goodmark, Leigh. 2018. “Restorative Justice as Feminist Practice.” International Journal of Restorative Justice vol. 1, 372. https://heinonline.org.greatlibrary.idm.oclc.org/HOL/Page?collection=agopinions&handle=hein.journals/ijrestore1&id=382&men_tab=srchresults.

Government of Canada. “Restorative Justice.” n.d. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/rj-jr/index.html.

Ha, Lisa. 2020. “Summary of Crime Victims’ Experiences of Restorative Justice: A Listening Project.” Victims of Crime Research Digest, no. 13, 39. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/rd13-rr13/rd13-rr13.pdf.

Hansen, Toran, and Mark Umbreit. 2018. “State of Knowledge: Four Decades Of Victim-Offender Mediation Research and Practice: The Evidence.” Conflict Resolution Quarterly vol. 36, 99. https://heinonline-org.greatlibrary.idm.oclc.org/HOL/Page?public=true&handle=hein.journals/cfltrq36&div=15&start_page=99&collection=usjournals&set_as_cursor=27&men_tab=srchresults.

Herman, Judith Lewis. 2005. “Justice from the Victim’s Perspective. Violence Against Women.” vol. 11, no. 5, 571. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7701236_Justice_From_the_Victim’s_Perspective.

Herman, Judith Lewis. 2023. “Truth and Repair: How Trauma Survivors Envision Justice.” YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUcSV-9mEmM&t=3175s.

Hobson, Jonathan, Anamika Twyman-Ghoshal, Rebecca Banwell-Moore, and Daniel P. Ash. 2022. “Restorative Justice, Youth Violence, and Policing: A Review of the Evidence,” 2022, vol. 11, no. 4 Laws | An Open Access Journal from MDPI, 2022 CanLIIDocs 1638. https://canlii.ca/t/7lnrb.

Hughes, Patricia, and Mary-Jane Mossman. 2004. Re-Thinking Access to Criminal Justice in Canada: A Critical Review of Needs, Responses and Restorative Justice Initiatives. Department of Justice Canada: Ottawa. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/rr03_2/index.html.

Illingworth, Heidi, and Nadia Ferrara. 2021. Information as a Gateway Right: Examining Complaints Related to the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime, Ottawa. https://www.victimsfirst.gc.ca/res/pub/IGR-IGR/index.html.

Indigenous Justice (Indigenous Justice PEI). Mi’kMaw Confederacy of PEI. https://mcpei.ca/program/indigenous-justice/.

Jeffries, Samantha, William R. Wood, and Tristan Russell. 2021. Adult Restorative Justice and Gendered Violence: Practitioner and Service Provider Viewpoints from Queensland, Australia. vol. 10, no. 1 Laws | An Open Access Journal from MDPI. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/10/1/13; 2021 CanLIIDocs 488. https://canlii.ca/t/t22l

Justice Canada. “Principles of Restorative Justice.” https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/rest.html#:~:text=Victims%2C%20offenders%20and%20the%20affected,the%20key%20stakeholders%20in%20justice.

Law Commission of Canada. 1999. From Restorative Justice to Transformative Justice: Discussion Paper. https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2022/jus/JL2-6-1999-eng.pdf.

Law Commission of Canada. 2003. Transforming Relationships Through Participatory Justice. https://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/JL2-22-2003E.pdf

Manikis, Marie. 2019. “Recent Developments in Victim and Community Participation in Criminal Justice.” Victims of Crime Research Digest, no. 12, 5. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/rd12-rr12/rd12-rr12.pdf

Manikis, Marie. 2022. “Impact Statements at Sentencing: Developments since the Victims Bill of Rights.” Victims of Crime Research Digest, no. 15, 30. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/rd15-rr15/docs/rsd_vcrd2022-eng.pdf

Marshall, Antonio F. 1999. Restorative Justice: An Overview. Home Office. As referenced in the Coventry Lord Mayor’s Committee for Peace and Reconciliation (2018). RESTORATIVE JUSTICE AN OVERVIEW (antoniocasella.eu).

Mercer, Vince, and Karin Sten Madsen (Marie Keenan & Estelle Zinnsstag, ed.). 2015. Doing Restorative Justice in Cases of Sexual Violence: A Practice Guide. Leuven Institute of Criminology (LINC), University of Leuven (KU Leuven). https://www.euforumrj.org/sites/default/files/2019-11/doing-restorative-justice-in-cases-of-sexual-violence_practice-guide_sept2015-1.pdf.

Mika, Harry, Mary Achilles, Ellen Halbert, Lorraine Stutzman Amstutz, and Howard Zehr. 2004. Listening to Victims – A Critique of Restorative Justice Policy and Practice in the United States. Federal Probation Journal vol. 68, n.p. https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/68_1_6_0.pdf.

Milward, David. 2023. “Arguments Against Restorative Justice” in Criminal Law: Canadian Law, Indigenous Laws & Critical Perspectives, ed. Benjamin Perrin et al., (Canadian Legal Information Institute). 2023 CanLIIDocs 316. www.canlii.org.

Ndegwa, Anna, and Susan McDonald. 2023. “Hate Crimes in Canada.” Victims of Crime Research Digest, no. 16, 4. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/rd16-rr16/pdf/rsd_vcrd2023-eng.pdf.

New Zealand Law Commission. 2015. “R136-The Justice Response to Victims of Sexual Violence: Criminal Trials and Alternative Processes (NZLC).” https://www.lawcom.govt.nz/sites/default/files/projectAvailableFormats/NZLC-R136-The-Justice-Response-to-Victims-of-Sexual-Violence.pdf.

Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA). 2020. A Review of Restorative Justice in Florida and Other States. Report No. 20-02. https://oppaga.fl.gov/Documents/Reports/20-02.pdf.

O’Mahony, David, and Jonathan Doak. 2017. Reimagining Restorative Justice: Agency and Accountability in the Criminal Process (Oxford: Hart Publishing). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320877937_Reimagining_Restorative_Justice_Agency_and_Accountability_in_the_Criminal_Process.

O’Sullivan, Sue. 2016. Supporting Victims of Gender-based Violence in the Criminal Justice System. Submission to the Status of Women Canada. Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. https://www.victimsfirst.gc.ca/vv/FSAGV-SVVFS/index.html.

Pali, Brunilda. 2016. “Briefing Paper about the Regulation of Restorative Justice in the Direction 2012/29/EU.” https://www.euforumrj.org/sites/default/files/2020-01/efrj-briefing-paper-rj-in-the-victims-directive.pdf.

Paul, Gregory D., and Ian M. Borton. 2021. Creating Restorative Justice: A Communication Perspective of Justice, Restoration, and Community. London: Lexington Books.

Pavelka, Sandra. 2016. “Restorative Justice in the States: An Analysis of Statutory Legislation and Policy.” Justice Policy Journal, vol. 2, no. 13 (Fall). https://www.cjcj.org/media/import/documents/jpj_restorative_justice_in_the_states.pdf.

Pfander, Sarah Mikva. 2020. “Evaluating New Zealand’s Restorative Promise: The Impact of Legislative Design on the Practice of Restorative Justice.” Kotuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online vol. 15, no. 1, 170. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/1177083X.2019.1678492?needAccess=true&role=button.

Ponic, Pamela, Colleen Varcoes, and Tania Smutylo. 2016. “Trauma- (and Violence-) Informed Approaches to Supporting Victims of Violence: Policy and Practice Considerations.” Victims of Crime Research Digest, no. 9, 3. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/rd9-rr9/rd9-rr9.pdf.

Randall, Melanie. 2013. Restorative Justice and Gendered Violence? From Vaguely Hostile Skeptic to Cautious Convert: Why Feminists Should Critically Engage with Restorative Approaches to Law. Dalhousie Law Journal vol. 36, no. 2, 461–499; CanLIIDocs 747. https://canlii.ca/t/t0zg.

Restorative Justice Victoria. https://www.rjvictoria.com/about-rjv/.

Sewak, Selby, Marina Bouchahine, Karen Liong, Josephine Pan, Chandla Serret, Adrian Saldarriaga, and Eisha Farrukh. 2019. A Report for HAQ Centre for Child Rights: Youth Restorative Justice: Lessons from Australia.McQuarie University, Sydney. https://haqcrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/restorative-justice-in-australia.pdf.

Shah, Sonya, Carl Stauffer, and Sarah King. 2017. Restorative Justice Listening Project Final Report (November 2017). Zehr Institute for Restorative Justice. https://zehr-institute.org/images/Restorative-Justice-Listening-Project-Final-Report.pdf.

Umbreit, Mark. 1986. Victim/Offender Mediation: A National Survey. Federal Probation vol. 50, no. 4, 53–6. Victim/Offender Mediation: A National Survey | Office of Justice Programs (ojp.gov).

Umbreit, Mark. 1989. Crime Victims Seeking Fairness, Not Revenge: Toward Restorative Justice. Federal Probation vol. 53 no. 3, 52–7. Crime Victims Seeking Fairness, Not Revenge: Toward Restorative Justice | Office of Justice Programs (ojp.gov).

Umbreit, Mark. 1999. Victim-Offender Mediation in Canada: The Impact of an Emerging Social Work Intervention. International Social Work vol. 42, no. 2, 215. (PDF) Victim—offender mediation as a social work practice (researchgate.net).

Umbreit, Mark, and Howard Zehr. 1996. Restorative Family Group Conferences: Differing Models and Guidelines for Practice. Federal Probation vol. 60, no. 3, 24–9. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/restorative-family-group-conferences-differing-models-and

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). 2020. Handbook on Restorative Justice Programmes (Second Edition). https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/20-01146_Handbook_on_Restorative_Justice_Programmes.pdf.

Urban, Lynn S., Jeananne Markway, and Kay Crockett. 2011. Evaluating victim-offender dialogue (VOD) for serious cases using Umbreit’s 2001 handbook: A case study. Conflict Resolution Quarterly no. 29, 3. Evaluating victim–offender dialogue (VOD) for serious cases using Umbreit's 2001 handbook: A case study - Urban - 2011 - Conflict Resolution Quarterly - Wiley Online Library.

Van Camp, Tinneke, and Jo-Anne Wemmers. 2016. Victims’ Reflections on the Protective and Proactive Approaches to the Offer of Restorative Justice. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Victims’ Reflections on the Protective and Proactive Approaches to the Offer of Restorative Justice: The Importance of Information | Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice. (utpjournals.press).

Weisberg, Robert. 2003. Restorative Justice and the Danger of Community. Utah Law Review vol. 1, 343–4. Utah Law Review 2003 Number 1 | University of Utah Partnerships | J. Willard Marriott Digital Library.

Wemmers, Jo-Anne Ph.D. 2017. Judging Victims: Restorative Choices for Victims of Sexual Violence. Victims of Crime Research Digest, no. 10, 12. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/rd10-rr10/rd10-rr10.pdf.

Why Me? n.d. https://why-me.org/.

Williams, Michelle Y. 2013. African Nova Scotian Restorative Justice: A Change Has Gotta Come. Dalhousie Law Journal vol. 36, no. 2, 419, CanLIIDocs 746.  https://canlii.ca/t/t0zf.

Woolford, Andrew, and Amanda Nelund. 2019. The Politics of Restorative Justice: A Critical Introduction. 2nd ed. Halifax & Winnipeg: Fernwood Publishing.

Young, Alan N., and Kanchan Dhanjal. 2021. Victims’ Rights in Canada in the 21st Century. Department of Justice Canada. 2021 CanLIIDocs 13572: https://canlii.ca/t/ttjz.

Zehr, Howard. 2015. Changing Lenses: Restorative Justice for Our Times. [1990]. 25th anniversary ed.: Kitchener, Ont., Herald Press.

Zehr, Howard, and Henry Mika. 1998. Fundamental Concepts in Restorative Justice. Contemporary Justice Review, vol. 1.

Zehr, Howard, and Mark Umbreit. 1982. Victim Offender Reconciliation: An Incarceration Substitute. Federal Probation vol. 46, no.4, 63–8. Victim Offender Reconciliation - An Incarceration Substitute? | Office of Justice Programs (ojp.gov)