22 November 2023

Image of Justitia and the heading "Restorative Justice & Domestic Violence"

The Potential of Restorative Justice in Domestic Violence Cases – an Alternative that Possibly Satisfies Victims’ Needs?

We, the IMPROVE partner FORESEE, have been dealing with a restorative approach based on conflict resolution and an approach to violence. Thereby, as part of our empirical fieldwork in the IMPRODOVA and IMPROVE projects, we contacted some professionals who are piloting restorative approaches in the context of domestic violence as well. According to the experiences of the involved frontline responders (FLRs) these practices provided effective answers to DV situations that served victims needs and effectively complemented retributive reactions to violence.

First, we find it important to define briefly restorative justice (RJ):

The approach of “restorative justice” (RJ) is based on a theory of justice that considers crime and wrongdoing to be an offence against an individual or community, rather than the state. As a consequence, restorative justice focuses on the needs of the victims and the offenders, as well as builds on the involvement of the community as a resource.

Victims always take an active role in an RJ-based process. Meanwhile, offenders are encouraged to take responsibility for their actions and to repair the harm they have done. Taking responsibility requires understanding how the behaviour affected others and acknowledging that it was harmful to others. Both parties participate in the process on a voluntary base.

Restorative justice offers an approach to domestic violence (DV) cases addressing victims’ needs and aiming at their empowerment, and at the same time offers an alternative for perpetrators to step out of the violence cycle. Applying restorative justice techniques in domestic violence cases is a divisive issue among restorative professionals, surrounded by criticism. We mention here only some of the arguments: Some question the validity of establishing a balanced, partner-based dialogue situation between two people, where one, the perpetrator, is in a powerful position and the other, the victim, is subordinated on various levels. Others underline that a lack of appropriate training for the facilitators related to the types and impacts of violence and DV screening techniques might also cause problems.

Nevertheless, we from FORESEE argue – based on the experiences of our empirical research – that RJ is a legitimate answer to DV that has great potential in certain situations. Furthermore, we claim that in some cases an RJ approach satisfies victims’ needs better than other, retributive approaches.

Restorative justice as an alternative for victims of domestic violence

RJ practices are officially not part of the unified protocols and daily routines of FLRs in Hungary. They are implemented ‘under the radar’, without labelling them as restorative practices. We interviewed a leader of a DV crisis ambulance[1], who implemented the RJ approach at a local level and elaborated a variety of practices that are based on restorative principles. In the following, we introduce some characteristics of that initiative and illustrate its efficiency.

The first aspect: Restorative response based on a thorough assessment.

When a person seeks assistance from a crisis ambulance, social workers evaluate the situation in detail. The organisation’s employees place great emphasis on comprehending the situation alongside the clients. To achieve this, (within the framework of appropriate preparation) they ask questions that are often used by RJ practitioners. As a result, professionals can evaluate the nature of violence and the reason behind it. In addition, they assess the participants’ ability and willingness to join the process. This is crucial, especially when the victims experience anxiety-related problems and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), hindering their ability to communicate their needs and reach a favourable outcome.

When crisis service practitioners assess a victim's situation, they especially focus on identifying the type of violence. They distinguish between intimate terrorism and common (or situational) couple violence (Johnson, 1995). Both forms of violence occur within the same household and involve perpetrators and victims who know each other. However, couple violence is quite common, involves both parties, may not be repeated or escalating, and is not motivated by a desire to control the other person. Furthermore, it is not primarily perpetrated by men. In this case, social and economic circumstances (like poverty, low social status, and poor living conditions) or mental health problems can be the underlying causes. This leads to situations where despite harm, there are no power imbalances between the parties. The director of the crisis ambulance believes that restorative justice discussions are only appropriate in these situations.

The second aspect: Active participation and responsibility of the victims.

Clients are always actively involved in the process. Social workers collaborate with them to develop a viable solution, considering a range of alternative options and their outcomes, such as filing a legal complaint, going to court, and the associated risks. The possibility of returning to the abuser is not deemed inappropriate or unacceptable by social workers. The organization can discuss even this option with the victim and explain its consequences. They think that if they work together to consider a scenario, put the responsibility on the clients, and make decisions with the clients instead of for them, the clients will feel in charge of their decisions. As one of our interviewees put it, it is important to

[1] Prevention is the core task of these organisations; professionals want to handle conflicts and family issues before severe violence occurs. Crisis ambulances provide information, legal and psychological counselling and further workshops, and training.

“[...] teach the victims not to take the role of the victims all the time and it is important to keep their boundaries. So the more they do not keep their boundaries and allow certain things to happen, the more often they will be hurt.”

The third aspect: Involvement of all the stakeholders.

During their search for solutions, the victims and professionals might choose to include even the perpetrators in the process. They can be involved only if voluntariness is guaranteed:

“[...] we always wait for them to volunteer. They shouldn’t feel that there is an agency or a professional putting pressure on them and thus they are obligated to participate.” (director of the crisis ambulance)

Involvement of the supportive community of the victims is also an option. Those working at the crisis ambulance whom we have interviewed know that there might be no such supportive community behind their clients. It should be also underlined that genuine support for victims is only possible through a community that has morality. If an informal network does not consider domestic violence unacceptable, then efforts to involve it could do more harm than good.

The fourth aspect: Safe space.

Frontline responders promote a restorative approach even in the institutions that provide shelter for abused women and children, with the aim to reduce the harmful effects of inadequate criminal and official procedures. In some situations, fathers can be also victims of violence. However, the Hungarian network of crisis care offers homes mainly for women and children. Male victims are in a marginalized position, with a scarce opportunity for accommodation. Thereby these restorative practices focus on female victims and their children. In Hungary, lengthy and bureaucratic judicial procedures often fail to meet the needs of victims; they may have to wait for several years for judicial decisions. This makes them extremely vulnerable to their abusers during this period: if there's no restraining order in place and the perpetrator has not received any criminal charges, children and fathers have the right to personally meet. However, such meetings can be seen as risks that might cause severe harm to the victims. Social workers concluded that it is safer to provide a secure framework and space for father visits within the shelters, rather than forcing the mother to leave the safe environment and meet the father outside the institution. As we recognised during the empirical fieldwork, social workers carry out restorative dialogues within the shelters. The meetings at the shelters aim to detect risks, increase the perpetrator's awareness about the victim's situation, and agree on the visit's framework, which must always align with the victims' needs. The victims' choice to meet the perpetrator voluntarily is a critical requirement for the visit.

Conclusion

Examining these practices in operation, we think that those approaches which contain these restorative elements not only empower the victims to understand their rights to services but also give effective and safe tools to frontline responders. Furthermore, these restorative justice practices have the potential to satisfy victims’ needs better than the typical, institutional answers to domestic violence, especially in those settings where institutional frontline response suffers from several, systemic weaknesses. We argue that these elements could be part of official procedures, with the potential to bridge systemic problems, enhance cooperation among the different sectors and agencies, balance the weaknesses of the institutional answers and improve the frontline response to DV in general.

Source:

Johnson, M.P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence; two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57(2), 283 – 294. 

About the authors

Gabor Hera, researcher at Foresee Research Group

Gabor Hera is a sociologist who earned his PhD in philosophy of science. He has been responsible for several national and international research programs focusing on domestic violence. In addition, he is interested in the way the approach of restorative justice can be applied in different social contexts. He was a lecturer of methodology courses at four universities for 25 years.

Dora Szego, researcher at Foresee Research Group

Dora Szego is a sociologist, who has been working in the field of criminal justice for a decade. Her experience covers vulnerable victims and perpetrators in the criminal justice system, prevention of ill-treatment, restorative justice and research that promotes social change in different contexts.