Content area
Justice - when spelled with a capital 'J' - should be discursive [ 31 ] and based on equal respect ([ 40 ]: 206, 210) allowing a plurality of voices within the discourse. Particularly in the present research, this thread of pluralism is important. Prisoners' voices have rarely been heard. Yet, if we wish to be true to the principle that restorative justice is discursive, it follows that the discourse is not complete without also accommodating their voices. To date, little research attention has been paid to the inner motivations of imprisoned offenders for willing to participate in restorative justice initiatives, as well as to their perceptions about their relationships with the victim and the community and the impact of religion on them. Hence, the present empirical study, conducted in several prisons across Belgium, endeavours to shed light on these aspects that have been theoretically overlooked, providing valuable information at policy-level about the design of future restorative justice programmes.[PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
Crime Law Soc Change (2013) 59:79111
DOI 10.1007/s10611-012-9408-8
Nikolaos Stamatakis & Christophe Vandeviver
Published online: 30 November 2012# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012
Abstract Justice when spelled with a capital J should be discursive [31] and based on equal respect ([40]: 206, 210) allowing a plurality of voices within the discourse. Particularly in the present research, this thread of pluralism is important. Prisoners voices have rarely been heard. Yet, if we wish to be true to the principle that restorative justice is discursive, it follows that the discourse is not complete without also accommodating their voices. To date, little research attention has been paid to the inner motivations of imprisoned offenders for willing to participate in restorative justice initiatives, as well as to their perceptions about their relationships with the victim and the community and the impact of religion on them. Hence, the present empirical study, conducted in several prisons across Belgium, endeavours to shed light on these aspects that have been theoretically overlooked, providing valuable information at policy-level about the design of future restorative justice programmes.
Introduction
A plethora of restorative justice advocates focus on its potential and capacity to improve the satisfaction levels of victims and local communities that come into contact with offending and the criminal process. Restorative justice has been found applicable in a variety of settings (such as school, communities [21, 41] and work place [78]), as well as at different stages within the criminal justice system (in context with probation and parole, [48, 87] or as cautioning/diversion by police [23]). But, does restorative justice have a role to play at the back-end of the system with persons already serving prison sentences?
Restorative justice delivered in custodial settings could have an important contribution to create safer communities ([5]: 105). It could maximize the opportunity for
N. Stamatakis (*) : C. Vandeviver Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium e-mail: [email protected]
N. Stamatakis
University of Liege, Liege, Belgium
Restorative justice in Belgian prisons: the results of an empirical research
80 N. Stamatakis, C. Vandeviver
communities outside of prison walls to help in the rehabilitation of offenders [65], as well as offer victims the chance to have questions answered prior to prisoners release ([46]: 402; [62]:203). From an offenders perspective, in-prison restorative justice programmes can bring offenders to greater awareness of the harm caused to parties involved in the conflict, and of their obligation to desist from further unlawful actions in the future ([42]). Both secular and faith-based restorative programmes may enable prisoners to take full responsibility for their behaviour and provide opportunities for improving self-esteem coupled with a consequential change of behaviour [50, 64].
Arguing about the necessity and emergency to implement restorative programmes behind bars, victims of serious crimes trapped in unhealed ([35]: 342) pain are being let down by the exclusive function of prisons as places of incapacitation ([33]: 204; [86]: 329), ambiguous deterrent ([70]: 95120; [95]: 317366) and even more questionable rehabilitation ([104]: 3; [112]: 14). Both victims and detainees may feel the need of a personal communication to deal with fundamental questions [14]. However, offenders are often not required to face up to the effect their crime has had on others [3]. Breaking laws is punished but prisoners are not always given the opportunity to take account of the full impact of their illegitimate actions through non restorative-oriented sentencing planning [76]. Unresolved conflicts about prisoners relationships with their victims and their community often remain within the person no matter how many personal development opportunities for change and learning they have taken in prison ([27]: 24).
It is an accepted truism that sending people to prison is neither always a sufficient nor an effective punishment; in response, restorative programmes are being slowly delivered in prisons around the world that could be classified as forms of restorative justice [37, 49, 65, 99]. Yet, relatively few restorative justice programmes have appeared within correctional settings that bring actual crime victims and their offenders together. We often encounter programmes that bring together unrelated or surrogate victims and offenders to address the harm from criminal acts. While the format of these programmes may vary, some combine religious ethics with restorative justice philosophies (e.g. the Sycamore Tree programme, and the Bird Project), while others are secular (e.g. the Bridges to Life and Mural Arts programmes). All these initiatives, though, are voluntary in nature, take place during offenders incarceration, rely on the availability of victim volunteers and community facilitators, involve a specific number of group meetings [89], and they do not affect the length of imprisonment that offenders have been sentenced to [2].
Moreover, various studies around the world have acknowledged the positive contribution of restorative justice in terms of recidivism, change of behaviour, cost effectiveness, and victim awareness [1, 2], as well as in the re-establishment of a sense of safety and welfare in the community [75]. Nonetheless, there is still a dearth of social science research in the area of correctional policy making ([107]: 2). Although the potential of restorative justice in custodial settings has been periodically documented by criminal justice theorists and practitioners alike there is as yet no comprehensive literature on restorative justice in custodial settings in terms of offenders personal feelings, inner motivations, and individual perceptions; neither on the crucial relationship between spirituality and criminal justice [13, 36]. Particularly concerning the latter, it has been argued that religion has an immediate positive impact on prisoners in the form of preventing future offending, as well as promoting
Restorative justice in Belgian prisons 81
survival and adaptation while in custody through personal and behavioural transformation [18, 20, 28]. Yet, there has been little scientific research available on the relationship between religion and (in-prison) restorative justice despite the obvious commonality of faith-based (mainly Christian) institutional programmes for inmates. Thus, this article responds to the lack of quantitative research on the applicability of restorative justice behind bars, as well as on the religiosity of inmates without focusing on a particular religion exploring its potential influence and contribution on the development of in-prison restorative programmes. It also aims to make the debate about restorative opportunities in prisons more central in seeking to establish restorative justice as anything other than an interesting alternative for the less serious offenders and offences.
Restorative justice in Belgian prisons
Nowadays, various justice systems tend to shift their emphasis from the rehabilitation and human treatment of prisoners to ensure that prisoners comply with the conditions of their parole order [108]. Amid this global tendency and in line with the constant escalation of the prison population in Belgium, a research project financially supported by the Belgian Ministry of Scientific Policy entitled Key stones for a coherent restorative and victim-oriented justice policy was born [25]. One part of the research concentrated on the development of a restorative and victim-oriented correctional service. The project referred to the correctional policy statement of the Minister of Justice of June 19, 1996, in which the primary goal of the correctional service (safe and humane corrections aiming at the social reintegration of the convicted person) has been for the first time linked with the ideas of restorative justice (restitution, redress and reparation). It concentrated on the development of concrete restorative actions in correctional facilities where practitioners saw what could be done in each institution. It also looked at complex issues like financial compensation,1 and how to obtain adequate information on which to base parole decisions, as well as at victims and victim services. To achieve this, the involvement of prison staff, besides victim assistance agencies and offender support was seen as a major point in the development of restorative and victim oriented corrections [100].
Four years later, in June 2000, Belgium recruited 30 restorative justice consultants one in each prison2 who were tasked to introduce the concept of restorative justice, and formulate a restorative regime within prisons [101]. This was initiated by developing the course Victim in Focus (a course in victim awareness and empathy) facilitating communication between victims and offenders ([29]: 70). The intention behind this was to create a more positive prison culture, where restorative justice consultants or advisers cooperate with organizations outside prison, and especially with the mediation services (NGOs), called Suggnom and Mediante that aim to
1 Belgium gives prisoners access to a fund that allows them to earn money by doing community work, and this money is applied to restitution to their victim. The amount that can be granted remains limited to half of the amount owed, with a ceiling of 1,250 euro. The main objective of the redress fund is to emphasize the symbolic significance of the repayment, as well as to promote the communication between prisoner and victim. [67]: 206
2 Currently 31 in number.
82 N. Stamatakis, C. Vandeviver
deliver victim-offender mediation (VOM) in the Flemish and Walloon judicial districts, respectively.3 This initiative sought to explore how punishment in the prison context can contribute to a more just and balanced administration of criminal justice for offender, victim and society [79].
Belgium distinguishes itself from many (religion driven) initiatives being taken in other countries by focusing on restorative detention involving all sectors of a prison. In this respect, it is an integral, secular in nature scheme rather than a fragmented project ([8]: 6162). Although in practice, the restorative justice consultant represents a necessary condition for a restoration-oriented detention, it is definitely not a sufficient one ([9]:8). The reason for this was that every prison, irrespective of its size, has only one restorative justice consultant; a fact that had a direct impact on the efficiency and quality of their work. Another reason was that the advisers were hired to work at the management level of the prison being unable to work directly with inmates. There was also a resistance to the idea that a restorative justice consultant was solely focused on promoting restorative justice in prison when at the same time there were so many other tasks to be done ([52]: 228); a managerial approach that probably underestimated the importance and undermined the effectiveness of their job heralding its ominous future. Since 2008, the restorative justice advisers no longer exist. They have been promoted as members of the management staff still responsible for implementing restorative programmes, but assigned to a number of other duties, irrelevant to restorative justice. Thus, the restorative justice advisers generally, a promising initiative being yet caught in the nets of bureaucracy missed to take into consideration probably the most obvious factor: the offender. The lack of motivation of inmates to participate in restorative justice oriented activities has caused difficulties; either due to inadequate information provided to them as a result of the expanded duties and the limited availability of the restorative justice consultants, or simply because of the voluntary nature of those activities.
The research methodology
This work critically evaluates the application of restorative processes in Belgian prison settings. It aims to investigate prisoners perceptions of the impact of crime on their victims (including the wider community) and to measure their intention to take responsibility for their unlawful actions according to their responses. An additional aim is to identify the degree to which prisoners would be sympathetic to engaging in mediation as an opportunity for individual change and their motivations for doing so as a way to establish how important they feel it is to build a relationship with those they have harmed and/or the community outside prison and to take up (direct or indirect) reparative activities. Ultimately, this study explores the relationship between religion and restorative justice in prison settings in terms of willingness to engage in reparative actions, victim awareness, relationship with the wider community, as well as in relation to demographical data (such as recidivism,
3 In 2011, Suggnom had received 1,860 requests for mediation, 1,685 of which were effectively accepted, while 1,202 were carried out with the participation of one victim and one offender. By the same year, 1,264 mediations were closed including at least 215 face-to-face meetings, and 413 cases that stopped prematurely (mainly because party dropped out). [92]: 12
Restorative justice in Belgian prisons 83
type of offence, involvement in other programmes/activities, length of current sentence, and relationships with other inmates or prison staff). From an operational viewpoint, a quantitative methodology was utilised for the fulfilment of all the aforementioned aims. More specifically, questionnaires appeared to be the most appropriate tool for collecting large-scale numerical data able to depict the objective reality [22] through a statistical analysis that remains unbiased by the values of the researcher [63, 74].
The hypotheses
The goal of the present study is to describe and understand the role offenders perceptions have in the application of restorative justice in custodial settings through the investigation of the multi-lateral relation between restorative justice, religion, reparation, apology, community and remorse. More specifically, the main hypotheses of this study are:
1. Prisoners are accountable for the impact of their crimes and they are willing to have personal encounters with victims;
2. Prisoners feel remorseful and they would like to apologise to their victims;3. Prisoners consider important to build a relationship with victims and community outside prison and they are sympathetic to engaging in (direct or indirect) reparative activities; and
4. Religion plays an important role in developing restorative justice programmes;
The sample
The size of the quantitative sample depended on the general number of prisoners, as the questionnaire was distributed to all prisoners being present at the time of my visit. Hence, no random computerised selection of the sample was needed. However, this number does not represent the total size of our sample, as detainees on remand were not taken into consideration in the present research. The sample was collected from 7 prisons across Belgium: Ghent, Brugge and Oudenaarde prisons located in the Flemish region; Namur, Lantin and Jamioulx prisons located in the Walloon region; and Saint Gilles prison situated in the capital region of Brussels. The particular establishments were not chosen randomly. Seeking to obtain an equal sample from the two main administrative regions of Belgium based on the criterion of prison population, the constantly fluctuating occupancy which often exceeded the official capacity of the Flemish prison establishments was closely matched with that of the Wallonian prison settings.4
Distribution and collection
Initially, the relevant questionnaires were pre-tested in order to identify any inconsistencies and ambiguities. Once the randomly assigned prisoners made sure that all
4 More specifically, the prison population* of Ghent prison (283) is close to that of Jamioulx (267); Brugge prison (632) was matched with Lantin (694); and Oudenaarde (132) with Namur (140). The total amount of prisoners in Saint Gilles, the largest and most populated prison in Brussels, is 528.
* All numbers reflect prison populations at the time of visit.
84 N. Stamatakis, C. Vandeviver
questions were clear and understandable in all languages, the questionnaire sheets were personally distributed hand-in-hand between October and December 2010 to all eligible prisoners along with a brief explanation about the nature and the objectives of the study. Prisoners facing illiteracy issues, but still willing to take part in the research were grouped by section/unit and provided with the necessary assistance (translating, simplifying or reading aloud the questions) that would enable them to voluntarily and anonymously fill in their answers. As a general rule, the questionnaires were collected in a similar way, cell-by-cell, giving to prisoners an opportunity to ask for any further clarifications. Nonetheless, data collection was on-going due to the fact that the majority of prisoners were approached during the open-door hour (for security reasons), and therefore, it was impossible to get in contact with all the eligible and potential respondents.5 As a result, a small number of prisoners who were unable to fill in the questionnaire immediately, but keen on receiving it and completing it upon return to their cells, had the opportunity to send the questionnaire sheet by post the following day.
Design and structure
The questionnaire, available in three languages (English, French and Dutch) was divided in two sections: the first section contained the close-ended demographic questions, while the open-ended restorative justice questions were raised in the second section. Keeping in mind that both open- and close-ended questions bear dangers and rewards, close-ended questions, being more easily analysed, appeared ideal for demographic or other simple questions, as the participants took less time to complete [85]. On the other side, open-ended questions allowed respondents to provide more information, including feelings, attitudes and understanding of the subject [83]. In addition, open-ended questions cut down on a typical response error; such questions simply did not allow respondents to disregard reading the questions and just fill in the survey with all the same answers (such as filling in the no box on every question) [77]. On the contrary, open-ended questions aimed to gather in-depth information by providing offenders an opportunity to develop their opinion and stress what interests them the most, and not to verify the answers given in the close-ended ones. Hence, to achieve the above purposes, the research was carried out using both types of questions. More specifically:
Demographic questions. There are two primary reasons for asking demographic questions. Firstly, it is important never to assume that we already know the demographics of the respondents [24, 68]. A few carefully selected demographic questions can help us to understand differences in our data. This information is valuable in profiling the study participants. Demographic information was used here to compare the study participants with other groups of individuals when making inferences about answers to non-demographic questions. Consequently, demographic information permitted inferences regarding the extent to which the results of a research project are generalizable. Secondly, answers to demographic questions
5 Prisoners had gone to the gym, others were on the phone, some had already started to work, and few of them were having doctor or family visits.
Restorative justice in Belgian prisons 85
were often related to other questions through statistical analyses. These analyses helped us compare the answers of different demographic sub-groups [34, 72]. Restorative justice questions: These questions attempted to answer a question rather than to test a hypothesis [106]. In literature, such questions have often been used to study particular communities and to find answers to questions rather than to test single hypothesis [10]. Prison, being a community itself, is therefore a place where (qualitative-like) open-ended questions could possibly provide detailed information on the areas of interest. This study employed open-ended questions for several reasons. There has been a good deal of restorative justice literature that uses numerical data derived from quantitative research methodology looking mainly on recidivism rates and victim satisfaction indicators (not on restorative justice practices in prisons though), showing positive results. However, the same studies are unable to isolate what it is about restorative justice practices that actually contribute to these results [11] and what motivates participants to get involved. Based on the Grounded Theory method according to Strauss and Corbin [91], it was kept in mind that this kind of analysis is neither expected to represent quantitative meaning nor verify the answers given in the close-ended questions. The methodological function of these data was to investigate some of the prisoners incentives behind their willingness to participate in restorative justice schemes in custodial settings.
In a nutshell, both research questions sought to demonstrate the existence of any significant gap between the ideal of proponents of restorative justice in custodial settings and the objectives being pursued in practice (if any). Whilst the empirical work was absolutely central to the study, the research itself is not simply a report of an empirical project. Rather, it contains a mixture of theoretical reflection on restorative justice in custodial settings and empirical analysis. Empirical findings are used to verify or reject theoretical arguments and assumptions of restorative justice proponents and hopefully generate new discussions. What makes this empirical research different from current evaluations of restorative justice programmes is the fact that it is not designed primarily to answer questions imposed by governments pursuing particular interests. Neither it intends to measure the success rate of practical applications of restorative justice in prisons with reference to certain criteria, such as recidivism rates. Instead, it aims to let offenders who either had a taste of restorative justice in the past or not speak for themselves and explain their position about restorative schemes in prisons. The objective is to express their views and opinions, raise concerns and criticisms and bring their unique insights to the restorative justice debate.
The data analysis
Initially, all offenders were assigned a number to ensure confidentiality. In continue, the basic analysis was carried out to produce frequencies, percentages, and appropriate measures of association for all the questions included in the questionnaire; as well as logistic regressions (the prediction of the probability of the occurrence of our hypotheses), when necessary. Individual responses to the open-ended questions were
86 N. Stamatakis, C. Vandeviver
grouped together to produce categories of like answers that could then be all scored via the statistical software SPSS.
Demographic questions
From the 1627 eligible participants (total number of condemned prisoners), 901 agreed to participate in the research and filled in the relevant questionnaire (return rate: 55.3 %). The majority of the respondents are males (n6=804; 90,6 %7) of Belgian nationality (n=588; 67,0 %) between 2039 years old8 (n=598; 68,0 %). Surprisingly, the number of questionnaires received from the Flemish region was equal to that returned from Wallonia (n=353). The largest number of participants was provided by the Brugge penitentiary complex (n=258; 28,6 %), followed by Saint Gilles (n=195; 21,6 %) and Jamioulx (n=168; 18,6 %) prisons (Fig. 1).
Concerning the criminal background and the current sentence of the participants, 70,7 % (n=631) admitted their prior involvement in criminal activities, which resulted in a previous imprisonment mainly, once (n=335; 73,0 %) but also 24 times (n= 81; 17,6 %); 57 times (n=38; 8,3 %); or even >7 times (n=5; 1,1 %). More than half of those inmates (total percentage 58,8 %) had already been imprisoned for up to 3 years without taking into consideration their current sentence (Fig. 2). The length of their current sentence fluctuated mostly between 1 and 10 years (n=529; 71,1 %) and the vast majority of them had less than 3 years left to serve (n=472; 77,7 %) (Fig. 3). In contrast, relatively low (n=121; 14,0 %) was the prior involvement of the participants in mediation; and although 85,2 % (n=522) of those who had re-offended in the past had not been through a mediation process, no significant association (2=
1,710; df=1; p=,191) was found between prior involvement in mediation and re-offending of participants.
Exploring inmates involvement in programmes while in prison, almost half of the respondents (n=418; 47,1 %) had or were (at the time of research) participating in such programmes. Among the respondents involved in prison programmes, the 70,3 % (n=284) were taking part in educational learning (e.g. language learning, reading and writing, basic mathematics), followed by those in employment (n=137; 33,9 %) or personal/social skills development programmes (n=94; 23,3 %); while only 15,6 % (n=63) of those respondents had undertaken a victim awareness programme (Fig. 4). It should also be mentioned that neither the total amount of time they had spent in prison (2=3,659; df=4; p=,454) nor the length of their current sentence (2= 10,435; df=5; p=,064) or previous offending (2=1,635; df=4; p=,802) were significantly associated with prisoners decision to take part in any of these programmes or not.
Dividing participants according to their type of offence, the most popular crimes that the respondents had committed appeared to be related to drugs and alcohol violations, violence and assaults, as well as property crimes (burglary, robbery, theft) followed by cases of murder and manslaughter (Fig. 5). Regarding the spiritual aspect
6 n shows the total number of valid cases.
7 All percentages mentioned in the analysis are Valid Percentages (VP).
8 More specifically, 290 inmates (out of 880, which is the total number of participants excluding the missing cases) were between 2029 years old, while 308 were between 3039 years old.
Restorative justice in Belgian prisons 87
Fig. 1 Participants distribution according to prison establishment
of the participants, among the 877 inmates who answered to the question about religion, 60,3 % (n=529) gave a positive answer, while 13,3 % (n=117) was unsure whether they consider themselves to be religious or not (Fig. 6).
Restorative justice questions
Hypothesis 1: Prisoners are Accountable for the Impact of their Crimes and they areWilling to Have Personal Encounters with Victims
Accountability is an important feature of restorative justice representing the opportunity to denounce the criminal act and reinforce social rules and laws. Research has found that the most frequently cited variables that impacted victims negative perceptions of offenders were that the offender did not accept the moral wrong or take responsibility for what they did [105]. Nevertheless, offenders rarely have opportunities to become actively accountable for the impact of their crimes or give explanations for the committed crime; and victims almost never get a chance to
Fig. 2 Times of imprisonment
88 N. Stamatakis, C. Vandeviver
Fig. 3 Length of current sentence
express their feelings and seek answers to their questions [17]. The way that the process is designed supports the denial rather than the acceptance of responsibility by the offender [59], even after conviction. Although the period of incarceration stands as a public shaming of the offender [18], not every offender feels the shame or guilt implied in the imposition of imprisonment commonly claiming that they are innocent or that their crime (and its impact) was trivial. In other cases, when guilt is not rejected, accountability tends to be impersonal or, most often, self-directed. This tendency is reflected in our data: 68,3 % (n=589) of participants responded positively on whether their crime had an impact on others. Irrespective of the nature of the committed crime, the largest number of positive answers was mainly acknowledging an impact on their own family and friends (n=397; 69,2 %), rather than on direct victims (n=236; 41,0 %) and/or their family members (n=191; 33,3 %). The amount of negative responses given on whether community as the indirect victim is affected by crime was also relatively high (n=372; 65,0 %) (Fig. 7). However, it should be mentioned that inmates victim awareness was positively associated with the length of their current sentence, meaning that those with the longest (>10 years to lifelong) sentences were the least likely to feel empathy for their victims compared to inmates serving shorter periods of incarceration. Or, reversely, respondents serving the shortest sentences were the most likely to acknowledge the impact of their crime on others.
Fig. 4 Types of programmes
Restorative justice in Belgian prisons 89
Fig. 5 Types of offence
Looking at the respondents ability to acknowledge the impact of their crime on others it was found that this particular ability was significantly associated with their willingness to restore their relationships with the victims, or work for their benefit. In both cases, prisoners without eagerness to restore relationships or repair damages were 2,1 times less likely to show awareness of the harm they had caused compared to inmates with such eagerness. Overall, mediation appeared to significantly influence personal accountability. In fact, prisoners who had been involved in a mediation process in the past were 3,5 times more likely to acknowledge the impact of their crime on others than those who had no
Fig. 6 Religion of participants
90 N. Stamatakis, C. Vandeviver
Fig. 7 Acknowledgement of impact of crime on others
similar involvement. As expected, the same probability was escalated even to 7,2 times for those being through a victim awareness programme compared to those who were abstaining from participating in any programme while being imprisoned. Responding to this situation, restorative justice processes have placed a high value on having the victim and offender encounter one another [98], especially via face-to-face9 interactions as they come to realise that their crime had real-world effects avoiding possible neutral-isations or rationalisations of crime as being minor or deserved. Previous empirical evidence from restorative justice programmes supplements all the aforementioned: that a substantial percentage of offenders want to meet with victims ([90]: 1723); and that, interestingly, the more the victims are emotionally affected by the offence, the more they want to meet with offenders ([57]: 43).
However, relatively few opportunities have appeared within correctional settings that bring actual crime victims and offenders together. Often there exist programmes that bring together unrelated or surrogate victims and offenders to address the harm from criminal acts being voluntary in nature, and without affecting the length of imprisonment that offenders have been sentenced to ([2]). Yet, in the present study, 369 inmates representing 60,6 % of the total amount of respondents showed willingness to have encounters with victims and/or their families. 70,6 % (n=204) of those inmates had taken part in a programme while in prison, whilst the same percentage was raised to 88,5 % (n=54) for those who had specifically followed a victim awareness programme. Also, the influence of the length of current sentence on inmates desire to meet with the victim was found insignificant as compared to their ability to acknowledge the impact of crime on victims.
The main motivation of all prisoners to develop such encounters was to express their regret, ask for forgiveness and promise they will not reoffend in the future (n= 214; 46,7 %) underlining the fact that prisoners do not apologise for something, but to someone, namely their victim, their community, their family or friends ([93]: 47). Prisoners also considered such encounters as an opportunity to discuss with the victims, and to give explanations about the committed crime as a way to establish peace between the two parties (n=204; 44,6 %). Other reasons for willing to personally meet with the victims were to make an offer of amends (n=71; 15,5 %); or in order to prove that they are not bad persons and they have fully recovered10 (n=
53; 11,6 %) highlighting past arguments that offenders like being able to provide
9 Face-to-face apologies are preferred as remorse is often conveyed with body language and facial expressions. [90]: 28
10 In cases of sex offenders, as well as drugs and alcohol related violations.
Restorative justice in Belgian prisons 91
Fig. 8 Motivations for restorative encounters
explanations, and let the victim know that crime is not the main aspect of their behaviour ([30]: 241, 256; [97]: 101). On the contrary, the key-reason for refraining to meet with the victim was mainly because they didnt care, they didnt need it or they thought it wouldnt change anything (n=58; 12,7 %). Other reasons were to prevent secondary victimization (n=19; 4,2 %), due to shameful and guilty feelings (n=13; 2,8 %), or because they thought it was impossible to restore relations or the damage with the harmed part (n=12; 2,6 %). In addition, 4,8 % responded that they would agree to have such encounters only upon victims request, need, desire or benefit (n=22) (Fig. 8).
Seeking variables associated with motivations to participate or not in a mediation process, we found that prisoners who were prior involved in a victim awareness programme were more likely (4,5 times) to participate in future mediations than those with no such experience. Unpredictably, prisoners who had been through a mediation process in the past did not exhibit any statistically significant tendency to have restorative encounters in the future (evidenced by the fact that the model was overall insignificant). As displayed on Fig. 8, other variables, such as make amends had a strong influence on prisoners motivations to get involved in mediation. 67,8 % (n= 169) of those who were motivated to work in prison for the benefit of victims and community had also showed willingness to personally meet with the affected part, exceeding almost 20 % those who had no interest in reparative work (n=125; 50,2 %). The strongest influence appeared between mediation and restoration of relations, meaning that prisoners who were positive to improve their relations with their victims were up to 8,5 times more eager to have future encounters than the non-positive respondents. Figure 8 also confirms that offenders and victims motivations to attend a restorative justice process are complementary. Past studies have shown that victims desire for reparation was low in comparison to other motivations, such as to express their feelings about how the crime affected them, to receive an apology or to understand why they were targeted.11 Likewise, a major motivation for inmates to have personal encounters with both direct and indirect or unrelated victims was the opportunity to explain under what circumstances the crime was committed explaining, in this way, the
11 Goodes, 1995 cited in [12].
92 N. Stamatakis, C. Vandeviver
increased popularity of restorative programmes that use surrogate victims and community representatives. This tendency is also depicted in our study where 61,6 % (n= 405) of participants was eager to explain the nature of their crime to indirect and/or surrogate victims, whereas slightly larger was the number of respondents (n=469; 68,3 %) who were willing to give explanations to their direct victims (Table 1).
Hypothesis 2: Prisoners feel Remorseful and they would like to Apologise to theirVictims
According to Sarat ([82]: 168), no expressions are more universally welcomed within and by the legal system than apology and remorse. Although apology and remorse matter to both offenders and victims ([71]: 167, 189), the particular elements are not very evident in the criminal justice arena. Prisons leave little room to offenders for expressing their apology and being remorseful, although the media routinely report cases of victims who bear wounds that need to be healed, seeking an apology from the offender.
Nevertheless, it is also important to recognize that not every apology can offer the desirable results. Apology, though a possible outcome of a restorative justice process cannot be forced (as it would be meaningless) nor expected from offenders. In order for the entire process to have profound effects and provide a starting point for forgiveness and reconciliation, any expression of remorse and apology should be genuine. A genuine apology, when offered by an offender who has not been forced to do so, can be a significant way of making amends, especially when it is combined with a proportional change in the behaviour of the offender [110]. This pure form of apology is an acknowledgement of wrongdoing, an optional response to wrongdoing that cannot be rushed or uttered insincerely to appease others. Studies have also indicated that the content of an offenders apology affects moral judgments made by victims about offenders, influencing victims acceptance of an apology [60]. Hence, a restorative approach may not always lead to forgiveness given that not all victims want or are ready to hear an apology; though, it certainly provides to offenders opportunities to express their repentance to victims and community, which might serve as a basis for forgiveness. Relevant research also supports the positive relationship between remorse and the acceptance of an apology [66]. Victims seek to discover whether offenders have internalized blame feeling guilty for their past criminal behaviour, and whether the emotional expression of regret indicates their desire to desist from crime [60]. In the present study, a high number of participants expressed remorseful feelings for their committed crimes (n=568; 84,8 %), as well as willingness to apologise to their victims12 (n=454; 79,6 %),
either in person or preferring a distant expression of remorse through apology letters (Fig. 9).
A parameter that is easily overlooked is what happens when offenders agree to repair the harm (either financially or symbolically) but without remorse. The remorseful effort to make things right in restorative justice is essential; hence, programmes that emphasize non-remorseful restitution settlements would be meaningless to the parties ([56]: 98) and can give rise to counter-restorative outcomes. On this, Umbreit ([96]: 56) rightly asserts that where the offender remains unrepentant
12 However, this study does not test the purity of inmates motivations behind their desire to apologize.
Restorative justice in Belgian prisons 93
Table1Logisticregressions(ControlledforAgeandGender)explainingtheinfluenceofselectedrestorativejusticevariablesonimpactofcrimeandencounters(Resultsappear
inodd-ratios)
ConstantAcknowledgementofimpactofcrimea Willingnesstomeetvictimsb
0,032***0,013***0,042***0,122***0,3510,4510,3300,1500,024***0,266*1,0290,939
Agec ***
2029yrs1,1670,6451,8260,9901,1421,4920,6460,1540,9150,6010,5700,725
3039yrs1,6250,9432,3541,5461,6562,4560,7690,1410,9950,8150,7650,903
4050yrs1,0570,3991,7101,0341,2231,6640,8910,1831,3560,8740,8000,948
>50year2,1910,7704,8761,8592,1495,217*0,9370,4261,7360,8510,7620,844
Genderd (F)0,6180,6130,4580,7430,7820,6870,8641,0070,6900,8630,8570,950
Priorinvolvementinmediatione (No)3,543***1,701*
Victimawarenessf (No)7,278***4,555**
Willingnesstorestorerelationsg (No)2,155***8,512***
Participationinreparativeworkh (No)2,069***2,274***
Timelefttoservei
>13years0,9141,366
>35years0,8960,717
>510years0,6520,743
>10years0,6990,829
Lengthofsentencej ***
>13years0,6450,729
>35years0,564*1,061
>510years0,353***0,764
>10years0,161***0,531
Lifelong0,061*-0,218
94 N. Stamatakis, C. Vandeviver
ConstantAcknowledgementofimpactofcrimea Willingnesstomeetvictimsb
0,032***0,013***0,042***0,122***0,3510,4510,3300,1500,024***0,266*1,0290,939
N816384672803524699573268548572372496
Chi2 36,62829,50629,40231,2986,48353,7038,23224,030128,74524,2456,11110,608
Sig.0,0000,0000,0000,0000,6910,0000,2220,0010,0000,0000,7290,389
NagelkerkeR2 0,0610,1070,0660,0540,0170,1050,0190,1220,2850,0560,0220,029
a,b yes(1),no(2)
c ref.cat.is<20years
d ref.cat.ismale
e,f,g,h ref.cat.isyes
i,j ref.cat.<1year
*p<0,050;**p<0,010;***p<0,001
Table1(continued)
Restorative justice in Belgian prisons 95
Fig. 9 Willingness to apologize & regrets for crimes impact on others
or agreements are not drawn on offenders genuine remorse13 victims tend to view their restitution with dissatisfaction and a sense of bitterness. In other words, it is not possible to carry out fruitful mediation without dealing with the underlying feelings. The importance of remorse as a basis for undertaking reparative work was also underlined in our analysis. Relevant associations showed that remorse had a significant influence on whether offenders were liable to pay restitution or working for the benefit of victims and community as a way to improve their relationships with them. Unfortunately, no causal effect had restoration of harm on remorse, meaning that prisoners keen to repair the damage caused by their crimes were not always more likely to regret the commission of those crimes than the non-eager respondents. Similarly, no causal effect was given between restoration of harm and remorse, meaning that prisoners who showed willingness to repair the damage caused by their crimes were not always regretting the commission of those crimes. On the contrary, participation in a victim awareness programme while in prison or prior involvement in mediation had a marginally insignificant influence on the likelihood to feel remorseful for the impact of crimes on others compared to their remorseless counterparts.
Select logistic regressions also exhibited that willingness to apologize is directly linked to both restoration and reparation. Thus, offenders who were willing to restore their relationships with the offended party and work for its benefit had 8,3 and 2,3 times (respectively) higher likelihood to apologize than all those inmates who were preferring to keep away from their victims. In the same vein, past participation in mediation appeared influential with regard to the inmates levels of apology; a result that apparently was not given for victim awareness programmes. Those who had already been through a mediation process in the past were on average 3 times more likely to apologize to their victims, while the highest likelihood (12,2 times) to do so was observed for those who wished to have mediation in the future. Lastly, recidivism was insignificantly associated with both dependent variables of interest apology and remorse where inmates feelings of regret and inner desire to apologize were not influenced by their past criminal behaviour (Table 2).
13 Obtaining genuineness in offenders behaviour and willingness to act restoratively remains an impediment in developing restorative justice programmes, both in and out of custodial settings.
96 N. Stamatakis, C. Vandeviver
Table2Logisticregressions(ControlledforAgeandGender)explainingtheinfluenceofselectedrestorativejusticevariablesonapologyandremorse(Resultsappearinodd-
ratios)
ConstantWillingnesstoapologizea Remorsefulforcrimeeffectsb
0,037**0,1240,009***0,006***0,6800,098**0,093*0,2060,030***0,030***0,5530,168**
Agec *
2029years0,8040,2070,8780,8120,6590,6790,3690,1820,3880,5070,3330,355
3039years0,9240,1840,9740,8030,7370,9110,7300,6280,7830,8440,6240,733
4050years1,0800,2521,4111,01408571,0020,5200,5150,5660,6670,4830,521
>50years0,7670,3120,9370,5750,7000,6730,7041,2130,7270,8400,6560,690
Genderd (F)0,338*0,4370,252*0,3530,3960,3640,6340,5140,5070,7140,6860,673
Priorinvolvementinmediatione (No)3,083**1,981
Victimawarenessf (No)3,087*1,204
Willingnesstorestorerelationsg (No)8,302***4,309***
Willingnesstomeetvictimsh (No)12,235***4,253***
Recividismi (No)0,5990,719
Participationinreparativeworkinprisonj (No)2,250***1,586*
N541262528516547540634302605554643633
Chi2 17,3071139684,309108,3159,66219,58212,80712,56544,79939,8719,67212,413
Sig.0,0080,0770,0000,0000,1400,0030,0460,050k 0,0000,0000,1390,053
NagelkerkeR2 0,0500,0710,2370,3070,0280,0560,0350,0750,1260,1210,0260,034
a,b yes(1),no(2)
c ref.cat.is<20years
d ref.cat.ismale
e,f,g,h ref.cat.isyes
i,j ref.cat.<1years
k Generally,onlypvaluesunder0,05areconsideredtobestatisticallysignificant
*p<0,050;**p<0,010;***p<0,001
Restorative justice in Belgian prisons 97
Hypothesis 3: Prisoners Consider Important to Build a Relationship with Victims and Community Outside Prison and they are Sympathetic to Engaging in (Direct or Indirect) Reparative Activities
Undoubtedly, one primary goal of restorative justice is community outreach ([61]: 565). In the restorative justice doctrine, justice cannot be served without the communitys involvement ([111]: 6469). At the same time, the community needs to reintegrate its members because disintegration and fragmentation weaken itself [80]. Therefore, prior making any effort to achieve reintegration, the community first needs an understanding of crime as interpersonal conflicts, and as an opportunity to reconcile victim with offender, and offender with the (local) community [58]. Every conflict, when resolved restoratively, represents an opportunity to reaffirm the importance of every member of the community [73]. In other words, reintegration is needed as much for victims and community as for individual wrongdoers given that usually both parties suffer stigmatization ([102]: 4). Do offenders, though, feel the same way? The largest number of positive answers (n=172; 57,1 %) on restoring relationships with the affected part (victims and community) was given by inmates held in Flemish prisons, while the lowest one (n=125; 46,5 %) was given by prisoners in the Walloon region. Scrutinizing the relationship between restoration of relationships and location, it was clearly found insignificant allowing us to claim that neither region nor prison establishment had an influence on inmates decision to restore broken relationships. On average, almost half of the participants (n=377; 53,5 %) showed willingness to restore their relation with those they have harmed, immediate victims or their own family. However, nationality appeared to influence prisoners perceptions about their victims and the community. Inmates with a non-Belgian nationality were found to be approximately 1,5 times more likely to restore their relationships with victims and community than Belgian inmates bearing insignificant effects on the type of crime they had committed. Likewise, the participation in a prison programme irrespective of its nature appeared non-associated with the inmates intention to restore relations with victims and community; a fact connected with their generic personal expectations and inner motivations for following these programmes. The only type of crime that appeared associated with restoration was drug offenses (p=,001), of which offenders described their relationship with the community as broken and hence, they were willing to restore it.
Equally important in the community and also in the prison are the patterns of social interaction, as inmates are often known by who their friends are. However, such friendships are not merely an emotional relationship, but they also involve obligations (e.g. standing with someone in the face of trouble) ([18]: 69). This is why some prisoners may opt to invest less or steer clear of the traditional prison friendship. Measuring inmates relationship with other prisoners, the majority of respondents (n=416; 48,8 %) considered the relationship with each other as moderate; a percentage observed with minimal fluctuations in all prison establishments without being significantly associated with restoration of relations. Coincidentally, a similar proportion of respondents (n=419; 48,8 %) described their relationship with the prison staff as good, but again, without having any influence on restoration of relations between victims and offenders.
By and large, when offenders express responsibility or offer reparation, victims tend to blame and punish the offender less [84]. Hence, restorative justice has created
98 N. Stamatakis, C. Vandeviver
processes that allow offenders to accept responsibility for the harm inflicted by their actions, and to understand their obligation to repair the harms as a means to restore broken relationships ([15]: 322; [26]: 27). These restorative processes are focused on the notion of making good [53, 109] or earned redemption [4]. Usually, this is won by actively making positive contributions to ones community in a reparative way via a civic community service14 because often, this abstract wider community is the primary victim of many of the crimes in our justice system (e.g. drug offences, tax evasion, white-collar crimes). Participating in these forms of positive volunteer work sends a message to the community that offenders are worthy of further support, and leads to a sense of hope generated by the willingness to take responsibility for their behaviour and repair the harm ([54]: 13).
In our study, 452 (53,1 %) participants replied positively on whether they would participate in work that would benefit the victim and/or the community. Generally, inmates motivations for engaging in reparative work varied; yet, personal reasons scored the most positive answers, namely that such work would make them feel good and useful (n=261; 59,9 %), and that it would get them out of their cell (n=223; 50,8 %). This outcome does not come as a surprise given that inmates in all prison establishments where our research was conducted were repeatedly complaining about the lengthy periods (22-plus hours) they remain locked in their cells during the day. This prison policy had an impact on prisoners motivations resulting into the lowest score of positive replies for undertaking a work in order to repair the actual harm done to victims (n=186; 42,3 %). The other three reasons were to stop them from being bored and keep them busy (n=199; 45,3 %); to help them gain new (employment) skills (n=207; 47,2 %); as well as to improve their relationship with the community (n=210; 47,8 %) (Fig. 10).
Looking at demographics, foreign prisoners gave a higher percentage (n=68; 54,8 %) of positive answers in performing reparative work compared to that received by Belgian inmates (n=127; 44,1 %); however, nationality did not appear to influence prisoners desire to work for the benefit of victims and/or community. In terms of the location of prison, the overall effect was found significant, but without significant dummy effects. Although, from a purely descriptive aspect, Walloon region had overall the lowest number of positive replies (n=159; 47,2 %) compared to that given by respondents in Flemish prisons (n=196; 58,7 %),15 splitting locations according to prison establishments, respondents in Jamioulx prison were the most likely gave the highest number of positive answers to take up reparative work, followed by those held in Namur (also in Wallonia) and Saint Gilles prisons (Fig. 11).
Linking reparative work to programme participation a significant association was revealed. As it could be easily guessed, the inmates who were participating in a programme while in prison and especially in an employment skills development one (p=,026) had almost twice-higher chances to work during imprisonment for repairing the harm done to the victims than the ones who were not following any programme. Further analysis on performing reparative work also indicated that inmates willingness and motivations were influenced not only by their relation with
14 To distinguish them from community punishment orders where community service is involuntary and intended to be punitive. [6]
15 As for Brussels (n=97; 53,5 %).
Restorative justice in Belgian prisons 99
Fig. 10 Willingness to participate in reparative work and motivations
victims and community, but also by individuals behind prisons bars; namely other prisoners. The participants who had described their relationship with other prisoners as bad were also less likely to work for the benefit of the victim and/or the community than those who were maintaining good relationships; whereas, no direct effect was found for relationships with prison staff.16
Furthermore, it was observed that the inmates decisions to repair the harm were affected by the type of crime they had committed, but only those convicted for (attempted) murder-manslaughter (p=,006) or kidnapping and human trafficking (p =,026). These offenders were the most likely (1,7 and 2,7 times, respectively) to get involved in reparative activities compared to prisoners who committed any other crime confirming previous studies that want restorative justice applicable and useful for cases of serious crime [81] (Table 3).
Hypothesis 4: Religion Plays an Important Role in Developing Restorative JusticeProgrammes
Throughout the history of penal practice, religion has been influencing the ways in which offenders are dealt with ([32]: 203204). Even today religion is a central aspect of the modern prison system ([19]: 1), while the majority of restorative justice in-prison programmes often rely on and are delivered by prison-based ministries. These faith-based programmes aim to promote the offenders character transformation through the development of religious ethics and moral values [1] giving correctional administrators one more element for bringing about change in the lives of inmates held in their care ([39]: 555). In the same vein, it is not uncommon for inmates to convert or experience religious epiphanies [51, 94] while in prison that allow them to uncover a true self and report a radical change in their current lives regardless of their (criminal) past ([47]; [55]: 162).
In Belgium, the Prison Service follows the policy of providing the inmates of its establishments with the facilities and opportunities necessary to enable them to practice their religion in prison, consistent with good order and discipline in prisons.
16 Although the model is overall significant, no individual effect of the independent variable (relationship with prison staff) is observed on the dependent variable (reparative work).
100 N. Stamatakis, C. Vandeviver
Fig. 11 Participation in reparative work per prison establishment
All inmates declare their religion upon entry into prison and they are all given access to ministers of their own religion (four official classifications are officially recognized in Belgium: Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and Islamic) in addition to provision of diets to meet special religious needs, where possible ([88]: 77). As mentioned earlier, 60,3 % (n=529) of the participating individuals regarded themselves as religious, but who exactly are these prisoners? Does inmates faith or spirituality influence their involvement in restorative justice initiatives? If so, how? Generally missing from analyses of faith-based programmes is an empirical examination of the types of inmates who would volunteer to participate in them ([16]: 7). Hence, examining initially the offenders social characteristics and criminal background, it was found that the highest percentage of positive answers in our study was given by inmates aged less than 20 years old (n=14; 70,0 %) followed by those between 2029 years old (n=183; 64,9 %). The age groups that gave the largest number of negative answers were those over 50 (n=23; 31,1 %) and between 4050 years old (n=55; 30,9 %) (Fig. 12).
Looking at the respondents gender, no considerable fluctuations were observed across the different categories of perceptions on religiosity. The low variations in terms of gender did not appear to be the case with the nationality of participants, where the proportion of non-Belgian inmates who considered themselves to be religious (n=204; 82,6 %) scored almost double compared to its Belgian counterpart (n=283; 49,1 %). Similarly high variation was observed among the three administrative regions of Belgium, where prisoners held in Brussels gave the least negative answers (n=16; 8,7 %) in contrast to prisoners in Flanders who gave the least positive answers (n=132; 38,3 %). Inmates held in Flemish prisons also gave the largest number of dubious or neutral answers (n=71; 20,6 %) (Fig. 13).
Although empirical evidence shows that individuals who score high on measures of religiosity and spirituality are more likely to exhibit pro-social behaviours [7, 28, 44], in our study no such evidence was found for all crime categories. Matching the
Restorative justice in Belgian prisons 101
Table3Logisticregressions(ControlledforAgeandGender)explainingtheimpactofselectedvariablesonrestorationorrelationsandreparativework(Resultsappearinodd-
ratios)
ConstantWillingnesstorestorerelationswithvictimsa Participationinreparativeworkinprisonb
0,9840,9191,0930,6891,2681,3900,7710,6430,8920,3791,3881,020
Agec ************
2029years0,7090,7520,6040,6440,6760,6861,5641,8391,3501,3971,1121,414
3039years0,7600,8220,6410,7250,7120,7400,8611,0530,7470,7880,6210,811
4050years0,6400,6930,5370,5870,6160,6420,9311,1180,7740,8060,7020,916
>50years0,5130,5550,3550,4270,4440,4991,8242,1651,3901,3971,1611,572
Genderd (F)1,0971,1091,1551,2741,1481,2020,6030,7980,6240,6800,571*0,621
Locationofprisonf ***
Flanders1,1030,787
Wallonia1,638*1,424
Prisonestablishmentg ***
Ghent0,9100,532
Bruges1,1300,798
Oudenaarde1,0790,856
Jamioulx1,8982,110**
Lantin1,6400,828
Namur0,9871,613
Nationalityh **
Belgian1,619**1,104
Doublenationality:Belgian&other0,5000,849
Programmeparticipationinprisonj (NO)1,529**1,761***
Relationshipwithfellowinmatesj *
102 N. Stamatakis, C. Vandeviver
ConstantWillingnesstorestorerelationswithvictimsa Participationinreparativeworkinprisonb
0,9840,9191,0930,6891,2681,3900,7710,6430,8920,3791,3881,020
Bad1,0931,216
Good1,2680,669**
Relationshipwithprisonstaffk
Bad0,8370,812
Good0,8610,765
N682682668681646670823823807819786811
Chi2 10,59113,65617,99910,5623,9683,96234,00249,08420,74435,78728,44422,844
Sig.0,1570,2530,0120,1030,7840,7840,0000,0000,0040,0000,0000,000
NagelkerkeR2 0,0210,0260,0350,0210,0080,0080,0540,0770,0340,0570,0470,037
*p<0,050;**p<0,010;***p<0,001
a,b yes(1),no(2)
c ref.cat.is<20years
ref.cat.is<20years
d ref.cat.ismale
f ref.cat.isBrussels
g ref.cat.isSaintGillesprison
h ref.cat.isother
i ref.cat.isyes
j,k ref.cat.ismoderate
Table3(continued)
Restorative justice in Belgian prisons 103
results of a study conducted by Clear and Sumter in 2002 [20], the overall previous criminal activity of inmates did not appear to be associated with religiosity (p=,826). Yet, in our sample the largest number of prisoners (n=377; 60,6 %) who regarded themselves as religious was consisted by those who had re-offended in the past.17
With regard to inmates participation in faith-based programmes, research findings suggest that religious characteristics are associated with participation in such programmes and that participants are motivated to make changes in their lives [16]; but without always producing the expected positive outcomes in terms of recidivism [43]. However, these findings reflected prisoners involvement in religious-oriented programmes and they did not include programmes focused on education, restorative justice (e.g. mediation) or secular rehabilitation and re-entry of offenders. Seeking to merge this gap, the analysis of our data indicated that the largest part of offenders who were participating in a programme while in prison were also religious (n=279; 67,4 %); and this number remained higher than those who were not following any programme available but they were still religious (n=246; 53,8 %). Likewise, the majority of inmates who had been through a mediation process in the past (n=70; 58,8 %), or were tempted to have personal encounters with victims and their families (n=244; 67,7 %) considered themselves to be religious. These figures were also (weakly) supported from the fact that inmates reluctant to mediation had 1,1 times less chances to be religious.
At the same time, religious people irrespective of denomination often share similar values with non-religious people, and they have both noticed that there seems to be a spiritual dimension to restorative work ([103]: 10). Restorative justice is clearly more than mediation; and mediation is not a simple face-to-face meeting. Research indicates that victims yearn symbolic reparation, a sincere apology, which consists of offenders showing remorse for what they did, taking full responsibility for their actions, offering some form of reparation for damages, even if symbolic, and promising not to re-offend in the future [69]. So, measuring all these expectations from an offenders perspective while bearing in mind that religion has been largely perceived to be a powerful tool in bringing about behavioural and social change, logistic regressions controlled for effects of age and gender were also run to predict religions impact on restorative justice using the above elements as a set of predictors. The full model containing all predictors was statistically significant, indicating that it was able to discriminate between the two answering categories of selected dependent variables on religion the independent variable. However, only two of the selected independent variables made a significant contribution to the model. More specifically, while the majority of prisoners who were feeling guilty and apologetic were those who had described themselves as religious, religiosity did not appear to influence either apology or remorse. This means that religious inmates were not more likely to ask for an apology or being remorseful for their past unlawful actions. It was initially hypothesized that religion would influence prisoners ability to acknowledge the impact of crime on others, or their willingness to work for the benefit of victims/ community, and that control variables, such as age and gender, would not; yet, the results of the regressions did not support this hypothesis. In terms of culpability,
17 For inmates convicted for drug offences (p=,046), violence (p=,043), kidnapping (p=,027), and especially for murder/manslaughter (p=,003).
104 N. Stamatakis, C. Vandeviver
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
No I don't know Yes <20 years old 10.0% 20.0% 70.0% 20-29 years old 24.1% 11.0% 64.9% 30-39 years old 26.3% 15.5% 58.2% 40-50 years old 30.9% 14.0% 55.1% >50 years old 31.1% 12.2% 56.8%
Fig. 12 Religion according to prisoners age
many religious inmates had adopted an exculpatory view of their guilt; at first glance, a large number of respondents who were remorseful for the impact of their crime were also religious (n=339; 60,4 %); this phenomenon, though, was not to be interpreted unambiguously as the relevant regressions appeared statistically insignificant. A similar trend of responses and results were also given in relation to reparation.
Fig. 13 Religion according to prison location
Restorative justice in Belgian prisons 105
Although the overall model was significant, religion did not significantly influence prisoners intention to undertake work that would repair the harm inflicted on others. Age appeared to be the important independent variable that mitigated the effect of religion creating a spurious or indirect causality.
On the other hand, religion the variable of interest had a significant influence on certain restorative justice variables. The strongest predictors of reporting religiosity were restoration of relations and mediation, as already assumed. As for the first two variables, non-believers were found to be 1,9 times less likely of willing to restore their relationship with the victims compared to those who were unsure whether they are religious or not; while religious inmates were found to be almost 0,5 times more likely of not willing to get involved in future mediation process and have personal encounters with the affected part than the respondents who were unsure about religion.
Ultimately, looking at religion in terms of prisoners adaptability, other studies found that religious inmates were no more likely to receive disciplinary confinement than non-religious inmates, or that involvement in structured religious programmes did not reduce disciplinary infractions [45]. In contrast, Clear et al. [19] found that an inmates religiosity had a positive impact with respect to prison adjustment indicating that religion can provide social support within the prison community. He has shown that religious inmates especially when associating with others who subscribe to religion values can cope better with the difficulties of traditional prison life, such as deviant affiliations, and most importantly, conflicts with inmates and prison officials [18]. Though, exploring inmates adjustment to the prison environment from a religious standpoint, the earlier evidence is shared with the present study where inmates relationship with neither the prison staff (p=,151) nor other prisoners (p=,262) was found significantly associated. Yet, the participants who had described their relationship with other prisoners as good scored the highest percentage of religiosity (n= 231; 46,1 %); whilst the majority of inmates who had good relations with the prison staff were unsure about their religiosity (n=66; 58,4 %) (Table 4).
Conclusions
In a nutshell, the present study sought to explore prisoners perception on restorative justice in Belgian custodial settings. From a methodological perspective, it should be underlined that the present research (as every empirical study) was not free of limitations. For instance, due to the variety of cultures and systems across countries, the results presented above although derived quantitatively could not be generalized to the population wider than that behind Belgians prison bars. In addition, due to the voluntary nature of restorative justice, the methodology followed to collect the data aimed to minimize the common problem of self-selected bias by providing to all inmates (expect those on remand) the opportunity to express their feelings, opinions and thoughts, either positive or negative, on in-prison restorative justice.
Taking all these into account, we found out that the majority of our respondents were feeling remorseful and apologetic for their past deviant behaviour; and this along with their willingness to give explanations and answers to (actual and
106 N. Stamatakis, C. Vandeviver
Table 4 Logistic regressions (Controlled for Age and Gender) explaining the influence of religion on selected restorative justice variables (Results appear in oddratios)
Willingness to apologize
1,347 1,125 1,931* 1,158 0,999 1,514
N 544 640 676 579 826 810
Chi2 10,536 9,071 26,146 24,427 13,958 21,431
Sig. 0,160 0,248 0,000 0,001 0,052 0,003
Nagelkerke R2 0,030 0,025 0,051 0,056 0,024 0,035
*p<0,050; **p<0,010; ***p<0,001
a ref.cat. is <20 years
b ref.cat. is male
c ref.cat. is I dont know
surrogate) victims questions were the main motivations for being eager to have personal encounters with the affected part. We also saw that the largest proportion of prisoners who were or would get involved in a mediation process were also considered themselves to be religious; yet, no statistically significant association was given between religion and the likelihood to offer apologies or feel remorseful. Insignificant was also the effect of religion on the participants ability to acknowledge the impact of crime on others and/or work for their benefit. On the contrary, religion appeared to positively influence prisoners inclination to meet victims and community members as well as restore the relationship with them. From these findings it is clear that measures of motivation and religious orientation are necessary for understanding differences between groups of inmates who would participate in a restorative justice programme and those who would not. The highest percentage of positive answers concerning religion was given by inmates who were the most inclined to have good relations with other prisoners, but not necessarily with the prison staff. Previous criminal activity of inmates also did not appear to influence religiosity, as the prisoners who regarded themselves as religious were mainly those who had imprisoned in the past.
On average, logistic regressions showed that prisoners keen to have personal encounters with victims, restore relationships with them, and work for their benefit had higher likelihood (5 times) to feel apologetic and remorseful towards their
Participation in reparative work
Constant 0,337 0,344 1,340 1,339 0,423 0,495
Agea * **
2029 years 0,751 0,354 0,616 0,647 1,066 1,344
3039 years 0,846 0,694 0,668 0,707 1,494 0,786
4050 years 0,937 0,481 0,530 0,745 0,995 0,794
>50 years 0,648 0,661 0,410 0,843 2,075 1,409
Genderb (F) 0,359 0,631 1,218 0,923 0,636 0,624
Religionc *** ***
Yes, religious 0,804 0,964 0,814 0,483** 0,828 1,250
No, not religious
Remorseful for crime effects
Restoration of relations
Willingness to meet victims
Acknowledgement of impact of crime
Restorative justice in Belgian prisons 107
victims. At the same time, inmates wanting to repair the harm caused by their crimes were not always more likely to regret the commission of those crimes than the non-eager respondents. Concerning the length of their current sentence, we discovered that prisoners serving the shortest (<10 years) sentences were the most likely to feel empathy for their victims and acknowledge the impact of their crime compared to those with longer sentences. At the time of visit, unfortunately, less than half of respondents were generally following an in-prison programme, reflecting the overall scarcity of such programmes; a phenomenon related to persistent prison overcrowding [38]. In addition, past participation in mediation appeared influential as inmates with such experience were more prone to have mediation in the future, and express their apologies to the victims; but not always in a genuine way by feeling remorseful. It was also noticed that a large number of inmates were also able to admit the impact of their crime, but mainly on themselves (which resulted to their imprisonment) and their own family rather than on the actual victims or the community. This tendency was highlighted by the fact that prisoners with the longest sentences were also the least likely to be aware of their victims.
Finally, slightly more than half of participants the majority of who had committed serious crimes in the past and were held in Flemish prisons (although two Wallonian prisons, Jamioulx and Namur, scored the highest number of positive responds) gave positive answers on whether they would undertake reparative work, but again the reasons behind their willingness were mainly personal (an understandable fact), such as to get out of their cell or make them feel useful, and less in order to repair the actual harm or ameliorate their relationship with the community. A (foreign) prisoner characteristically mentioned: What programmes are you talking about? There is nothing here, nothing. They lock us up 23 h a day. Horrible! In my country, prisons are more dangerous but more humane. They have programmes, they try to make you better, they give you a second chance and if you wont get it, then its your problem. But here [] (2010). This quote reminded us that although restorative justice might be applicable in Belgian custodial settings, there are still fundamental issues that should be addressed prior envisaging and constructing any such programme, considering that restorative justice should not be viewed as flawless and moreover, not as a blueprint or panacea for all the deficiencies of the current Belgian criminal justice system.
References
1. Armour, M. P., Cambrai-Windsor, L., Aguilar, J., & Taub, C. (2008). A pilot study of a faith-based restorative justice intervention for Christian and non-Christian offenders. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 27, 159167.
2. Armour, M. P., Sage, J., Rubin, A., & Windsor, L. (2005). Bridges to Life: evaluation of an in-prison restorative justice intervention. Medicine & Law, 24, 831851.
3. Ashworth, A. (2002). Responsibilities, rights and restorative justice. British Journal of Criminology,
42, 578595.
4. Bazemore, G., & Erbe, C. (2004). Reintegration and restorative justice: toward a theory and practice of informal social control and support. In S. Maruna & R. Immarigeon (Eds.), After crime and punishment. Cullompton: Willan.
5. Bazemore, G., & Schiff, M. (2001). Restorative community justice: repairing harm and transforming communities. Cincinnati: Anderson.
108 N. Stamatakis, C. Vandeviver
6. Bazemore, G., & Stinchcombe, J. (2004). A civic engagement model of re-entry: involving community through service and restorative justice. Federal Probation, 68, 1424.
7. Benda, B. B., & Corwyn, R. F. (1997). Religion and delinquency: the relationship after considering family and peer influences. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36, 8192.
8. Biermans, N. (2002). Restorative justice and the prison system. Paper presented in the 2nd Conference of the European Forum for Victim-Offender Mediation and Restorative Justice. Oostende: 1012 October.
9. Biermans, N. & dHoop, M. N. (2001). Development of Belgian prisons in a restorative perspective. Paper presented in the 5th International Conference Positioning Restorative Justice organized by the International Network for Research on Restorative Justice for Juveniles. Leuven: 1619 September.
10. Bibler-Coutin, S. (2005). Qualitative research in law and social sciences. In M. Lamont & P. White (Eds.), Interdisciplinary standards for systemic qualitative research. Arlington: National Science Foundation.
11. Bonta, J. S., Wallace-Capita, J., Rooney, K., & Canoy, M. (2002). Outcome evaluation of a restorative justice alternative to incarceration. Contemporary Justice Review, 5, 319338.
12. Braithwaite, J. (1999). Restorative justice: assessing optimistic and pessimistic accounts. Crime & Justice, 25, 1127.
13. Braithwaite, S. & Liebmann, M. (1999). Restorative justice in custodial settings: report for the restorative justice working group in Northern Ireland. Restorative Justice Ireland Network.
14. Buonatesta, A. (2004). Victim-offender mediation in custodial settings: outcome of an experiment carried out in several Belgian prisons. Paper presented at the 3rd Conference of the European Forum for VOM and Restorative Justice Restorative Justice in Europe: Where are we heading?. Budapest: 1416 October.
15. Cavadino, M., & Dignan, J. (2007). The penal system: an introduction (4th ed.). London: Sage.16. Camp, S. D., Klein-Saffran, J., Kwon, O., Daggett, D. M., & Joseph, V. (2006). An exploration into participation in a faith-based prison program. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau or Prisons.
17. Christie, N. (1977). Conflicts as property. British Journal of Criminology, 17, 116.18. Clear, T. R., Hardyman, P. L., Stout, B., Lucken, K., & Dammer, H. R. (2000). The value of religion in prison: an inmate perspective. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 16, 5374.
19. Clear, T. R., Stout, B. D., Dammer, H. R., Kelly, L., Hardyman, P. L., & Shapiro, C. (1992). Does involvement in religion help prisoners adjust to prison? San Francisco: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
20. Clear, T. R., & Sumter, M. T. (2002). Prisoners, prison and religion: religion and adjustment to prison. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 35, 127159.
21. Cohen, R. (2003). Students helping students: peer mediation. In T. S. Jones & R. Compton (Eds.), Kids working it out: stories and strategies for making peace in our schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
22. Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
23. Cunningham, T. (2007). Pre-court diversion in the Northern Territory: impact on juvenile reoffending (Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice 339). Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
24. Czaja, R., & Blair, J. (2005). Designing surveys: a guide to decisions and procedures. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
25. Daelemans, A. (2006). Guiding the change process in Belgian prisons: towards a restorative prison policy. Paper presented at the 4th Conference of the European Forum for Restorative Justice Restorative justice: an agenda for Europe. Barcelona: 1517 June.
26. Davis, G. (1992). Making amends: mediation and reparation in criminal justice. London: Routledge.27. Edgar, K., & Newell, T. (2006). Restorative justice in prisons: a guide to making it happen. Winchester: Waterside Press.
28. Evans, T. D., Cullen, F. T., Dunaway, R. G., & Burton, V. S. (1995). Religion and crime re-examined: the impact of religion, secular controls, and social ecology on adult criminality. Criminology, 33, 195 224.
29. Eyckmans, D., Dufraing, D. & Regelbrugge, M. (2002). The concept of restorative justice in prison seen from the community and illustrated by the practice of victim-offender mediation. Paper presented at the 2nd conference of the European Forum for Victim-Offender Mediation and Restorative Justice, Oostende: 1012 October.
30. Flaten, C. L. (1996). Victim-offender mediation: application with serious offenses committed by juveniles. In B. Galaway & J. Hudson (Eds.), Restorative justice: international perspectives. Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.
Restorative justice in Belgian prisons 109
31. Frow, J. (2001). Discursive justice. South Atlantic Quarterly, 100, 331348.32. Garland, D. (1990). Punishment and modern society: a study in social theory. Oxford: Clarendon.33. Garland, D. (Ed.). (2001). Mass imprisonment: social causes and consequences. London: Sage.34. Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2004). Survey methodology. New York: Wiley.
35. Guest, J. J. R. (2005). Aboriginal legal theory and restorative justice. In W. D. McCaslin (Ed.), Justice as healing: indigenous ways. St. Paul: Living Justice Press.
36. Hadley, M. L. (2001). Introduction: multifaith reflection on criminal justice. In M. L. Hadley (Ed.), The spiritual roots of restorative justice. Albany: State University of New York Press.
37. Hagemann, O. & Robertz, F. (2000). Prevention of victimization by working with serious offenders. Paper presented at the 10th International Symposium on Victimology. Montreal: 611 August.
38. Hammarberg, T. (2008). Report by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights on his visit to Belgium. Strasbourg: 1519 December.
39. Hewitt, J. D. (2006). Having faith in faith-based prison programs. Criminology and Public Policy, 5, 551558.40. Hudson, B. A. (2003). Understanding justice: an introduction to ideas, perspectives and controversies in modern penal theory (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.
41. Ierley, A., & Claassen-Wilson, D. (2003). Making things right: restorative justice for school communities. In T. S. Jones & R. Compton (Eds.), Kids working it out: stories and strategies for making peace in our schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
42. Johnstone, G. (2007). Restorative justice and the practice of imprisonment. Prison Service Journal, 174, 1520.
43. Johnson, B. R., De Li, S., Larson, D. B., & McCullough, M. (2000). A systematic review of the religiosity and delinquency literature. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 16, 3252.
44. Johnson, B. R., Jang, S. J., Larson, D. B., & De Li, S. (2001). Does adolescent religious commitment matter? A reexamination of the effects of religiosity on delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38, 2244.
45. Johnson, B., Larson, D., & Pitts, T. (1997). Religious programs, institutional adjustment, and recidivism among former inmates in Prison Fellowship programs. Justice Quarterly, 14, 501521.
46. Karmen, A. (2010). Crime victims: introduction to victimology. Belmont: Wadsworth Carnage Learning.
47. Kerley, K. R., & Copes, H. (2009). Keepin my mind right: identity maintenance and religious social support in the prison context. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53, 228244.
48. Lewis, A. D., & Howard, T. J. (2000). Parole officers perceptions of juvenile offenders within a balanced and restorative model of justice. Federal Probation, 64, 4045.
49. Liebmann, M. & Braithwaite, S. (1999). Restorative justice in custodial settings. Available at: http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/prisons5.htlm
Web End =http:// http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/prisons5.htlm
Web End =www.restorativejustice.org.uk/prisons5.htlm .
50. Mace, A. (2000). Restorative principles in the prison setting: a vision for the future. London: International Centre for Prison Studies.
51. Mahoney, A., & Pargament, K. I. (2004). Sacred changes: spiritual conversion and transformation. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60, 481492.
52. Marin, K. (2010). Restorative justice in Belgian prisons. In M. Gyokos & K. Lanyi (Eds.), European best practices of restorative justice in criminal procedure. Budapest: Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
53. Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: how ex-convicts reform and build their lives. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.
54. Maruna, S. (2006). Who owns resettlement? Towards restorative re-integration. British Journal of Community Justice, 4, 2333.
55. Maruna, S., Wilson, L., & Curran, K. (2006). Why God is often found behind bars: prison conversions and the crisis of self-narrative. Research in Human Development, 3, 161184.
56. Marshall, T., & Merry, S. (1990). Crime and accountability: victim/offender mediation in practice. Home Office. London: HM Stationary.
57. Mattison, J., & Mirrlees-Black, C. (2000). Attitudes to crime and criminal justice: findings from the 1998 British crime survey (Research study 200). London: Home Office Statistical Bulletin.
58. McCold, P. (1996). Restorative justice and the role of community. In B. Galaway & J. Hudson (Eds.), Restorative justice: international perspectives. Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.
59. McElrea, F. W. M. (2001). A Christian approach to conflict resolution. A contribution to the seminar What does the Lord require of Christians in conflict?. Australasian Christian Legal Convention. Melbourne: 14 February.
110 N. Stamatakis, C. Vandeviver
60. McNamara, M., & Dhami, M. (2003). The role of apology in restorative justice from victims and offenders perspectives. Vancouver: Institute for Dispute Resolution and Department of Psychology.
61. Mika, H. (1992). Mediation interventions and restorative justice: responding to the astructural bias. InH. Messmer & H.-U. Otto (Eds.), Restorative justice on trial: pitfalls and potentials of victim-offender mediation - international research perspectives. Dordrecht: Kluwer.62. Miller, S. L. (2011). After the crime: the power of restorative justice dialogues between victims and violent offenders. New York: New York University Press.
63. Neuman, W. L. (1994). Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
64. Newell, T. (2001). Responding to the crisis: Belgium establishes restorative prisons. Restorative Justice in Prison Project. London: International Centre for Prison Studies.
65. Newell, T. (2001). Restorative justice in prisons. Paper presented at the International Conference on Restorative and Community Justice: Inspiring the Future. Winchester: 2831 March.
66. Ohbuchi, K., & Sato, K. (1994). Childrens reactions to mitigating accounts: apologies, excuses and intentionality of harm. Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 518.
67. Peters, T., Aertsen, I. Lauwaert, K. & Robert, L. (2003). From community sanctions to restorative justice, 121st International Training Course. Visiting experts paper 61. Available at: http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/RS_No61/No61_17VE_Peters.pdf
Web End =http:// http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/RS_No61/No61_17VE_Peters.pdf
Web End =www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/RS_No61/No61_17VE_Peters.pdf .
68. Paterson, R. A. (2000). Constructing effective questionnaires. Thousand Oaks: Sage.69. Petrucci, C. J. (2002). Apology in the criminal justice setting: evidence for including apology as additional component in the legal system. Behavioral Science and the Law, 20, 337362.
70. Pogarsky, G., & Piquero, A. R. (2003). Can punishment encourage offending? Investigating the resetting effect. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40, 95120.
71. Poulson, B. (2003). A third voice: a review of empirical research on the psychological outcomes of restorative justice. Utah Law Review, 1, 167203.
72. Presser, S., Rothgeb, J. M., Couper, M., Lessler, J. T., Martin, E., Martin, J., & Singer, E. (2004). Methods of testing and evaluating survey questionnaires. Hoboken: Wiley.
73. Prothrow-Stith, D. (1991). Deadly consequences. New York: Harper Collins.74. Punch, K. F. (1998). Introduction to social research: quantitative and qualitative approaches. London: Sage.
75. Restorative Justice Consortium (2006). Restorative justice works! The positive effect of restorative justice on reoffending. London: RJC. Available at: http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/resources/publications/
Web End =http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/resources/ http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/resources/publications/
Web End =publications/ .
76. Restorative Justice Consortium (2011). What is restorative justice?. London: RJC. Available at: http://www.bristol-mediation.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/What-is-Restorative-Justice.pdf
Web End =http:// http://www.bristol-mediation.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/What-is-Restorative-Justice.pdf
Web End =www.bristol-mediation.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/What-is-Restorative-Justice.pdf .
77. Rea, L. M., & Parker, R. A. (1992). Designing and conducting survey research: a comprehensive guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
78. Reynolds, C. (2000). Workplace mediation. In M. Liebmann (Ed.), Mediation in context. London: Jessica Kingsley.
79. Robert, L., & Peters, T. (2002). How restorative justice is able to transcend the prison walls: a discussion of the project Restorative Detention. In E. Weitekamp & H. Kerner (Eds.), Restorative justice in context: international practice & directions. Devon: Willan.
80. Ross, R. (1996). Return to the teachings: exploring aboriginal justice. Toronto: Penguin.81. Rugge, T. A., & Cormier, R. B. (2005). Restorative justice in cases of serious crimes: an evaluation. InE. Elliott & R. M. Gordon (Eds.), New directions in restorative justice: issues, practice, evaluation. Portland: Willan.82. Sarat, A. (1999). Remorse, responsibility and criminal punishment: an analysis of popular culture. InS. A. Bandes (Ed.), The passions of law. New York: New York University Press.83. Salant, P., & Dillman, D. A. (1994). How to conduct your own survey. New York: Wiley.84. Scher, S. J., & Darley, J. M. (1997). How effective are the things people say to apologize? Effects of the realization of the apology speech act. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 127140.
85. Simon, J. (1969). Basic research methods in social science: the art of empirical investigation. New York: Random.
86. Simon, J. (2010). Beyond the Panopticon: mass imprisonment and the humanities. Law Culture and the Humanities, 6, 327340.
87. Shapiro, C. (1992). Adult probation in America: its role in restorative justice. In H. Messmer & H. U. Otto (Eds.), Restorative justice on trial: pitfalls and potentials of victim-offender mediation: international research perspectives. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Restorative justice in Belgian prisons 111
88. Snacken, S. (2001). National reports: Belgium. In S. van Zyl & F. Dnkel (Eds.), Imprisonment today and tomorrow: international perspectives on prisoners rights and prison conditions. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
89. Strang, H., & Braithwaite, J. (2000). Restorative justice: philosophy to practice. Aldershot: Ashgate.90. Strang, H., & Sherman, L. W. (2003). Repairing the harm: victims and restorative justice. Utah Law Review, 1, 1542.
91. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1997). Grounded theory in practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.92. Suggnom (2011). Annual report. Available at: http://www.herstelrecht.be/jaarverslag/jaarverslagsuggnome_krant_2011.pdf
Web End =http://www.herstelrecht.be/jaarverslag/jaarverslag http://www.herstelrecht.be/jaarverslag/jaarverslagsuggnome_krant_2011.pdf
Web End =suggnome_krant_2011.pdf .
93. Tavuchis, N. (1991). Mea culpa: a sociology of apology and reconciliation. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
94. Thomas, J., & Zaitow, B. H. (2006). Conning or conversion: the role of religion in prison coping. Prison Journal, 86, 242259.
95. Toby, J. (1962). Criminal motivation: a sociocultural analysis. British Journal of Criminology, 3, 317336.96. Umbreit, M. (1990). The meaning of fairness to burglary victims. In B. Galaway & J. Hudson (Eds.), Criminal justice, restitution, and reconciliation. Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.
97. Umbreit, M. S. (1994). Victim meets offender: the impact of restorative justice and mediation. Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.
98. Umbreit, M., & Armour, M. P. (2011). Restorative justice dialogue: an essential guide for research and practice. New York: Springer.
99. Umbreit, M.S. & Vos, B. (2000). The Restorative justice and mediation collection: executive summary, Office for Victims of Crime Bulletin (July): US Department of Justice
100. Van Camp, T., Van Win, T., Aertsen, I., Daeninck, P., & Malempr, H. (2004). Vade-mecum herstelrecht en gevangenis. Ghent: Academia Press.
101. Van Droogenbroeck, B. (2010). Victim offender mediation in severe crimes in Belgium: what victims need and offenders can offer. In M. Gyokos & K. Lanyi (Eds.), European best practices of restorative justice in criminal procedure. Budapest: Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
102. Van Ness, D. (2002). The shape of things to come: a framework for thinking about a restorative justice system. In E. G. M. Weitekamp & H. J. Kerner (Eds.), Restorative justice: theoretical foundations. Cullompton: Willan.
103. Van Ness, D. W. (2002). The role of Church in criminal justice reform. Paper presented in the Justice that Restores Forum. Orlando, FL: 1416 March.
104. van Zyl-Smit, D. (2007). Handbook of basic principles and promising practices on alternatives to imprisonment (UNODC Criminal Justice Handbook Series). New York: United Nations.
105. Weiner, B., Sandra, G., Orli, P., & Zmuidinas, M. (1991). Public confession and forgiveness. Journal of Personality, 59, 281312.
106. Willis, G. B. (2005). Cognitive interviewing: a tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.107. Workman, K. (2001). The influence of religion on inmates adjustment and recidivism: a summary of recent research. Report prepared for Prison Fellowship New Zealand.108. Workman, K. (2010). Can prisoners also be victims? Promoting injustice through legislation.
Restorative Justice Online. Available at: http://www.restorativejustice.org/RJOB/can-prisoners-also-be-victims-promoting-injustice-through-legislation
Web End =http://www.restorativejustice.org/RJOB/can-prisoners-also- http://www.restorativejustice.org/RJOB/can-prisoners-also-be-victims-promoting-injustice-through-legislation
Web End =be-victims-promoting-injustice-through-legislation .109. Wright, M. (1982). Making good: prisons, punishment and beyond. London: Burnett Books.110. Zehr, H. (1990). Changing lenses: a new focus for crime and justice. Scottdale: Herald Press.111. Zehr, H. (2002). The little book of restorative justice. Intercourse: Good Books Press.112. Zimring, F. E., & Hawkins, G. (1995). Penal confinement and the restrain of crime. New York &
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013