The Potential for Restorative Justice Practice for Addressing Intimate Partner Violence with Queer Couples

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Autumn M. Bermea ◽  
Alexandra M. VanBergen
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Restorative Justice ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Justice Practice

Restorative Justice Approaches to Intimate Partner Violence: A Review of Interventions

Partner Abuse ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 318-349
Author(s):  
Briana Barocas ◽  
Hila Avieli ◽  
Rei Shimizu
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Restorative Justice ◽  
Social Services ◽  
Program Implementation ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
English Language ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Research Literature ◽  
Community Response

Domestic violence, and specifically, violence against intimate partners, has generated a large research literature in the last few decades, particularly in the area of policy and community response and intervention. However, less attention has been given to the use of more innovative approaches in such situations, namely the use of restorative justice (RJ) interventions for intimate partner violence (IPV). The aim of this review is to provide a general overview of how RJ approaches have been utilized in the context of IPV, systematically examine the available literature on RJ approaches to IPV, describe the interventions that have been developed and empirically tested, and synthesize the findings. This review summarizes existing empirical research and literature on RJ interventions for IPV. APA PsychNet, CINAHL, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Embase, Medline PubMed, PsychInfo, PTSD Publications, SCOPUS, Social Services Abstracts, Social Work Reference Center, SocINDEX, Sociological Abstracts, and Web of Science were systematically searched for English-language publications with no restrictions on the year of publication. As a result, 14 articles and 5 book chapters (empirical studies and reviews) on interventions were included in this review. Synthesized findings highlight the awareness and meaning of RJ, significance of community, goals and outcomes of RJ, timing of program implementation, and what types of IPV cases are best suited for RJ. Additionally, the review describes current research gaps as well as the challenges and barriers of implementing RJ interventions.

scholarly journals An analysis of restorative justice and intimate partner violence policy and practice: professionals' perspectives and perceptions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Melissa L. Garber
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Restorative Justice ◽  
Police Officers ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
International Literature ◽  
Policy And Practice

<p>This qualitative research project endeavoured to open up the conversation around RJ and IPV and highlight gaps in policy in order to give voice to an area in the RJ process that has, up to this point, been virtually silent. There were two overarching aims. The first was to identify the underlying practice assumptions and values evident in the New Zealand Ministry of Justice (MOJ) restorative justice (RJ) standards for family violence (FV) cases (MOJ, 2013). These would be viewed from the perspective of working with intimate partner violence (IPV) cases in particular. The intention was to compare these assumptions and values with RJ and IPV international theory and New Zealand practice. The second aim was to clarify the processes and criteria used to determine/assess IPV offender suitability and readiness for RJ, ascertain the ways in which these practices were theoretically justified, and to compare the implementation of practice to the explicit and implicit guidelines present in New Zealand policy. To these ends, a collection of 30 criminal justice professionals (judges, lawyers, police officers) and restorative justice facilitators involved in the referral and assessment process of IPV offenders participated in interviews in person, over the phone, or via Skype, which were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and then subject to analysis in order to create a conceptual framework. The analysis identified 18 main themes that were grouped into four main categories: RJ IPV conceptualization, effective RJ IPV assessor qualities, IPV offender assessment for RJ suitability/readiness, and RJ IPV practice issues. These results were compared with policy and with the international literature in order to identify consistencies and inconsistencies and to discover where gaps in policy may become clarified. Results showed that a great deal of the policy was supported by the international literature, however there were several gaps and inconsistencies. Several issues were of interest – namely the lack of clarity in the framework of RJ for IPV (i.e. where does it sit in relation to the traditional criminal justice system, intervention vs. pathway vs. overarching framework), the timing of RJ assessment in terms of treatment and interventions, siloing of agencies, and funding/resourcing issues. A final question that arose for me during analysis was regarding the purpose and value of assessment in these cases. Rather than making a decision regarding suitability in order to exclude an IPV case from the RJ process, if the process was truly restorative, perhaps the outcome of an assessment of IPV offender/case suitability should, instead, be to determine what resources are necessary in order to support any IPV case through the RJ process.</p>

scholarly journals An analysis of restorative justice and intimate partner violence policy and practice: professionals' perspectives and perceptions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Melissa L. Garber
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Restorative Justice ◽  
Police Officers ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
International Literature ◽  
Policy And Practice

<p>This qualitative research project endeavoured to open up the conversation around RJ and IPV and highlight gaps in policy in order to give voice to an area in the RJ process that has, up to this point, been virtually silent. There were two overarching aims. The first was to identify the underlying practice assumptions and values evident in the New Zealand Ministry of Justice (MOJ) restorative justice (RJ) standards for family violence (FV) cases (MOJ, 2013). These would be viewed from the perspective of working with intimate partner violence (IPV) cases in particular. The intention was to compare these assumptions and values with RJ and IPV international theory and New Zealand practice. The second aim was to clarify the processes and criteria used to determine/assess IPV offender suitability and readiness for RJ, ascertain the ways in which these practices were theoretically justified, and to compare the implementation of practice to the explicit and implicit guidelines present in New Zealand policy. To these ends, a collection of 30 criminal justice professionals (judges, lawyers, police officers) and restorative justice facilitators involved in the referral and assessment process of IPV offenders participated in interviews in person, over the phone, or via Skype, which were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and then subject to analysis in order to create a conceptual framework. The analysis identified 18 main themes that were grouped into four main categories: RJ IPV conceptualization, effective RJ IPV assessor qualities, IPV offender assessment for RJ suitability/readiness, and RJ IPV practice issues. These results were compared with policy and with the international literature in order to identify consistencies and inconsistencies and to discover where gaps in policy may become clarified. Results showed that a great deal of the policy was supported by the international literature, however there were several gaps and inconsistencies. Several issues were of interest – namely the lack of clarity in the framework of RJ for IPV (i.e. where does it sit in relation to the traditional criminal justice system, intervention vs. pathway vs. overarching framework), the timing of RJ assessment in terms of treatment and interventions, siloing of agencies, and funding/resourcing issues. A final question that arose for me during analysis was regarding the purpose and value of assessment in these cases. Rather than making a decision regarding suitability in order to exclude an IPV case from the RJ process, if the process was truly restorative, perhaps the outcome of an assessment of IPV offender/case suitability should, instead, be to determine what resources are necessary in order to support any IPV case through the RJ process.</p>

Multiple Perspectives on How Intimate Partner Violence Surrogate Impact Panels Affect Abusive Partners

2021 ◽  
pp. 107780122110582
Author(s):  
Kate Sackett Kerrigan ◽  
Eric S. Mankowski
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Restorative Justice ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Intervention Programs ◽  
Emotional Impact ◽  
Batterer Intervention ◽  
Multiple Perspectives ◽  
Perceived Impacts ◽  
Abusive Partners

Restorative justice programs, including surrogate impact panels, are increasingly used to address intimate partner violence (IPV) but research has not assessed adequately how panels may affect participating abusive partners. This article reports the perceived impacts of surrogate impact panels on justice-involved individuals (JIIs) who attended a panel as part of their batterer intervention programs (BIPs) using surveys of JIIs ( N = 289) and focus groups or interviews with panelist speakers, JIIs, and BIP providers. Findings suggest that JIIs can connect with speakers, reach new understandings of IPV, and express emotional impact/intent to change. The findings can inform decisions to use panels as part of IPV interventions.

Restorative Justice and Violence Against Women in the United States

2017 ◽  
pp. 63-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorenn Walker ◽  
Cheri Tarutani
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Restorative Justice ◽  
Violence Against Women ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Black People ◽  
The United States ◽  
Intimate Partner

Opposition to using restorative justice to address violence against women mainly concerns the fear that women will be re-victimized if they engage with men who endangered them. While law enforcement and criminal justice approaches are necessary to address violence against women, women's choices about when and how to use law enforcement and prosecution to address violence against them, should be respected. Exclusive criminalization of violence against women has not protected many and has further harmed marginalized and Black people. To address intimate partner violence, victims' needs for healing must be met including when the victim-offender overlap applies and an offender is also a victim. Ignoring healing perpetuates violence. Applying restorative justice and its foundational questions, during direct meetings between victims and offenders, or when they meet separately, can address the victim-offender overlap, reduce reliance on punishment, and increase healing.

Defining Justice: Restorative and Retributive Justice Goals Among Intimate Partner Violence Survivors

2020 ◽  
pp. 088626052094372
Author(s):  
Michele R. Decker ◽  
Charvonne N. Holliday ◽  
Zaynab Hameeduddin ◽  
Roma Shah ◽  
Janice Miller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Restorative Justice ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Justice System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Retributive Justice ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Response Systems ◽  
Safety And Stability

Intimate partner violence (IPV) and sexual violence (SV) are drivers of women’s morbidity and mortality yet remain among the most underreported crimes in the United States. Understanding IPV/SV survivors’ justice preferences and justice definitions can strengthen violence prevention and response systems. In-depth interviews were conducted with women who experienced past-year IPV ( n = 26), to explore their justice preferences and recommendations. Primary themes included accountability, safety, and rehabilitation, with examples within and outside the current justice system, and across restorative and retributive justice frameworks. Women sought accountability through a variety of means. Retributive approaches like incarceration offered accountability as well as fleeting safety, but were critically limited in addressing the root causes of violence and, in some cases, were felt to exacerbate the problem. Women’s expressed needs and preferences centered on restorative aspects of justice, including perpetrator’s acknowledgment of harm, achieving physical safety and stability, and perpetrator rehabilitation through counseling. Paradoxically, women’s safety-related justice goals both encouraged and discouraged their engagement in the formal justice system. The discordance between women’s justice preferences and their perceptions and experiences within the current justice system illustrate complex and difficult trade-offs faced by survivors in achieving physical, social, and economic safety. Moreover, they likely contribute to the low levels of IPV/SV reporting to police. Women’s goals were aligned with restorative justice principles, illustrating the value of this approach. In an era of unprecedented dialogue on justice reform, results provide direction for integrating restorative justice practices to strengthen the justice response to violence against women.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document