Restorative conferences such as victim offender mediation (VOM) have proliferated over the past 20 years (Bazemore and Schiff 2005; Umbreit et al. 2005; United Nations Office for Drugs and Crime [UNODC] 2006). Research indicates that these approaches are often effective in yielding high rates of participant satisfaction, promoting high restitution completion rates (Umbreit et al. 1998, 2001, 2002, 2005) and reducing recidivism (Bonta et al. 2006; Nugent et al. 2003). In addition, some evidence indicates that restorative conferences effectively addresses the harm caused by offenses including family violence and holds offenders accountable (Bazemore and Schiff 2005; Calhoun and Pelech 2010; Pennell and Burford 2000; Umbreit and Vos 2000; UNODC 2006).

Despite considerable research evidence of the efficacy of restorative processes, some argue that research has contributed relatively little to an in-depth understanding of how restorative justice works in practice (Daly 2006; Harris et al. 2004; Hayes and Daly 2003; Umbreit et al. 2002). According to Bazemore and Green (2007) this is due to the lack of analyses of the processes which are critical to determine how they work, how they are implemented, or why these processes are effective. This calls for research which describes and interprets the processes used.

In this article, we examine qualitative research data from a naturalistic case study on a VOM program operating in a mid-sized Midwestern city in the United States (Choi 2008). During the data collection phase of this project, prolonged observations were made of the processes and 37 individuals were interviewed for 34 interviews including crime victims, youths who committed crimes and their families, and service providers (e.g., mediators and referral sources). The overarching research question was: “What are the participants’ experiences in a restorative justice context?” The goal was to develop a better understanding of restorative justice processes from insiders’ perspectives. In this article we examine some ways restorative processes worked for youths who committed crimes and involved in a VOM. The focused research question was; “What are the youths’ perceptions on their experiences in the restorative justice processes?” While we discuss other themes that emerged from the original study elsewhere (Choi and Gilbert 2010; Choi and Severson 2009), we believe that analyzing the youths’ narratives about their experiences may reveal some insights leading to new knowledge needed to develop effective restorative justice practices and policies particularly for youths, which requires a focus more on exploring within variation of restorative justice conferencing rather than comparing its effectiveness to other preventive or rehabilitative approaches (Hayes and Daly 2003). Broader application of effective restorative justice program may help more youths bring their lives back on track, heal victims and promote safer communities.

Review of Literature

Restorative Justice for Youthful Offenders: Rationale, Definition, and Practice

The criminal justice system primarily under the retributive justice paradigm has predominantly focused on the punishment of offenders including youthful offenders (UNODC 2006; Zehr 1995). Accordingly, the mounting expenditures for incarceration have become one of the biggest challenges facing the criminal justice system (Elsner 2006; Jacobson 2005). While the public seems to indicate some mixed opinions on “get tough” with young offenders, policies consistently dictate that we should “get tough” with young offenders to “teach them a lesson” by prosecuting them with as stiff prison sentences as adults (Applegate et al. 2009; Hogeveen 2005; Treger and Allen 1997, p. 25). Zehr (1995, p. 34) also argued that prison has become “the normal response to crime” even for young offenders. However, research increasingly indicates that solely punitive sanctions (e.g., boot camps and simple incarceration) may not reduce recidivism or turn their lives around for some young offenders (Butts and Mears 2001; Cullen and Gendreau 2000; Jacobson 2005; MacKenzie 2000; Tonry and Petersilia 1999).

Zehr (1995) argued that punishment is not necessarily an answer for young offenders because in many cases a crime is a gesture for help. Punishment-focused approaches may not allow young people to understand the consequences of their actions from victims’ perspectives, which takes away the opportunity for young people to act on their responsibility by addressing victims’ needs and harms done (UNODC 2006; Zehr 1995, 2002). Zehr (2002, p. 16) noted, “Real accountability involves facing up to what one has done. It means encouraging offenders to understand the impact of their behavior…and urging them to take steps.” This means that policies and practices for youths should do more than just catch and punish them (Gilbert and Settles 2007). This gives a rationale for restorative justice, especially for youths, to rise.

Restorative justice is not only a philosophy with underlying values but also a justice approach that expands victims’ rights and provides community-based alternatives to punishment-oriented justice policy and practice (Amstutz 2009; Braithwaite 2002; Van Ness and Strong 2010). Restorative justice begins with recognizing the importance of the interpersonal dimension of crime and the role of relationships between and among people (Llewellyn 2007; Van Ness and Strong 2010; Zehr 1995). In this view, crime is not only a violation of law but also a violation of people and relationship (Llewellyn 2007; Zehr 1995). This view leads to restorative processes that place both victims and offenders in roles that encourage active, interpersonal, and collaborative problem solving to repair the damaged relationships (Llewellyn 2007; UNODC 2006; Zehr 1995, 2002).

Restorative processes not only promote healing and empowerment among victims, they also promote justice policies and practices that produce a safe and livable society (Bazemore and Schiff 2005; Pranis 2001; Zehr 1995, 2002). For offenders, the processes provide an opportunity to take responsibility for their acts by making amends, providing reparation, and repairing the broken relationships (Braithwaite 2002; UNODC 2006; Van Ness and Strong 2010; Zehr 1995). Zehr (2002, p. 28) summed up these as “putting things right.”

Many different formats exist in practicing the restorative justice philosophy (Boyack et al. 2004; UNODC 2006). Some of the most common practices include Victim Offender Mediation (VOM), Family Group Conferencing (FGC), and healing/peacemaking circles (Circles) (Bazemore and Schiff 2005; Lightfoot and Umbreit 2004; MacRae and Zehr 2004; Pranis 2005; OJJDP 1998; Umbreit et al. 1998; Zehr 2002). Of these, VOM, the focus of the study, has earned the greatest popularity in the United States, whereas FGC and Circles are more recent introductions (Bazemore and Schiff 2005; Bazemore and Umbreit 2003; Lemley 2001).

According to Bazemore and Umbreit (2003), VOM brings a victim(s) and an offender(s) together voluntarily in dialog using a mediator(s) to obtain answers, repair harms and make amends to the victim in a safe and controlled setting. According to Lightfoot and Umbreit (2004) while 29 states in the United States have VOM or VOM-type statutory authority, the levels of VOM provisions are various in each state from extremely comprehensive with details on how to run the program to a simple reference to VOM within a list of sentencing alternatives. In 2005, Bazemore and Schiff reported almost 800 restorative justice programs (with predominant numbers of VOM) running in the United States, they also observed a range of variation among VOMs. Many studies report these variations. For example, Presser and Hamilton (2006) identified that the VOM program they observed did not allow family members at the VOM, the VOM program we report in this study encouraged the referred youths’ family members’ participation and input. Although many VOMs employ a four-phase process that includes intake, preparation for mediation, mediation, and follow-up (Umbreit and Bradshaw 1999), the current program lacked the follow-up phase. The current VOM also followed a roughly structured format included introductions, explanation of the process, discussion of the offense as well as plan for repairing the harm.

Restorative Justice for Youthful Offenders: Prior Research and Reintegrative Shaming

Restorative justice is now recognized as an evidence-based approach in meeting the needs of both victims and offenders (Umbreit et al. 2005). As with the theoretical assumptions, evaluation indicates that restorative justice programs have provided a number of benefits particularly to youthful offenders. Where comparison groups were studied, youths who participated in the restorative justice programs were significantly more likely to report having experienced fairness in their cases and more likely to successfully complete their obligation for restitution than the comparison groups; offenders who have participated in a restorative process have higher rates of reaching an agreement for restoration; and they also have higher rates of compliance with agreements than comparison groups (Umbreit et al. 1998, 2001, 2002, 2005). Offenders often rate restorative processes as more satisfying than the conventional criminal justice system (Umbreit et al. 1998, 2001, 2002, 2005).

Several studies report a difference in recidivism (lower among VOM participants than comparison groups) despite being statistically insignificant due mostly to low effect size (Umbreit 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995; Umbreit et al. 2001, 2002, 2005). These authors concluded that restorative justice programs are at least as viable as traditional approaches when it comes to recidivism reduction. As with Nugent et al. (2003), recently Bonta et al. (2006) also reported results from a meta-analysis of 39 restorative justice studies in which they found that restorative justice interventions were associated with small but statistically significant reductions in recidivism; the association becomes stronger with low-risk offenders. Recently Calhoun and Pelech (2010) reported that participation in a restorative program was associated with more positive intermediate outcomes such as accountability, relationship repair and closure for young people than the participation in a conventional justice process. While most studies assessed the effects of restorative justice programs on reoffending by comparing the programs with other interventions, Hayes and Daly (2003) explored the within variation of restorative conferencing on reoffending to identify variables related to the processes that may play a role in modifying an offender’s reoffending. In examining relationships between various variables, Hayes and Daly (2003) found that when young offenders were observed to be remorseful during an encounter with victims and when the observers recorded the restorative justice program as having ends with a positive account of repair and goodwill, then the offenders were less likely to reoffend. Their multivariate analyses added that when young offenders were observed to be remorseful and when they participated in conferences in which outcomes were decided by genuine consensus among participants, they were less likely to reoffend. These findings support what Maxwell and Morris (2002) also observed, in which they reported one of the factors that is likely to be related to reconviction of young offenders was not being remorseful. These studies emphasize the importance of being remorseful as a result of participating in restorative conferencing for changing the offenders’ behaviors.

Despite some evidence that restorative approaches work in positive ways, there is a gap in the literature when it comes to how and why restorative approaches work for youthful offenders (Bazemore and Green 2007). The lack of process-oriented studies calls for researchers to describe and critically assess restorative justice processes with victims and offenders by assessing their experiences. In doing so, gaining data from multiple restorative justice participants’ perspectives is also needed considering the differing positions such as victims and offenders.

Reintegrative shaming theory (Braithwaite 1989) has acquired wide recognition in the fields of restorative justice. This theory provides groundwork for practitioners to respect fundamental human rights among offenders while disapproving their wrongdoings (Braithwaite 1989; Harris et al. 2004). However, Hayes and Daly (2003) noted that the concept of reintegrative shaming can be different from the theory of restorative justice in some ways. For example, while reintegrative shaming describes primarily how a conference may affect an offender, restorative justice explains values and principles regarding a broader set of interactions among participants such as an offender(s), a victim(s), a facilitator(s), and supporters (Hayes and Daly 2003). While acknowledging the differences between the two, we believe that the theory of reintegrative shaming may provide a useful framework for us especially in facilitating a deeper understanding on how the restorative justice processes helped some youths. It also provides us an analytical lens for a further analysis.

Braithwaite (1989, p. 18) argued, “Once a person is stigmatized with a deviant label, a self-fulfilling prophecy unfolds as others respond to the offender as deviant.” For Braithwaite, this is how a retributive or punishment-focused justice approach works. Braithwaite (1989, 1996) observed that the core claims of retributive justice as focusing only on stigmatization of offenders in disrespectful and humiliating ways that are counterproductive by creating outcasts rather than law-abiding citizens. Instead, Braithwaite (1999) believed that disapproval of the offender can and should be communicated within a continuum of respect. In an attempt to explain why and how a restorative justice dialogue can, if possible, prevent crime (e.g., reducing recidivism) more effectively than punishment-focused justice approaches, Braithwaite (1996, p. 69) noted, “Social disapproval is more effective (than stigmatization) when embedded in relationships overwhelmingly characterized by social approval.” Therefore, restorative justice seen through the theory of reintegrative shaming works in a way that respects the offender as essentially good but demonstrates strong disapproval of their criminal acts (Braithwaite 1989).

Consequently, Braithwaite and Mugford (1994) proposed that it is possible for young offenders to create new identities through a reintegrative ceremony such as VOM in having a discourse with victims, close acquaintances, and mediators. Through these processes what Braithwaite wanted was to invoke emotions like remorse among offenders (Harris et al. 2004). Harris et al. (2004) noted that it is often empathy that leads to the emotions including remorse, guilt and shame among offenders if they experience respect while their wrongdoing is disapproved. Maxwell and Morris (2002) also noted that what research shows as the most important mechanism that invokes remorse among offenders is empathy learned from understanding the effects of offending on victims. As discussed, the dynamics in restorative conferences are complicated (Harris et al. 2004; Hayes and Daly 2003; Maxwell and Morris 2002), but what seems important at least for offenders not to commit a crime again is to feel remorseful for what they did through understanding what victims went through from listening to their accounts and that may invoke some empathy among offenders which may cause remorse. This calls for in-depth qualitative study in which the conferences are observed while they are occurring (Harris et al. 2004).

Methodology

Research Design

Victim offender mediation as a restorative justice approach involves a complex system of stakeholders such as victims, offenders, their supporters and service providers (Bazemore and Umbreit 2003; Zehr 2002). The varying perspectives and complex interactions between/among multiple participants often create multiple realities in restorative justice processes (Zehr 2002). This complexity called for a qualitative research design for this study, which provided us an opportunity to explore the experiences of restorative justice participants in their natural life settings (e.g., the VOM offices, homes and office spaces) by both observing and interviewing the participants. In making observation and conducting interviews, we also utilized qualitative case study approaches to capture the collective nature of the participants’ experiences (i.e., each case is unique in many ways—the nature of the crime, differences in participants, etc.). We defined a case as a particular victim offender mediation session composed of an adult victim(s), a youth(s) and his or her family member(s), the mediator(s), and a referral source (s). To maximize the opportunity to learn from each case, we examined four different VOM cases. This method provided a suitable design for assessing complex personal experiences of VOM participants within their unique case environments (Stake 2005), which allowed us to capture the variations/commonalties in varying perspectives (e.g., victims’ and offenders’) and in different cases (i.e., unique case environments).

To ensure the trustworthiness of the study (Lincoln and Guba 1985; Padgett 2007), we made an effort to triangulate the data sources (i.e., we conducted interviews with various participants such as young offenders and adult victims; we took field notes from both observation and interviews to cross validated the data later; we reviewed case records in the VOM); we conducted member-checks after each interview to confirm our interpretation is matched to the participants’ interpretation of their experiences; we also conducted a comprehensive member check with most participants at their homes/offices (i.e., some of them were not available during this process) after completing a preliminary case study report; and we sought peer debriefing on a regular basis during the research process.

We obtained approval from an academic Institutional Review Board (IRB) prior to participant recruitment to ensure the research design provided adequate protections for the participants. Each participant signed a consent form that was approved by the IRB. For youth participants, we obtained the parent/guardian’s permission for the interviews. We protected the confidentiality of the participants by deleting identifying information and replacing names with pseudonyms. We provided a $10 honorarium to compensate the time and effort of participants. We secured the audio tapes, transcripts, field notes, and reflexive logs in a locked place.

Sampling

Two agency-based program coordinators helped in recruiting the potential participants for this study. We asked them to provide potential participants with information about the research project when their first person-to-person contact was made at the VOM office. In explaining the research project, the coordinators informed the potential participants that a researcher would be present as an observer in their VOM session and would meet them for additional interview(s) after the mediation concluded if they agree to participate. The research design ensured that the researcher did not have any information about whether they decided to participate in the study or not during the observation. The program coordinators emphasized to participants that their participation is completely voluntary and their decision would not have any impact on their case. While several victims did not want to participate in the research, fewer offenders and their parents refused. We made contacts for follow-up interviews with participants who had given us permission to do so after the VOM.

Based on the insights learned from the observation (e.g., the nature of referred cases), we employed a purposeful sampling method including “typical” and “critical” cases to maximize the variability in the experiences of the participants (Lincoln and Guba 1985; Patton 2002; Stake 2005). For example, the typical case sampling included two misdemeanor cases that roughly represented the crimes that the VOM commonly dealt with; petty theft and property vandalism. The critical case sampling included two atypical cases (unusual caseloads) with violent felony charges which were not commonly dealt within the VOM. Although using only typical cases would have increased the representativeness of the caseload of the VOM program, the inclusion of the critical cases maximized the opportunity to learn from extreme cases (Stake 2005).

Some characteristics that represent the VOM included: (1) it was a part of a formal diversion program; (2) it did not involve any arbitration or any legal counsel for victims; (3) it was operated in a voluntary sector with partial funding from a government agency; (4) it considered offender rehabilitation to be an important aspect of the process; (5) it received referrals primarily from the courts and from an Intermediate Intervention Program (IIP), on the recommendation of the District Attorney (DA); (6) it recruited most volunteer mediators from the community; and (7) it involved many cases with multiple adult victims and multiple youthful offenders and their parents, and multiple mediators. We made an effort to reflect these characteristics in our sampled cases.

Data Collection

Semi-structured interviews and observation were the primary data collection methods. First, for interviews we developed five different sets of semi-structured interview questionnaires. Each interview lasted about 1 h and occurred in settings where the participants felt the most comfortable and safe, including the offices of the VOM program and the homes or offices of the participants. We audio recorded all interviews and transcribed them in verbatim later. We stopped interviewing after conducting 34 interviews with 37 participants (three interviews occurred with two participants at the same time) from four different cases when saturation of information was indicated, meaning we began to hear same information repeatedly. The participants included eight juvenile offenders, eight parents, eight adult victims, 10 mediators, and three staff members from referral sources.

Second, observation over a 1-year period was another source of data, mainly complementing and/or validating the interview data. The prolonged period of observation also allowed us to gain some insights into the typical VOM processes used such as the working styles of volunteer mediators as well as program coordinators; these insights shaped the design of the current study. One researcher observed the VOM sessions inside the room while sitting at the table with the participants or situating himself in a corner of the room. When each VOM session began, the researcher introduced himself as an observer for a research project, which they were already informed from an earlier meeting with the program coordinator. Given the confidential nature of mediation, especially with regard to the involvement of victims and the referred youths, interactions with participants were minimal. Given the scope and goal of the study, the focus for the observation was the interactions between/among participants (e.g., who said what, when, and how, and the ensuing responses, including verbal/nonverbal expressions).

Data Analysis

The qualitative data analysis was an ongoing process from the first contact in the field to the final report (Rodwell 1998). Since no generally accepted guideline or consensus exist for analysis and data display in qualitative studies (Creswell 2003; Lincoln and Guba 1985), we closely and consistently followed the method of constant comparison for data analysis, meaning we continuously and simultaneously collected and processed the data for comparison between/among cases and varying perspectives (Glaser and Strauss 1967, cited in Lincoln and Guba 1985).

In specific, we printed and read the interview transcripts several times. Then, first by using ATLAS.ti (Muhr 2005), a software for qualitative analysis, we unitized all interview transcripts and field notes. Second, we assigned a code (a name) to each unit. Third, after an initial analysis, we developed a comprehensive code list to begin a systematic comparison of codes between and within cases, and between and among various perspectives. This allowed us to identify categories, sub-categories, and themes. Lastly, we stopped the data analysis process when new information failed to reveal additional viable categories and themes.

Findings

Before we discuss the findings, it is important to be familiar with each case because we examine the emerged themes within their contexts. This approach allows us to answer the focused research question “What are the youths’ perceptions on their experiences in the restorative justice processes?” within each case’s context, which leads to knowledge about the processes that may hold true across cases. In so doing, we assigned a name to each case for easy reference. The first two cases represent typical cases, whereas the last two cases represent critical cases (Patton 2002; Stake 2005).

The first case is the “Department Store Case.” In this case, a 16-year-old Caucasian female named Mary (all names are pseudonyms) participated in the VOM with her father. The crime involved a misdemeanor theft from a department store where she worked. Mary had given unauthorized employee discount (amounted $600) to her friends. A manager at the department store participated in the VOM as a representative of the company.

The second case is the “Mailbox Baseball Case.” In this case, three Caucasian youths, named Ryan, Josh, and Kevin, participated in a VOM accompanied by their parents. The youths were 16 and 17 years old respectively. They engaged in the criminal damage to mailboxes, which they called “Mailbox Baseball” among their friends, for eight families. Of these, three victims participated in the VOM.

The third case we named as the “Car Case.” In this case, three Caucasian youths including 13-year-old Casey and two 14-year-olds Andy and Jesse participated in the VOM with their parents. Three victims whose cars were severely vandalized participated. The restitution was approximately $6,000. While the youths were charged with criminal damages including four misdemeanor and three felony charges, some damages included spray-painted derogatory words on school buildings.

We named the last case as the “Involuntary Manslaughter Case.” In this case, Dan, a 17-year-old African American male, and his mother and a biological father participated in the VOM. Dan was prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter in the death of his stepfather. Two members of the victim’s family, a stepdaughter and a cousin of the victim, participated. The VOM took place after two years of incarceration.

When Juvenile Offenders Meet Their Victims: The Emerged Themes

In the following, we describe the themes that emerged in examining the upper mentioned research question. While in this article the youths’ perceptions are most important, we cross-validate their perceptions with those of other stakeholders, if needed. In short, the youths overwhelmingly reported that the VOM experiences helped them appreciate the unseen effects of their crimes as well as realize the full extent of the consequences of their actions. We found that the youths described their experiences in the VOM primarily in two ways. First, they agreed upon that the VOM was “not an easy punishment to take.” In this regard, they focused on sharing their uneasiness of meeting their victims. In the following, we examine what caused the “uneasiness.” Second, they articulated that the VOM was a “good punishment” for them in roughly four ways: (1) a learning opportunity; (2) an opportunity to see different aspects of their crimes; (3) an opportunity for a better understanding of their victims; and (4) an opportunity for putting a human face on a crime.

Theme 1:“Not an Easy Punishment to Take” for the Youths

Prior to VOM, some victims anticipated that the VOM would enable the youths to “get-off easy” from their crimes. For example, a victim from the Car Case said “we thought… because they [the youths] were young and maybe the area we were in, they [DA’s] were letting them off easy.” However, contrary to such anticipations, the VOM did not allow them to “get-off easy.” The following section focuses on the youths’ stories and their experiences about why these processes were difficult for them. Prior to participating in a VOM session, there were many things that the youths had to complete.

Except for the Involuntary Manslaughter Case, the Immediate Intervention Program (IIP) was the primary referral source for the other cases. According to the IIP staff, the offenders needed to complete community service ranged from 10 to 40 h in advance of the VOM. For example, the youths from the Car Case completed 40 h of community service before their VOM. Following their community service they were expected to complete VOM that would allow them to meet their victims, if their victims were willing to participate in the process.

Upon meeting the program coordinator of the VOM for a preparation, the youths were informed that they had to write an apology letter for their victims. The letter of apology was an important medium to deliver the apology to their victim(s) in the program. All youths noted that it was very difficult to write the letter of apology and to make it a heartfelt letter. Their parents and even a teacher helped them to write a sincere letter. Although these activities were not easy, what made them to be extremely nervous was centered on the encounter with their victim(s) in many cases for the first time.

During the interview at her house Mary of the Department Store Case looked very different from the person at the VOM. At her home, she looked relaxed and comfortable. In answering the question regarding what it was like to be at the VOM, she repeatedly said, “Pretty nerve-racking.” In particular, Mary emphasized that having the victim participant from the company at the VOM made her more nervous. She said, “[I]t was kind of nervous watching him just kind of look at me like, you know, I did take from his company.” Mary said the VOM was not an easy punishment to take for her especially because of the “shame.” Mary noted, “You did offend something, or offend somebody, and then, that you have to face them again… it’s kind of like a shame thing…it hurt…very shameful, very.”

The youths from the Mailbox Baseball Case said that they expected the victims to be “mean and mad” at them during the VOM. However, what they found at the VOM was surprising. Josh said, “They were really nice…I thought they were going to hang stuff on us the whole time.” As with Mary in the Department Store Case, during the interviews at their father’s office (i.e., based on their convenience), Josh and Ryan looked very different due to being more relaxed and cheerful than at the VOM. At the VOM, not only these youths, but others also looked very serious, which was understandable given the nature of the encounter. However, sometimes during the VOM the youths looked sullen and were not able to show their emotions including being remorseful because of their nervousness, according to them. In the Mailbox Baseball Case, the youths agreed that their anxiety about meeting the victims during the VOM made them extremely nervous at the VOM. When this occurred it may have had a negative impact on victims’ perceptions on the young offenders.

Casey, one of the youths from the Car Case, shared what it meant for him to meet the victims in the VOM:

You have to face the people that you hurt. So you’ll see what your consequences are and you’ll see what happened. Some people might brush that aside and say I can get out of this the easy way, but I didn’t. I felt that I faced what I did and I saw what the consequences were.

Understandably, Dan of the Involuntary Manslaughter Case did not want to talk much about his difficult experience at VOM during the interview. However, what Dan’s probation officer shared at her interview as the background for referring him to the VOM indirectly describes how Dan felt for the upcoming VOM. She noted,

[H]e was closing down at the correctional facility and was not willing to verbalize and talk about what he was feeling. All that was coming out of him was anxiety about coming out… he wasn’t talking to me, and he wasn’t talking to the counselor at the correctional facility.

Theme 2: “Good Punishment” for the Youths

In the following, the youths shared why the VOM was a “good punishment” for them in four ways despite the uneasiness of meeting their victims.

Theme 2-1: A Learning Opportunity for the Youths

Mary, from the Department Store Case, noted, “It [VOM] helps you understand a lot of things.” What she learned was not limited to the current event. While she felt sorry for the victim participant and company, she also appreciated the fact that she has learned how to better “pinpoint” people from her VOM experience, by which she meant that she is now able to read and understand people better. Mary described how much she felt betrayed by the response of her friends when she was fired from her job: “Probably, I knew that they weren’t true friends, because they really didn’t care. The only thing they cared about was not getting the discount anymore.” Then Mary articulated the VOM as a learning experience: “It’s [VOM] helpful because…I do work at a hair cutting place…there is retail involved again, and you know, we have a lot of coupons and now I know that, who to trust.”

During the interview, Kevin of the Mailbox Baseball Case repeatedly stated that he learned that he had made a “very stupid” decision. He said, “I didn’t think it [mailbox baseball] was offensive before, but now I realize how really offensive it was… because seeing their [the victims’] point of view, you don’t want anybody to go through it again.” Josh also elaborated his VOM experience and how it helped him in the following: “Instead of just sitting there and taking, yelling at us and alright that was our punishment…it [VOM] shows you what was wrong with what you did… You just didn’t take your punishment, you learned from it.”

In the Car Case, Andy stated several times that he learned “so much” from the VOM. One of the remarks he made repeatedly was, “Why I didn’t think about it before I did it.” Andy mentioned that he realized that he was just trying to be “cool” when he was with his friends. Then, he said, “Later in life it doesn’t, it’s not cool.” Andy was confident that he would not do it again because he learned “a good lesson.” He continued, “Think about what you’re doing and think about the consequences.” Casey summed up what he learned from the VOM process: “It makes people come to terms with what they did. And so they are less likely do it again.”

Theme 2-2: An Opportunity to See Different Aspects of their Crimes

We asked Josh and Ryan from the Mailbox Baseball Case if they still remember anything that any of the victims said to them. Although three months had passed, they vividly remembered almost everything that occurred during the VOM. Ryan eagerly shared that he still remembered what he heard from one of the victims, who spoke about his daughters’ fear and anxiety. The victim became emotional when he talked about his family’s experience in which they were targeted in several incidents of vandalism. As a result, his daughters felt scared because their mailbox was attacked by the same “big, bad guys.” Then, Josh added,

Yeah, that’s because I have a little sister. And when that guy said that, I started feeling really horrible. If you have two little daughters that thought that someone, a monster or some bad guy kept terrorizing their house, and that made me think of my little sister crying. I didn’t even think about that aspect of it.

In a separate interview, interestingly, Kevin also shared how he felt when he heard the story from the victim: “I remember my little brother, when he was a lot younger how he got scared, and that kind of got to me, like, I can’t believe I did that.” From this experience the youths realized that their acts influenced many people who usually remain unseen. Josh elaborated, “If they [the other youthful offenders] go through a program like we did, you know, and even see how small things affect people…in bigger ways than you think and you need to be aware of… the consequences.” Kevin spoke articulately about his experience:

It [VOM]… kind of gave me good punishment [italics added]… being able to converse with victims and seeing their point of view, because that really changes your perspective… it makes you feel bad, but then makes you want to help repairs and it just makes you feel good.

The youths from the Car Case became very emotional when the victims began to share their stories of victimization and its effect. One of the most emotional moments during the VOM was when the victims shared the effect of the incident on their family, especially on their daughter, who was not able to go to the hospital because of the damages to her parents’ car. For example, Andy shared what he thought at that point,

I wasn’t expecting her [one of the victims] to say all of that about her kids needing to go to the hospital. For me it made a big difference on how I affected their lives and how doing one thing that might be fun could mess up someone’s life.

Theme 2-3: An Opportunity for a Better Understanding of Victims

The participants from the Car Case reported that the VOM was an opportunity for both parties (e.g., the victims and youths) to have a better understanding about each other. Andy noted, “I didn’t think that the victims would really respect us kids for what we did. I think actually they heard our stories.” We asked Casey what it felt like to become an “offender.” His response reflects how much he regretted his behaviors as well as the emotional difficulties he was going through: “Seeing how I did that to one of my friend’s family… I don’t feel happy about it. I think I owe them more… because they don’t trust people, because they’re not going to trust people anymore.”

As a result of the VOM, one of the victims of the Car Case decided to waive his portion of the restitution, $500. In the following, the youths shared how they felt about the waiver, which illustrated their willingness to hold themselves accountable. For instance, Andy said, “[I]t’s good because we have money left over, but it’s bad because he probably needs the money to fix his car.” Casey also noted, “I was happy, but it’s his money. We owe him that still I feel… I feel that I don’t deserve that. I feel that we should still pay that off because that was his car.” The youths also noted that even though it was a lot of money, the restitution was fair for the victims. What Casey shared in the following illustrates his ability to be empathetic for the victims: “The money is not going to take away all the pain and regret and everything that happened.” The feeling was mutual. One of the victims, whom wanting to put the youths in jail before the VOM, said,

Afterwards, I think that things worked out and that what they realized they did to their own families and to the other families. It was better for them in the long-run to realize and to meet with everybody so they could hear the impact and hopefully it’s changed their lives.

In addition to acknowledging the crime that he committed, Dan of the Involuntary Manslaughter Case also mentioned several changes in himself as follows:

My eyes are more open. I see things more clearly. Out there, like at first, I just let stuff get to me, but now I can actually look and know what they’re [the victim’s family] talking about and understand them… Yeah, I’m actually able to open my eyes.

Although the VOM was extremely difficult for him to go through, Dan showed his empathy toward the victim’s family: “I can understand where they’re [the victim’s family] coming from and all that stuff because I know if that happened to me, I’d feel the same way.”

Theme 2-4: An Opportunity for Putting a Human Face on a Crime

Except for the Involuntary Manslaughter Case, the youths in the other cases mentioned that they thought their behaviors were “cool” and “fun” prior to the VOMs. For example, Mary from the Department Store Case used to think, “I really didn’t cause any harm to anybody until…giving the discounts and all that fun stuff out.” The youths of the Mailbox Baseball Case also noted, “We saw some smashed mailbox… and some kids were talking about how they had done it before, hitting mailboxes and how much fun it was and we really wanted to do something fun.” They had considered the mailbox baseball as “a game.” In addition, one youth from the Car Case said, “I was with my friends so I guess I was trying to be cool.” Upon completing the VOM, the youths were able to see their behaviors in a different way; the connotation of “fun” in the “mailbox baseball game” became “not fun” “not cool” among them. The victims also indicated that they, too, had changed their minds. For example, several victim participants mentioned that before they went into the VOM, they thought that the youths were trying to “get off” easily from the crimes. One victim of the Car Case emphasized that he wanted to “put the juveniles in jail” before the VOM but he changed his mind when he saw the effect of the VOM on “the offenders’ faces” at the VOM.

Discussion

In the following Table 1 we draw some insights from the Mailbox Baseball Case that shows the wide discrepancies in understanding between the offenders and the victims regarding the same phenomenon. Although Table 1 was drawn from one case, we observed that the general pattern seems to hold true for the other cases too.

Table 1 Processes: putting a human face on crime
Full size table

As shown in Table 1, the differences between the youths and victims seem irreconcilable before the VOM. However, the participants described that the VOM helped them find a common ground by putting a human face on a crime (Presser 2003), which enabled them to bring together their different perceptions.

Research emphasizes the importance of encouraging empathy among youths to hold accountable as well as to transform the shame in restorative justice processes (Harris et al. 2004; Maxwell and Morris 2002; Zehr 2002). A qualitative study (Presser 2003) is helpful in furthering the discussion here. In her study, Presser (2003) interviewed 27 offenders who committed serious violent crimes and went through a traditional criminal justice process and received formal sanctions. Her research question was whether victims would feel worse after a restorative justice dialogue if the offender was not able to show remorse. Therefore, it is important for restorative justice practitioners to know what may influence or impede the expression of remorse. Presser (2003) examined the offenders’ accounts from interviews centering on victims, responsibility, and remorse. While most offenders in her study either justified or excused their violent actions, two offenders expressed their remorse towards their victims. For example, an offender shared his experience that the victim of his crime helped him avoid criminal justice sanctions by not pressing charges against him, but had given him a disapproving look, which produced a sense of shame and changed the offender’s perception. The other offender, sentenced to 3 years in prison for a vehicular homicide, “humanized his victim” by actively seeking details of the victim’s life, whom he unintentionally harmed, and this promoted remorse because he had hurt “a decent, fully fleshed-out person” (Presser 2003, p. 816). These findings illustrate the importance of humanizing victims that consequently invoke empathy among offenders. In fact, only the offenders who recognized the harm they caused to their victims were able to express remorse in the interviews (Presser 2003).

Given the gaps in literature related to how and why restorative justice works with youthful offenders, this study provides some evidence about how restorative conferences help them identify and empathize with victims by putting a human face on their crimes. As a result of their exchange with the victims in the VOM sessions, the youths were able to see the previously unseen effects of their crimes on the victims. For instance, with the Department Store Case, the youth was able to put a human face on her unauthorized use of the employee discount because of the input of the manager as a victim. In the Mailbox Baseball Case, the youths and the other victims were able to see the innocent faces of the little girls behind the smashed mailboxes. In the Car Case, the youths were able to see the ill girl who was not able to go to the hospital because of their vandalism. And lastly, in the Involuntary Manslaughter Case, the youth realized that it was not only the victim he harmed, he also harmed other members of the family as well as himself.

Our findings suggest that the youths were able to construct a new meaning of their crimes after hearing the victims’ reality, which helped them develop a sense of empathy for their victims. These emotional dynamics among the youths were very similar to what Harris et al. (2004) posited and Maxwell and Morris (2002) observed. That is, while emotional dynamics in restorative conferences are very complicated, empathy that the youths earned through listening to the stories of the victims may lead them to feel the emotions, especially remorse. In our study, those realizations may also have led the youths to change their minds and behaviors in a significant way. For example, one youth from the Car Case noted that because of the insight he gained into the victims’ perspectives, he was able to change his response in a later incident when he was called “chicken” by some friends. Previously, he thought he might have not been able to resist such peer pressure, but he proudly noted that this time he was able to turn around and walk away which made him feel proud. This type of change was also evident for the youths involved in the Mailbox Baseball Case because they informed us that they were spreading the word among their friends at school about what they learned from their VOM experience and about the harms experienced by their victims. They were proud that their input helped some of their friends change their mind about future vandalism.

The findings also support what Amstutz and Mullet (2005, pp. 4–5) noted in explaining their restorative justice work at school settings: “[E]ncouraging empathy can foster compassion and motivate right choices. When we ask our children to put themselves in others’ shoes, possibilities can become reality.” Based on these discussions, we suggest a model, in which restorative justice discourse provides an opportunity for youths to put themselves in their victims’ shoes, encourages them to be empathetic and promotes changed behaviors based on heightened empathy and compassion (Harris et al. 2004; Maxwell and Morris 2002). Figure 1 graphically depicts the loop of restorative justice dialogue as seen through the lens of reintegrative shaming, in which youthful offenders are encouraged to engage in a dialogue with their victims (Harris et al. 2004). This conceptual model may provide a meaningful basis to better understand how and why restorative dialogue processes operate in terms of creating the complex emotional dynamics and further guide future research.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Emotional dynamics in restorative justice dialogue

Full size image

While these discussions provide an important insight for practice and policy, we should also note that “expressing remorse” is a mutual activity between offenders and victims. In other words, although not to say that victims should behave certain ways, it still seems that there are certain conditions of VOM that facilitate youths express their remorse in a more acceptable way from victims’ points of view. That is, we need to know how victims view the situations regarding expressed remorse by youths. Most notably, although the youths in our study expressed that they were fully remorseful; in many cases we observed that they did not know how to express their remorse or empathy in a socially appropriate way during the VOM. They said it was mostly because of their extreme nervousness. This may mean that the experience for victims was less restorative than it might otherwise have been if the youths experienced empathy and were able to express remorse in more appropriate and effective ways (Choi and Severson 2009; Daly 2002). This requires more in-depth research.

Conclusion

This study provides glimpses of inside restorative justice processes from the perspectives of the youths’ that were cross-validated with some other stakeholders’. We believe these findings fill in some of the gaps in our knowledge about restorative justice by providing a coherent frame of reference for how these processes work and why they seem to be effective particularly for young and low-risk offenders (Bonta et al. 2006). Within the current study, most of the youths described their experiences as being “nerve-racking” or even “scary” because they had to face the people they harmed. Yet, we also observed that the VOM processes appeared to help these youths fully realize the extent of the consequences of their actions. We believe that the most plausible explanation for this transformation is that listening to the victims’ perceptions and experiences changed the way these youths understanding of their offenses and the human consequences of their acts (Maxwell and Morris 2002; Presser 2003).

The findings also provide some support for reintegrative shaming (Braithwaite 1989) in restorative processes, like VOM. As the youths described, despite the sense of shame produced by meeting victims at the VOM it was not experienced in a disrespectful and humiliating way (Harris et al. 2004). Data on changed perspectives among the youths supports for the role of reintegrative shaming in creating new and/or “good” identities among the youths through a restorative dialogue with victims (Braithwaite and Mugford 1994; Harris et al. 2004). That is, restorative discourse may be effective in changing and/or challenging ideas about violence and criminal behaviors in young offenders (Bazemore and Schiff 2005; Braithwaite 1989; Hayes and Daly 2003; Maxwell and Morris 2002). This assertion calls for more research that examines the complicated interactions among participants, especially between adult victims and youths. Given the weaknesses of the current study’s methodology, two types of research may deepen our understanding: (1) using ethnographic forms of qualitative research (e.g., participant observation during the conferences) with a more specified and guided research questions as well as longer observation period with increased number of interviews (Harris et al. 2004; Presser and Van Voorhis 2002); and (2) longitudinal research to examine the transformative and preventive effects of restorative justice dialogue on victims as well as youths.

In conclusion, this study suggests that applications of restorative principles and practices may provide a useful framework to meet the needs of youthful offenders by holding them accountable in respectful ways that may develop a sense of shame and heightened empathy. The finding suggests that practitioners may want to consider developing programs that foster empathy among youths through mediated dialogue with victims. In so doing, practitioners should keep in mind that as with the youths in the current study youthful offenders in general may better understand the meaning of their acts through listening to the highly personalized and concrete stories of victims or their families (Harris et al. 2004; Presser 2003). And given the possibility of undeveloped or underdeveloped ability to be empathetic among youths, practitioners may want to encourage those victims, who are willing and able, to share their victimized experiences with youthful offenders in tangible and personal ways during a restorative conferencing so that these experiences are more memorable for youths, while being more meaningful in turn for victims (Hayes and Daly 2003; Maxwell and Morris 2001). However, it should be emphasized that such programs should not compromise the needs of victims or expose them to being revictimized with insensitive practices in order to help youths (Bazemore and Green 2007; Choi and Gilbert 2010; Strang 2002).