2015
DOI: 10.1080/15564886.2014.1000557
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Restoring Choice: The Relationship Between Offense Seriousness, Intervening Time, and Victims’ Responses to the Offer of Restorative Interventions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
4
1
Order By: Relevance
“…A further limitation of these studies is that only crimes committed in the 12 months prior to the survey are covered in the victimization module. Previous studies have found that time was a moderator of the relationship between severity and willingness to meet (Wyrick & Costanzo, 1999;Batchelor, 2017;Zebel et al, 2017), but in the exploratory analysis of the 2015À17 CSEW data there did not appear to be any effect of time passing on willingness to meet the offender. A 12-month period appears to be too short to explore the effects of this variable.…”
Section: Limitationscontrasting
confidence: 60%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A further limitation of these studies is that only crimes committed in the 12 months prior to the survey are covered in the victimization module. Previous studies have found that time was a moderator of the relationship between severity and willingness to meet (Wyrick & Costanzo, 1999;Batchelor, 2017;Zebel et al, 2017), but in the exploratory analysis of the 2015À17 CSEW data there did not appear to be any effect of time passing on willingness to meet the offender. A 12-month period appears to be too short to explore the effects of this variable.…”
Section: Limitationscontrasting
confidence: 60%
“…The possibility of a peak in willingness at the midlevel of severity would align with qualitative studies in which some victims were unwilling to participate because the offense was not serious enough, while others were unwilling because the offense was too serious (Gustafson, 2005; Umbreit et al, 2002; Wemmers & van Hecke, 1992 1 ), implying that there is a midlevel of severity at which they would be most likely to participate. No studies have explicitly tested the hypothesis that the relationship between severity and victim willingness to communicate is curved, although findings from my prior research are indicative of a nonlinear relationship (Batchelor 2017).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Research has shown that different crimes can activate different values, and values only influence behaviour when they are relevant in that context, therefore the expression of values during the restorative justice process may be dependent on the circumstances of the crime (Feather, 1998;Schwartz, 2012). Specifically, the type of offence that occurred, perceived severity of the offence, relationship history, and the time that has elapsed have all been shown to influence the likelihood of a victim taking part in restorative justice (Batchelor, 2017;Feather, 1998;Paul, 2015;Zebel et al, 2017). Facilitators in this study often stated that the presence of characteristics reflective of values were dependent upon the type of case and found it much easier to discuss the importance of things in the lives of specific individuals, which suggests that these factors may be moderating any relationship between values and restorative justice participation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Paul (2015) suggests that the decision by victims and offenders to participate is determined by a variety of situational, personal, and relational factors. Some situational factors which have received attention to date are that of offence seriousness and time since the offence (Batchelor, 2017;Zebel, Schreurs, & Ufkes, 2017).…”
Section: Role Of Personal Values In the Restorative Justice Processmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Both accidentally encountered on the street, in a bar, etc., and during an intimate partnership. We suppose that the following scientific publications should be included in the list of the most significant recent research on this problem (Batchelor, 2017;Chafai, 2017;Classen et al, 2005;Começanha & Maia, 2018;Conley et al, 2017;Crandall et al, 2005;Daigle et al, 2009;De Àvila, 2018;Decker & Littleton, 2017;Djikanović et al, 2012;Donnelly & Calogero, 2018;Elmes et al, 2017;Fairchild & Rudman, 2008;Franklin & Menaker, 2018;Jayasuriya et al, 2011;Krahé et al, 2014;Kulig & Sullivan, 2017;Lindquist et al, 2013;Lisak & Miller, 2002;Littleton et al, 2008;Littleton & Dodd, 2016;Lown & Vega, 2001;Madan & Nalla, 2016;Mellgren et al, 2017;Natarajan et al, 2017;Rühs et al, 2017;Sambisa et al, 2010;Schuster et al, 2016;Vives-Cases & Parra 2016). This group includes victims of rape in a hidden -latent -form, but the study of statistics and behavior of latent victims in the scientific literature received very little attention (Grubb & Turner, 2012;Littleton et al, 2018;Loughnan et al, 2013;Maiuro, 2015;Strain et al, 2015;Wilson & Miller, 2015;Wood & Stichman, 2018).…”
Section: Sexual Violence Against Womenmentioning
confidence: 99%