The Effect of Retributive and Restorative Sentencing on Psychological Effects of Criminal Proceedings

Abstract

Retribution and restoration have been cited as two goals of sentencing for victims. Furthermore, there is a perspective that acknowledges the overlap of these two aims, seeking to obtain restoration through retribution. Achieving these goals may have implications for the victim's psychological well-being. The current study examines 101 victims of serious crime and how different outcomes may impact their perceptions of psychological well-being. Incarceration, community service, compensation from the offender, and compensation from the state, in addition to acquittals, are included as predictors of the dependent variable. After reviewing the literature on retributive and restorative sentencing, also making a distinction between compensation from the offender and compensation from the state, hierarchical regression analysis finds that compensation from the offender is the only sentencing option significantly associated with psychological effects.

Victim Satisfaction With the Criminal Justice System and Emotional Recovery

“…Miller (2003), in the same study as discussed previously, found that victims’ levels of satisfaction with police actions were positively associated with their perceptions of legal power (operationalized as a summed score of positive psychological change due to police action). Finally, using the same instrument as Orth (2002) to measure perceptions of positive psychological change resulting from criminal proceedings, Laxminarayan (2013a) found a multivariate positive association between satisfaction with procedure and perceptions of positive psychological change. However, in the same sample, she did not find a significant association between outcome satisfaction and perceptions of coping ability (Laxminarayan, 2013b).…”

“…They first asked subjects of the general population of the state of Kentucky to indicate whether they had been criminally victimized during a particular period and then asked them to comment upon the performance of the criminal justice system in their cases. All remaining studies used various types of convenience sampling to select participants, including recruitment via police departments (Frazier & Haney, 1996; Kunst, Rutten, & Knijf, 2013; Miller, 2003), public prosecution offices (Tontodonato & Erez, 1994), courts (Wemmers, 2013), victim/witness programs (Amick-McMullan, Kilpatrick, Veronen, & Smith, 1989), local crime victims’ rights organizations (Amick-McMullan et al, 1989), domestic violence intake centers (Bennett, Cattaneo, & Goodman, 2010), compensation funds (Kunst, 2011; Laxminarayan, 2012, 2013a, 2013b), victim support agencies (Laxminarayan, 2012; Orth, 2002, 2004 [studies 15a and 15b]; Orth & Maercker, 2004 [studies 16a and 16b]; Orth & Maercker, 2009), sexual assault referral centers (Maddox, Lee, & Barker, 2011), counseling agencies (Regehr, Alaggia, Lambert, & Saini, 2008), medical examiner offices (Thompson, Norris, & Ruback, 1996), and advertisements or presentations (Campbell et al, 1999; Campbell, Wasco, Ahrens, Sefl, & Barnes, 2001; Maddox et al, 2011; Regehr et al, 2008; Walsh & Bruce, 2011).…”

“…Fourteen studies failed to obtain an adequate response rate (Bennett et al, 2010; Kunst, 2011, Kunst et al, 2013; Laxminarayan, 2012, 2013b; Orth, 2002, 2004 [studies 15a and 15b]; Orth & Maercker, 2004 [studies 16a and 16b]; Orth & Maercker, 2009; Thompson et al, 1996; Tontodonato & Erez, 1994; Wemmers, 2013), while five other studies could not calculate response rates due to sampling method (Campbell et al, 1999, 2001; Maddox et al, 2011; Regehr et al, 2008; Walsh & Bruce, 2011). Three studies did not provide any information on response rates (Amick-McMullan et al, 1989; Laxminarayan, 2013a; Miller, 2003). The majority of studies that used a prospective design (Bennett et al, 2010; Kunst et al, 2013; Orth, 2004 [study 15b]; Orth & Maercker, 2004 [study 16b]) had retention rates <70%.…”

“…At least one outcome of interest was well measured in 12 studies (Bennet et al, 2010; Campbell et al, 1999, 2001; Kunst, 2011; Kunst et al, 2013; Laxminarayan, 2012, 2013a; Miller, 2003; Orth, 2002, 2004 [study 15a]; Orth & Maercker, 2004 [study 16a], 2009). One study failed to reliably measure the outcome of interest (Frazier & Haney, 1996), while two others exclusively used single items to assess outcomes of interest (Laxminarayan, 2013b; Regehr et al, 2008).…”

“…The other two prospective studies (Orth, 2004 [study 15b]; Orth & Maercker, 2004 [study 16b]) confined statistical analyses to computation of bivariate correlations between victim satisfaction and alterations in emotional states (i.e., scored 3 on the checklist for causal risk factors). Thirteen studies (Campbell et al, 1999, 2001; Laxminarayan, 2012, 2013a, 2013b; Miller, 2003; Norris & Thompson, 1993; Orth, 2002, 2004 [study 15a]; Orth & Maercker, 2004 [study 16a], 2009; Thompson et al, 1996; Tontodonato & Erez, 1994) assessed the association between victim satisfaction and emotional or cognitive states cross-sectionally and controlled for potential confounding in statistical analyses (i.e., scored 2 on the checklist for causal risk factors). The remaining studies used a cross-sectional design as well, but exclusively used bivariate analyses to address the association between victim satisfaction and emotional recovery (i.e., scored 1 on the checklist for causal risk factors).…”