From ‘what works’ to ‘how it works’ in research on restorative justice conferencing: the concept of readiness

Abstract

While many empirical studies on restorative justice conferencing have been conducted in the context of 'what works', research on 'how it works' is scarce. Little is known about how, in what conditions and for whom restorative justice conferencing 'works'. In this article, I aim to fill this gap in the literature by developing a concept of readiness. It refers to participants' attitudes and emotional dispositions towards, and knowledge about, restorative justice conferencing and the other parties prior to the face-to-face dialogue process. I suggest that the concept of readiness may be a key independent variable to understand how restorative justice conferencing works because it reminds us that a restorative journey may begin before a face-to-face dialogue between participants take places. This article concludes by offering how it can be used in research on restorative justice conferencing.

Apology–forgiveness cycle in restorative justice, but how?

“…Nonetheless, this cycle is important to consider given that offenders do not necessarily participate in the RJ processes voluntarily (Abrams et al, 2006; Choi et al, 2010a; Zernova, 2007). As Suzuki (2020) demonstrated through his concept of ‘readiness’, some offenders attend RJ meetings for ‘self-regarding’ reasons such as avoiding harsher punishment. Even when offenders participate in the RJ processes for self-serving motivations, the victim’s generous gift of forgiveness may alter the offender’s attitude to the degree that they may be motivated to repay the victims (Kim and Gerber, 2012).…”

“…Addressing the under-investigated topic of the apology–forgiveness cycle will not only help to improve the quality of RJ practices, leading to further benefits, but such focus is also in line with the recent call for a research shift in RJ from ‘what works’ to ‘how it works’ (e.g. Lanterman, 2021; Suzuki, 2020) because we do not know how this cycle may or may not occur in the RJ meetings. Taken together, examining the apology–forgiveness cycle greatly adds not only to the literature on apology and forgiveness in RJ but also to the overall RJ literature.…”

“…Since the benefits of RJ such as satisfaction, fairness, restoration, and legitimacy, have already been confirmed (e.g. Strang et al 2013;Wilson et al 2017), it is now the time to embark on a new research journey to advance our knowledge about how RJ 'works' (for example, see recent attempts by Bolitho 2017 andSuzuki andYuan 2021). Exploring the micro-mechanism of the apology-forgiveness cycle during RJ encounters can be part of this attempt.…”

Restitution as a Requirement for the Implementation of Restorative Justice Against General Crimes Related to Property

“…Previous research, among others: first, research conducted by Masahiro Suzuki (2020) found that the restorative justice process has the potential to alter participants' attitudes and behaviours. The concept of readiness can be used to examine the possibility of how the restorative justice process including preparation and follow-up does so.…”

“…It can be used to investigate whether and how the 'good' interaction between participants in restorative justice processes can help participants with low readiness move towards restorative outcomes. [5] Secondly, research conducted by Sahuri Lasmadi (2020) shows that the criminal justice system component consists of elements of the Police, Attorney General's Office, Court, and Correctional Institution as law enforcement officers. In applying the criminal justice system there are weaknesses and strengths.…”