Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The exchange of apology and forgiveness in restorative justice is regarded as an important marker of symbolic reparation that is imbued with ritual significance. Despite this, how victims assess the sincerity of such remedial work has received limited empirical focus. It also remains unclear what role, if any, apologies play in precipitating victim forgiveness in restorative justice. The current study prioritizes victims’ experiences in Youth Justice Committees, a programme model of restorative justice in Canada, to explore the apology–forgiveness cycle. Analysis of data collected through 14 semi-structured interviews with victims who participated in 16 restorative justice programmes reveals that, for an apology to be deemed sincere, it requires the youth to accept responsibility for the harm, to express affect that conveys their recognition of the harm, and to take steps to make amends. In many instances, a sincere apology prompted forgiveness from the victim; however, the trajectory from apology to forgiveness was not always sequential. Results are discussed considering factors – such as the role of parents/guardians, age, and offence severity – that mediate the likelihood of apology and forgiveness in restorative justice programmes with justice-involved youth.

Keywords

Restorative justice apology and forgiveness victims justice-involved youth

Introduction

Restorative justice aims to address harm caused to victims and communities, to restore interpersonal relationships, and to empower those directly involved with justice matters. This requires a voluntary and participatory process that emphasizes the value of communication and negotiated agreement through consensus building grounded in local capacity (Crawford and Newburn, 2003; Marshall, 1999). Although variation exists with respect to what form restorative justice takes, and at which stage in the criminal justice system, it is now considered a widely accepted alternative within conventional criminal justice processes (Stubbs, 2007).

While victims play a central role in restorative practices, empirical research has prioritized the experiences of offenders. Literature that has assessed the impact of restorative justice on victims tends to report on outcomes, finding that victims perceive restorative justice as fairer, more satisfying, and more legitimate than what is offered in traditional justice settings due to the expressive and procedural aspects embedded (Barnes et al., 2015; Shapland et al., 2007; Tyler et al., 2007). More recently, scholarship has assessed the role of emotion, finding that victims report lower levels of post-traumatic stress symptomology (Angel et al., 2014), reduced anger and vengeance (Sherman et al., 2005), and increased levels of forgiveness (Armour and Umbreit, 2018).

The current study explores victim assessments of apology and forgiveness in restorative justice programmes involving justice-involved youth. Although apology and forgiveness are important components in restorative justice, their dynamics and interrelationship remain inadequately understood. One the one hand, apologies act as an important catalyst that may increase forgiveness – particularly concerning interpersonal transgressions involving harm committed by one individual against another (McAlinden, 2023; Wohl et al., 2012) – and contribute to the transformative and reparative potential of restorative practices (Keenan and Zinsstag, 2022; Marino, 2023). On the other hand, not all victims who receive an apology view the apology provided as sincere (Choi and Severson, 2009; Suzuki, 2022), and there is growing recognition that the sequence from apology to forgiveness is not linear (Shapland, 2020; Suzuki and Jenkins, 2024). Likewise, given the communicative competence required to express emotional sentiment for symbolic reparation, it remains unclear what implications these dynamics pose in restorative practices that involve youth. The present research prioritizes victims’ experiences in Youth Justice Committees (YJCs), a programme model of restorative justice in Canada, to unpack the apology–forgiveness cycle to provide more nuanced insights on how such processes work, while contributing to the limited empirical literature on apology and forgiveness from the perspective of crime victims.

The role and meaning of apology in restorative justice

Apologies are imbued with ritual significance that have the potential to produce symbolic meaning (Goffman, 1959; Tavuchis, 1991). An apology can be defined as a verbal or written statement expressing regret or remorse for one’s actions (Eaton, 2024) that includes an acknowledgement by the offender of the offence and a commitment to change their behaviour (Lazare, 2004; Tavuchis, 1991). In this way, apologies are conceptualized as remedial acts that convey allegiance to societal norms and a willingness to re-establish social harmony among those harmed. While apologies should not be the primary focus of restorative practice, there is clear indication that victims value, and often expect, such sentiments (Crawford and Newburn, 2003; Strang et al., 2013). The prevalence of apologies in restorative justice, however, varies, occurring in anywhere from 30% to 100% of restorative justice processes (Bolitho, 2012). In a qualitative exploration of the likelihood of apologies offered by offenders to their victims during mediation, Dhami (2016) found that about half of cases mentioned the perpetrator apologizing. Indeed, as others note, while apologies may be a sought-after goal in restorative justice, they do not always occur in practice (Choi and Severson, 2009; Daly, 2001).

Importantly, for an apology to produce symbolic meaning, it must also be interpreted by the receiver as sincere or genuine, rather than manipulative or self-serving (Weiseman, 2004). The likelihood of a victim perceiving an apology as sincere in the context of restorative justice, however, has garnered mixed findings (Bolívar et al., 2015; Vanfraechem, 2015). While Strang et al. (2013) found victims frequently perceive apologies as sincere, Gray (2005) reports victims often express concerns about the sincerity of their offenders’ apology. Others highlight that, despite offenders offering apologies, and believing them to be genuine, victims frequently disagree, noting the apologies were not ‘sincere and heartfelt’ (Choi and Severson, 2009: 818; Daly, 2005). In other words, while victims often desire or expect an apology when participating in a restorative justice programme, they do not always receive one or perceive the apology provided as sincere, suggesting there is some misalignment between victim expectations and outcomes.

While empirical research on victim assessments of apology sincerity in restorative justice is limited, theoretical scholarship on the socio-psychological components of effective apologies abounds (Dhami, 2016; Goffman, 1959; Gold and Weiner, 2000; Slocum et al., 2011). A complete apology, for instance, should convey an acknowledgement and acceptance of responsibility for the harm done, affect that refers to the offenders’ emotional response to the wrongful behaviour, and an attempt or action that incorporates the offenders’ effort to make amends or repair the harm caused (Tavuchis, 1991; Weiseman, 2004). Others emphasize the manner (e.g. tone, pitch, timing) in which an apology is given or emotional sentiment as relevant factors that shape sincerity (Goffman, 1959; Tavuchis, 1991). Of particular importance is the expression of remorse, defined as the anguish and pain one feels at having violated social or legal norms (Lazare, 1995). As Tangney et al. (2011) note, from the perspective of victims, remorse demonstrates that the offender regrets their actions and is willing to change their future behaviour. Importantly, while many of the components involved in delivering a sincere apology (acceptance of responsibility, remorse, and reparation) are core elements of restorative justice processes, there has been limited empirical research which has assessed restorative justice considering this scholarship.

The generative potential of apologies: The apology–forgiveness sequence

The role of apology is relevant to restorative justice not only because victims often expect to receive one, but because of the symbolic value it holds in facilitating victim forgiveness. Forgiveness is frequently defined as the process of replacing bitter, angry feelings of vengefulness with positive feelings of goodwill (Lawler-Row et al., 2008; Wade et al., 2005) and a prosocial change in one’s attitude towards the offender (Doak, 2011; Eaton, 2024; Struthers et al., 2008). Importantly, forgiveness is a multi-dimensional process that can involve both inter- and intra-personal dimensions (Enright et al., 1998; Worthington, 2006). The former typically refers to a bilateral process in which the wronged party extends forgiveness to the wrongdoer, while the latter captures the unilateral process that involves the release of negative, other-directed emotions stemming from the actions of the person who caused harm (Suzuki and Jenkins, 2024).

While forgiveness is not dependent upon an apology, the interactive and communicative dynamics central to restorative justice link them together as a core sequence of reconciliation (Armour and Umbreit, 2006; Retzinger and Scheff, 1996). Concerning victims, apologies have been shown to result in a recommitment to group morality, which may predict less desire for revenge (Sherman et al., 2005), contribute to a reduction in anger (Lawler-Row et al., 2008; Lloyd and Borrill, 2020), and increase satisfaction, respect, and trust towards the wrongdoer (Dhami, 2012; Ma et al., 2019). In the context of restorative justice, however, it is generally regarded that forgiveness should not be considered a primary goal, but, rather, an emergent standard. Allowing victims to exercise discretion in the process is important to minimize coercion and the generation of inauthentic emotions (Braithwaite, 2002; Stubbs, 2007). Indeed, even without achieving forgiveness, victims may report satisfaction related to their participation in restorative practice (Daly, 2006; Keenan and Griffth, 2019).

Despite concerns regarding what role forgiveness should play in restorative justice, research suggests it is occurring in approximately 30–80% of restorative justice cases (Suzuki and Jenkins, 2023) and, when successful, the benefits for crime victims cannot be understated. Importantly, however, the apology–forgiveness sequence is not implicit or straightforward in restorative justice (Braithwaite, 2016). Hayes (2006) reports that apology–forgiveness occurred in less than half of the cases observed in a youth justice conference, and Dhami (2012) found that, while over 90% of victims received an apology during their participation in a mediation programme, only 18% offered forgiveness. As Rossner (2019: 374) notes, empirical research on this topic suggests a kind of ‘lopsided sequence’ whereby apologies may be offered, but not always seen as genuine or followed by forgiveness. Furthermore, not all victims desire an apology or seek to forgive their perpetrator when participating in a restorative justice process. Indeed, no matter how powerful or sincere an apology provided may be, the victim may not be ready to offer forgiveness, particularly in cases where the offence severity is high (Doak, 2011; McAlinden, 2023; Shapland, 2016).

Recently, Suzuki and Jenkins (2023: 131) developed a four-category typology in which they predict the apology–forgiveness cycle may take place in restorative justice, including: (1) apology that precedes forgiveness; (2) no forgiveness regardless of the apology; (3) forgiveness that precedes apology; and (4) forgiveness without apology. In cycle 1, apology facilitating forgiveness, the traditional sequence occurs whereby a sincere apology facilitates victim forgiveness. In cycle 2, an apology may be provided, but it may be perceived as incomplete by victims and unlikely to facilitate forgiveness. A third possibility is a ‘reversed sequence’, in which victims verbally offer, or may otherwise show a forgiving attitude, without receiving an apology (Suzuki and Jenkins, 2023: 2), while in the last cycle, victims may offer forgiveness, but do not receive an apology. Although this model introduces a multifaceted framework to understand the apology–forgiveness cycle in restorative justice, it has yet to be explored empirically.

Factors shaping the delivery and interpretation of apology–forgiveness

While previous scholarship identifies the importance of symbolic reparation in restorative justice, empirical research is limited with respect to how the apology–forgiveness process works in restorative practice. In the context of youth-based restorative justice programmes, the developmental or cognitive capacities of justice-involved youth may pose challenges in the dialogue process which necessitates the expression of vulnerable emotions such as remorse (Snow and Powell, 2012). Choi et al. (2011) found that, despite agreeing they were remorseful, in many cases youthful offenders did not appear to know how to express their remorse due to nervousness. Although the authors did not evaluate the victim’s perspective, they suggest that a lack of perceived remorse may contribute to the process being less restorative for victims than it might otherwise have been if the youth were able to express emotions in socially appropriate ways. Similarly, while acknowledgement of shame is central to restorative practice (Braithwaite, 1989; Scheff and Retzinger, 1991), defensive strategies to ‘save face’ may disrupt the apology–forgiveness cycle (Goffman, 1959). Tavuchis (1991) explains that when an apology moves from the private to the public realm, issues of shame become more salient and difficult to overcome. While this research has furthered our understanding of the barriers experienced by youth when expected to deliver an apology in restorative justice, we know comparatively less about victims’ experiences.

Furthermore, despite the value placed on apology–forgiveness, there is concern that emotions may be subtly, or otherwise, coerced during programme delivery. Stubbs (2007) explains there is little recognition in restorative justice regarding the imposition of obligations on victims or offenders to demonstrate inauthentic expressions that may facilitate the generation of false claims. Choi and Severson (2009) found evidence that victims’ needs were sometimes overlooked in victim–offender mediation processes which may reflect victims feeling pressured to accept an apology offered during the session.

The apology–forgiveness cycle may also be shaped by gendered norms or offence severity. Empirical evidence suggests that women may be more likely than men to apologize if it restores relationships, while men may be motivated to apologize if an apology is viewed as a means of controlling the situation (Petrucci, 2002). Further, Allan et al. (2022), in a study that incorporated vignettes, found that the age of the offender impacted victim’s perceptions of apology sincerity, suggesting victims may be more inclined to accept an apology delivered by a younger, as opposed to an older, offender. Finally, while some research has found that the more serious the offence, the more likely the apology will be rejected (Bennett and Earwaker, 2001), simply examining the severity of the offence negates to account for the subjective experience of the victims in light of how the offence has impacted them (Daly, 2005; Suzuki, 2022).

Overall, despite evidence that victims expect an apology in restorative practice, and often receive one, there is a surprising lack of research that explores what constitutes a sincere apology, or how apologies shape victims’ assessments of forgiveness in restorative practices. Given the benefits that may ensue from a sincere apology, a more fulsome exploration of the dynamics that shape these processes is required. By prioritizing the experience of victims in a restorative justice programme with justice-involved youth, the present study seeks to assess how apology sincerity is determined as well as the role apology plays in facilitating victim forgiveness.

Data and methods

All victim participants in the sample took part in a YJC in Ontario, Canada between 2019 and 2020. YJCs are a model of restorative justice that operate under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (2002) as a diversion programme at the pre-charge or post-charge level. Participation in the programme is voluntary and requires the young person to accept responsibility for their actions that led to the charge. YJCs bring together the young person, their parent or guardian, the victim, and trained community volunteers to focus on the harm caused, the impact of the harm caused, and ways to repair the harm (Ministry of Children Community Social Services (MCCSS), 2024).

Data collection

Programme coordinators of YJCs across four community organizations reviewed case files and contacted victims to gauge their interest in participating in a 1-hour interview. Interviews were completed with 14 victims who participated in 16 YJCs between January 2020 and August 2020¹. Two interviews were conducted face-to-face; however, with the onset of the pandemic and social distancing measures, most interviews were completed over the phone. Interviews lasted approximately 1.5 hours and provided qualitative and quantitative data on victim assessments of apology and forgiveness. Identifying information has been removed to maintain confidentiality² and participants are referred to using pseudonyms, age, and broad offence in the presentation of results.

The research design reflects a mixed methods approach of embedded integration whereby both open- and closed-ended questions were asked, yielding a more comprehensive understanding of the role of apology and forgiveness in restorative justice (Curry and Nunez-Smith, 2015; Kahwati and Kane, 2020). Participants were asked if they received an apology from the young person and to elaborate on if the apology provided was sincere. This was followed up with a series of scaled questions (1 being strongly agree to 5 being strongly disagree), including if they felt the apology provided was sincere and if the young person accepted responsibility for the harm caused, expressed remorse, and made attempts to repair the harm.

To measure forgiveness, victims were asked to describe what role forgiveness played in their experience with the YJC, and to then rate on a scale of 1–5 (1 being strongly agree to 5 being strongly disagree) if they have forgiven the youth as a result of participating in the programme. Open-ended questions were then asked to assess the multi-dimensional aspects of forgiveness including if they experienced a reduction in negative or unforgiving emotions, such as anger or fear, and decisional components, such as changes in their opinion of the young person.

Sample

Victims ranged in age from 15 to 55 years old, with an average age of 37 years (see Table 1). The sample was comprised equally of participants who identified as female (n = 7 or 50%) and male (n = 7 or 50%). The sample largely identified as white or Caucasian (n = 11 or 79%) and had varying levels of education. All the interviews were audio recorded and manually transcribed.

Table 1.

Victim demographics.

	Sample(n = 14)
Age (M), (n, %)	37.65
<18 years 18–25 years 26–35 years >36 years	2 (14%)1 (7%)4 (29%)7 (50%)
Gender (n, %)
Female Male	7 (50%)7 (50%)
Race or ethnicity
White Hispanic	11 (79%)3 (21%)
Highest level of education
Graduate school College/university High school Elementary	3 (21%)4 (29%)4 (29%)3 (21%)

As shown in Table 2, referrals were most often received from the police (n = 14 or 78%) with fewer referrals via the courts (n = 4 or 22%). The offence types ranged in degree of seriousness, from assault (n = 6 or 38%) to property offences (n = 5 or 33%). The length of time the victim participated in the YJC, characterized as face-to-face interaction with the young person, lasted on average 1.2 hours. Just over half of victims did not have a pre-existing relationship with the young person, meaning they identified the young person as a stranger (n = 10 or 56%). Of the 16 YJC cases under review, a total of 18 youth participated who had a mean age of 16 years and consisted mostly of male (n = 11 or 61%) versus female (n = 7 or 39%) participants.

Table 2.

Programme characteristics.

	Sample (n = 18)
Most serious offence (n = 18)
Assault Uttering threats Property Mischief	6 (33%)2 (11%)6 (33%)4 (22%)
Referral source
Court (EJS) Police (EJM)	4 (22%)14 (78%)
Length of YJC meeting
<1 hour 1–2 hours >2 hours	3 (17%)12 (67%)3 (17%)
Victim relationship to young person
Stranger (no relationship prior to YJC) Family (parent, guardian) Peers Administrative/work	10 (56%)2 (11%)2 (11%)4 (22%)
Mean age young person (years)	16
Gender of young person
Female Male	7 (39%)11 (61%)

Analytic strategy

Sensitizing concepts from the literature on apology and forgiveness informed the analysis of emergent themes (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Strauss and Corbin, 1998). This followed an open coding process to closely examine the qualitative data related to apology and forgiveness and axial coding to make linkages between initial codes. Victim ratings of apology sincerity were then compared to components of effective apologies (see Table 4). A final comparison assessed the presence or absence of an apology with victim agreement to the question: As a result of participating in the YJC, have you forgiven the young person? This revealed three unique pathways, in line with Suzuki and Jenkins’ (2023) apology–forgiveness typology, including apology facilitating forgiveness (n = 8 or 44%), apology without forgiveness (n = 6 or 33%), and no apology, some forgiveness (n = 4 or 22%; see Table 5). This analysis informed a re-reading of the qualitative data to contextualize victim assessments of apology and forgiveness.

Results

Assessing the role and sincerity of apology

While victims often received an apology (n = 14 or 78%) from the young person during the YJC, in other cases an apology was not provided (n = 4 or 22%). Results suggest that when an apology is provided, however, victims often agree (n = 13 or 93%) the apology was sincere (see Table 3). These findings were then compared to the apology components which suggest that the extent to which the youth accepts responsibility, expresses remorse, and repairs the harm shapes victim’s perceptions of apology sincerity (see Table 4).

Table 3.

Victim agreement on apology sincerity.

Apology provided	Sample (n = 18)
	Apology perceived as sincere
	SA/A	N	D/SD	N/A	Total
Yes No Total	13 (93%)–13 (62%)	–––	1 (7%)–1 (6%)	–4 (100%)4 (22%)	14 (78%)4 (22%)18 (100%)

Table 4.

Comparison of apology sincerity and apology components.

Apology components	Sample (n = 18)
	Apology sincerity
	SA/A	N	D/SD	No apology	Total
Accepted responsibility
SA/A N SD/D Total	11 (61%)2 (11%)–13 (72%)	––––	–1 (6%)–1 (6%)	–2 (11%)2 (11%)4 (22%)	11 (61%)5 (28%)2 (11%)18 (100%)
Expressed remorse
SA/A N SD/D Total	11 (61%)2 (11%)–13 (72%)	––––	––1 (6%)1 (6%)	–1 (6%)3 (17%)4 (22%)	11 (61%)3 (17%)4 (22%)18 (100%)
Made effort to repair harm
SA/A N SD/D Total	11 (61%)2 (11%)–13 (72%)	––––	––1 (6%)1 (6%)	1 (6%)3 (17%)4 (22%)	11 (61%)3 (17%)4 (22%)18 (100%)

The narratives below illuminate victims’ sensemaking processes when determining apology sincerity.

An important consideration by victims is the extent to which the young person accepts responsibility. Most recounted that the youth offered an accurate depiction of the offence and acknowledged the harm caused to the affected parties, which victims felt conveyed acceptance of responsibility and apology sincerity. As Don states:

[The youth] took responsibility for the different groups, like the fire department, the police department, the parents, and the teachers. (Don, age 62, mischief)

Other victims, however, were neutral or disagreed that the young person accepted responsibility, often recalling instances where the youth was trying to justify their actions, being dishonest, or deflecting blame. Kate explains that the youth criticized her for initiating the offence and ‘wasn’t acknowledging her role in it [the harm caused]’:

She [the young person] said I punched her first. She said I started the whole thing. She didn’t say that she hit me at all. She never said that once. She wasn’t really taking responsibility that she started it, she threw the first punch. (Kate, age 16, assault)

In many of these cases, victims implied the parent or guardian of the youth was also mitigating the young person’s role or level of responsibility. Will suggests the parent ‘coached him [the youth] on what to say’, while Kevin describes the parent as ‘blaming the school’ for causing the harm, preventing the youth from accepting responsibility:

She [the parent] was blaming the school and yelling at me and accusing me of having essentially caused it, so that makes it hard. And having somebody interfere and chime in kind of broke up the meeting. (Kevin, age 44, assault)

While the parent or guardian hindered responsibility-taking in these instances, in other cases they were applauded for challenging ‘attempts’ made by the young person to deflect responsibility. Sarah notes how the parent was very strong in saying ‘you messed up’ and not to ‘blame’ anyone else. Allie similarly appreciated how the parent was ‘calling the kettle black’ when the youth deflected responsibility ‘several times’. While hesitant to fully agree that the youth had accepted responsibility, these victims valued the efforts made by the parent or guardian to hold the young person accountable.

Conferences where remorse was displayed, described by victims as youth appearing emotional or visibly upset, were also those in which an apology was provided and viewed as sincere. Daniel and Alice recall that the young person was ‘crying’ and ‘emotional’ when delivering the apology which acted as ‘proof’ of sincerity:

It was very clear how remorseful she was . . . she was crying as she was delivering the apology. And, like I said, I’ve seen a few bullshit artists. But that wasn’t one. She was sincere. And the fact that it wasn’t even what she was saying. You could tell it was legitimate. She regretted it and legitimately felt sorry. (Daniel, age 33, assault)

It meant a lot. I felt it was sincere. There was a lot of emotion. A lot of crying from her. A lot of crying. (Alice, age 46, theft.

In many instances, victims again described the parent or guardian as emotional, for example when they were recounting the impact of the offence or the concern they have for their child. In one conference, the mother of a youth started to cry when it was her turn to talk which Don identified as particularly impactful. Seeing the youth ‘tear up’ during this moment contributed to his confidence that the apology was indeed sincere:

The mom was talking and [the youth] started to tear up, she [the mom] was crying and everything like that. The emotions that you feel, and see, and you can see firsthand that, yup he [the youth] gets it. The whole family is going through a struggle with this. The heartstring card kinda gets pulled. Yup, that’s a real apology. But yeah, just his [the youths] reaction to his mom talking pretty much said it all for me. (Don, age 62, mischief)

In a smaller number of cases, victims felt the youth was not displaying the level of remorse they had anticipated, but they noted the young person’s emotions, or lack thereof, were understandable. Michael mentions the youth has a ‘mild intellectual disability’, while Allie refers to the age and gender of the young person when making sense of the lack of remorse displayed, as she states:

Do you know when people get a bit weepy? Where they get, ‘I’m really sorry’? He didn’t have a lot of that . . . But I have girls, and girls cry. We cry more. I don’t know what a [teenage] boy does. (Allie, age 41, theft and breaking and entering)

Others, however, were disappointed by the lack of remorse displayed, describing the young person as ‘emotionless’ or ‘not caring’ about the impact caused. Carly explains the youth was ‘not really remorseful at all’, while Kate recounts that ‘she [the youth] didn’t express much’ during the conference:

She just looked kind of emotionless or empty throughout most of it. She didn’t express much; she just needed her fidget toy and then she just sat there and didn’t say much. She literally just sat there with that little ball or whatever and she just played with it and said ‘I don’t know’ a bunch of times. (Kate, age 16, assault)

Efforts displayed by the young person to make amends further appear to explain variation in the role and meaning of the apology. Most victims agreed that the young person tried to repair the harm. Rob recalls the youth offered to volunteer at his property which showed a ‘willingness to make up for it’. While such examples of material reparation were common, victims appreciated learning about positive steps the youth had taken to address the underlying causes of their offending behaviour. Daniel explains, for example, he learned that the youth became ‘more responsible’ around her school which demonstrated she understood the seriousness of the situation and lamented her intentions to avoid future involvement with the criminal justice system:

She was like, ‘I’m doing well in school, I’ve made the basketball team’. I was like, for me, that showed she realized. She just assured us how she was trying to get her life on track, and everything along those lines. (Daniel, age 33, assault)

Again, these narratives were often supported by the parent or guardian present with the young person, which validated positive assessments by victims and provided confidence that the youth were ‘staying away from trouble’. As Kevin says:

Her dad was asking for help, and he was appreciative that he had felt in the past that [the young person’s] issues hadn’t been acknowledged properly, and even though his daughter made a mistake, I think there was some positive work with them. I think she’s staying away from it and is looking at how do I engage carrying out ways to solve those problems or get advice. (Kevin, age 44, assault)

Alternatively, in conferences where the youth did not offer an apology, or the apology was viewed as insincere, victims suggested the youth demonstrated little effort to make up for the harm caused. Instead, they described the youth as ‘not caring’ or ‘uninterested’ or noted their efforts to repair the harm were disingenuous. To illustrate, although Paula was relieved that her daughter agreed to attend counselling, she was concerned that she was doing it, not because she felt she needed it, but because she ‘had to’ to successfully complete the programme.

Apology–forgiveness cycles

Table 5 compares the offer of an apology with victim forgiveness revealing three pathways of the apology–forgiveness process, including: apology facilitating forgiveness (n = 8 or 44%), apology without forgiveness (n = 6 or 33%), and no apology, some forgiveness (n = 3 or 17%). Victim narratives below contextualize these findings by describing the meaning they attribute to forgiveness and offer insights as to what factors shape the different trajectories.

Table 5.

Comparison of apology and victim forgiveness.

Apology–forgiveness process	Sample (n = 18)
	Victim forgiveness
	SA/A	N	D/SD	Not applicable	Total
Apology facilitating forgiveness Apology without forgiveness No apology, some forgiveness	8 (44%)––	––2 (11%)	–2 (11%)2 (11%)	–4 (22%)–	8 (44%)6 (33%)4 (22%)
Total	8 (44%)	2 (11%)	4 (22%)	4 (22%)	18 (100%)

Apology facilitating forgiveness

While most victims received an apology, just under half (n = 8 or 44%) agreed they had forgiven the young person. For victims who did forgive the youth, they defined forgiveness as gaining a sense of closure by being able to ‘move on’ and ‘feel more settled’. Sarah explains although she still experiences ‘some impacts’ from the offence, she was able to ‘close the book’, while others, such as Allie, equate forgiveness with a reduction in anger:

You know what, I really don’t have a lot of anger towards him anymore. I really don’t.

The anger is not there. I mean, maybe the disappointment still. But I don’t have the anger to that level. The deep anger, not anymore. (Allie, age 41, theft and breaking and entering)

These victims describe replacing negative emotions, such as anger, with more positive sentiments such as compassion towards the youth as well as a general sense of pride that the conference may positively impact the young person’s future. As Rob recounts:

I do feel less angry. I felt a little more compassionate towards him at the end. (Rob, age 56, theft of motor vehicle)

Importantly, in explaining why they forgave the young person, victims frequently referenced the sincerity of the apology and the remorse displayed. Daniel explains for instance:

It was very clear to me how remorseful she was. . . . So, I really wanted her to know, truthfully, it’s buried. Like there’s no hard feelings here, it’s over. (Daniel, age 33, assault)

Apology without forgiveness

In other instances, despite receiving an apology, victims indicated they did not forgive the youth or stated that forgiveness was not applicable (n = 6 or 33%). In most cases, while the apology was deemed sincere, victims noted forgiveness was not relevant due to the lack of seriousness of the harm or because of their relationship to the youth. Victims in these cases were often administrators from the high schools where the youth attended, and indicated it was ‘not their job to forgive the youth’. When asked if he had forgiven the youth, Kevin states:

I think it’s important that students see forgiveness being modeled. So, when they said, ‘I’m really sorry’, I said, ‘I understand and now we’re moving forward’. (Kevin, age 44, assault)

For Alice, the impact of the offence was so minimal, so she was not expecting forgiveness. Instead, she talked about being satisfied that the programme provided the youth with an ‘opportunity to not have a criminal record’. This was common among other victims who suggested that the young person ‘learning’ or ‘changing their life around’ was more applicable than forgiveness.

In one case, however, the apology provided was interpreted as insincere, due to the lack of responsibility and remorse conveyed and, as a result, the victim did not forgive the youth. Will notes ‘it’s hard to forgive someone who doesn’t seem apologetic at all’. Despite feeling as though the youth was ‘bullshitting’ his apology, Will explains he ‘had to forgive the youth to complete the program’ and describes still harbouring feelings to ‘get back’ at the youth. In this case, while an apology was provided, and forgiveness granted, both expressions were deemed as insincere and coerced.

No apology, some forgiveness

Victims who did not receive an apology reported they did not forgive the young person or were neutral in their assessment (n = 4 or 22%). While they were expecting or hoping for an apology, they did not receive one which they felt limited their agreement that they had forgiven the youth. Carly explains that, if the youth would have been able to ‘explain and provide a little bit more dialogue’ and ‘clarity’ it would have likely made her forgive him:

If he would have been able to kind of explain and provide a little bit more dialogue as to his view of the incident . . . with that clarity, it definitely would have made me forgive. (Carly, age 27, uttering threats)

These victims often harboured anger or fear towards the youth despite participating in the conference. Kate describes she still ‘does not leave the house’, due to fear of being approached by the youth, while Carly expressed concern the youth will ‘escalate in [her] presence’ again. Victims were also less optimistic that the youth would refrain from engaging in future harm, and often described the conference as ‘emotionally draining’ or ‘exhausting’. Kate, for example, was ‘emotional’ at the end of the YJC and, as she recounts, ‘left there crying’ because she ‘just felt really bad’. Interestingly, while not agreeing they had forgiven the youth on the scaled question, most offered some indication that they felt more forgiving towards the young person because of participating in the YJC. For instance, although Kate did not receive an apology, and often described the youth as defiant, she explained that she ‘felt sorry’ for the youth after learning about the difficulties she faced in her family life, which lead her to feel ‘a little bit more forgiving’. In these cases, while the lack of an apology reduced the likelihood that the victim perhaps fully forgave the youth, the empathy developed during the conference, to some extent, appears to have mediated some sense of forgiveness.

Discussion

The benefits accrued through the exchange of apology and forgiveness in restorative justice act as an important measure of symbolic reparation. While the remedial work involved should not be the sole focus of restorative practice, exploring these deeply ritualistic acts provides important insights to understand the experiences of crime victims. The purpose of this paper is to assess victims’ perceptions of apology and forgiveness in youth-based restorative justice programmes to offer a more nuanced understanding of how such processes work in practice.

An important contribution of this study is the relevance of apologies in both facilitating and hindering forgiveness. Congruent with previous studies, findings suggest a positive correlation between apology and forgiveness (Cowden et al., 2019; Fehr et al., 2010; McAlinden, 2023; Wohl et al., 2006). To hold symbolic meaning, however, the apology involves more than just saying one is sorry, and reflects a process of accepting responsibility, expressing remorse, and making amends (Goffman, 1959; Gold and Weiner, 2000; Tavuchis, 1991; Weiseman, 2004). Of particular significance is the emphasis victims place on remorse which appears to create a moral hierarchy through which sincerity is assessed (Weiseman, 2004). This finding is relevant since research on restorative justice in the context of youth justice has focused almost exclusively on the emotion of shame, or (un)acknowledged shame, as the key factor in shaping outcome variation; however, results suggest the emotional sentiment conveyed through remorse holds significant reparative potential for victims (Tangney et al., 2011). Findings also highlight how victims’ assessments of apology sincerity, and subsequent outcomes, reflect diffuse status characteristics which load the values and valences of processes operating at the micro level of social interaction (Allan at al., 2022; Gal and Moyal, 2011; Turner, 2019). For instance, when making sense of a lack of remorse or communicative skills displayed, victims often considered the age or gender of the young person.

The study also provides useful insights related to the role of apology–forgiveness in restorative programmes with justice-involved youth. Specifically, the parent or guardian of the youth impacts victims’ sensemaking processes suggesting that the community of care, or appropriate community of care, is not only relevant in shaping outcomes for youthful offenders (Hoyle and Noguera, 2008), but also for victims. The remedial work involved in the apology–forgiveness cycle also requires sufficient communication skills (Snow and Powell, 2012), but in some conferences the youth was referred to as ‘emotionless’ and ‘disengaged’. While victims were aware that the youth struggled to communicate in select instances, these conclusions were often based on prior knowledge they had of the young person, about which other victims may not be aware. It is also probable that the environment may be intimidating for the young person which can exacerbate nervousness and impede the storytelling process or expression of emotions and, ultimately, the apology–forgiveness process (Haines, 1999). While infrequent, there is also evidence that the value placed on apology–forgiveness may be subtly coerced during restorative processes resulting in inauthentic expressions on behalf of both offenders and victims, which may be particularly relevant in youth-based restorative justice programmes whereby dismissal of criminal charges is dependent upon programme completion (Choi et al., 2013; Stubbs, 2007).

It is apparent that benefits for victims, such as reductions in anger or fear, are greatest when a sincere apology precedes forgiveness (Dhami, 2012; Hayes, 2006; Lloyd and Borrill, 2020). It is also evident, however, that the apology–forgiveness cycle is multifaceted and not implicit, given that forgiveness did not always follow an apology (Hayes, 2006; Rossner, 2019; Suzuki and Jenkins, 2023). Although forgiveness was not relevant for all victims, particularly in cases where the crime severity was perceived as minimal, the remedial work involved in delivering an apology remained important. In other words, a sincere apology holds meaning beyond forgiveness by conveying to victims that the young person adheres to societal norms and is willing to rebuild their future selves. Finally, despite not receiving a full or sincere apology, some victims still report evidence of forgiveness towards the young person. While the restorative outcomes identified in conferences that included a sincere apology were not obvious in these cases (e.g. reduction in anger and fear), the restorative process appears to have facilitated empathy which, to some extent, mediated some sense of forgiveness (Worthington, 2003).

Although the current study provides insights to understand victim assessments of apology and forgiveness in restorative justice, it is not without limitations. The small and relatively homogeneous sample size limits the generalizability of the findings. Further investigation is warranted to assess the experiences of victims who participate in different models of restorative justice programmes, and of those involving more serious types of offences. While there is some evidence that demographics such as gender or offence severity are relevant, a larger sample would allow for further analysis of these factors. The study also focuses exclusively on the perspective of victims and does not account for other participants involved, particularly justice-involved youth and their parents/guardians, as it relates to the decision to offer or withhold an apology. Future research should compare these perspectives to explore if and why a gap between the offer of an apology and subsequent perceptions of sincerity may exist. Finally, the current study did not assess victims’ willingness to forgive the youth prior to attending the restorative programme. Further research could assess how concepts such as victim readiness to forgive may shape the apology–forgiveness process, recognizing that forgiveness may promote the likelihood that an apology is offered (Suzuki and Jenkins, 2023).

Conclusion

By prioritizing the experience of victims, the results of this paper contribute empirical evidence to understand the role of apology and forgiveness in restorative justice. Framing restorative justice as an apology ritual provides a useful conceptual framework to unpack how these processes may produce emergent benefits for victims. Findings offer insight on the process dynamics during interaction that shape the apology–forgiveness cycle. Importantly, the remedial work involved may pose challenges in the youth justice context whereby communicative competence and participation on behalf of a parent or guardian are required. Likewise, while restorative outcomes for victims are most evident when symbolic reparation is achieved, the apology–forgiveness sequence should not be expected or coerced. Careful attention is required when preparing restorative conferences to ensure emotions are authentic and are in the best interests of both victims and youth participants.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Laura MacDiarmid

References

Allan

de Mott

Larkins

, et al. (2022) The impact of voluntariness of apologies on victims’ responses in restorative justice: Findings of a quantitative study. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law 29(4): 593–609.

Angel

Sherman

Strang

, et al. (2014) Short-term effects of restorative justice conferences on post-traumatic stress symptoms among robbery and burglary victims: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Experimental Criminology 10(3): 291–307.

Armour

Umbreit

(2006) The paradox of forgiveness in restorative justice. In: Worthington

(ed.) Handbook of Forgiveness. New York: Routledge.

Armour

Umbreit

(2018) Violence, Restorative Justice, and Forgiveness: Dyadic Forgiveness and Energy Shifts in Restorative Justice Dialogue (1St Ed.). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Barnes

Hyatt

Angel

, et al. (2015) Are restorative justice conferences more fair than criminal courts? Comparing levels of observed procedural justice in the reintegrative shaming experiments (RISE). Criminal Justice Policy Review 26(2): 103–130.

Bennett

Earwaker

(2001) Victims’ responses to apologies: The effects of offender responsibility and offense severity. The Journal of Social Psychology 134: 457–464.

Bolitho

(2012) Restorative justice: The ideals and realities of conferencing for young people. Critical Criminology 20(1): 61–78.

Bolívar

Pelikan

Lemonne

(2015) Victims and Restorative Justice: Towards a Comparison. London: Routledge.

Braithwaite

(1989) Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

10.

Braithwaite

(2002) Setting standards for restorative justice. British Journal of Criminology 42(3): 563–577.

11.

Braithwaite

(2016) Redeeming the ‘f’ word in restorative justice. The Oxford Journal of Law and Religion 5(1): 79–93.

12.

Choi

Severson

(2009) What! What kind of apology is this? The nature of apology in victim offender mediation. Children and Youth Services Review 31: 813–820.

13.

Choi

Gilbert

Green

(2013) Patterns of victim marginalization in victim-offender mediation: Some lessons learned. Crime, Law, and Social Change 59(1): 113–132.

14.

Choi

Green

Gilbert

(2011) Putting a human face on crimes: A qualitative study on restorative justice processes for youths. Child and Adolescent Social Work 28(5): 335–355.

15.

Cowden

Worthington

Jakins

, et al. (2019) Do congruent apologies facilitate forgiveness? South African Journal of Psychology 49(3): 403–416.

16.

Crawford

Newburn

(2003) Youth Offending and Restorative Justice: Implementing Reform in Youth Justice. London: Willan Publishers.

17.

Curry

Nunez-Smith

(2015) Mixed Methods in Health Sciences Research: A Practical Primer. New York: Sage.

18.

Daly

(2001) Conferencing in Australia and New Zealand: Variations, research findings and prospects. In: Morris

Maxwell

(eds) Restorative Justice for Juveniles: Conferencing, Mediation and Circles. Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 59–83.

19.

Daly

(2005) The limits of restorative justice. In: Sullivan

Tifft

(eds) Handbook of Restorative Justice: A Global Perspective. New York: Routledge, pp. 134–146.

20.

Daly

(2006) Restorative justice and sexual assault: An archival study of court and conference cases. The British Journal of Criminology 46(2): 334–356.

21.

Dhami

(2012) Offer and acceptance of apology in victim-offender mediation. Critical Criminology 20(1): 45–60.

22.

Dhami

(2016) Apology in victim-offender mediation. Contemporary Justice Review 19(1): 31–42.

23.

Doak

(2011) Honing the stone: Refining restorative justice as a vehicle for emotional redress. Contemporary Justice Review 14(4): 439–456.

24.

Eaton

(2024) Apologies from Death Row: The Meaning and Consequences of Offender Remorse. Routledge.

25.

Enright

Freedman

Rique

(1998) The psychology of interpersonal forgiveness. In: Enright

North

(eds) Exploring Forgiveness. University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 46–62.

26.

Fehr

Gelfand

Nag

(2010) The road to forgiveness: A meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates. Psychological Bulletin 136(5): 894–914.

27.

Gal

Moyal

(2011) Juvenile victims in restorative justice: Findings from the reintegrative shaming experiments. British Journal of Criminology 51(6): 1014–1034.

28.

Glaser

Strauss

(1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Transaction.

29.

Goffman

(1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.

30.

Gold

Weiner

(2000) Remorse, confession, group identity, and expectancies. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 22: 291–300.

31.

Gray

(2005) The politics of risk and young offenders’ experiences of social exclusion and restorative justice. British Journal of Criminology 45(6): 938–957.

32.

Haines

(1999) Some principled objections to a restorative justice approach to working with juvenile offenders. In: Bazemore

Walgrave

(eds) Restorative Juvenile Justice: Repairing the Harm of Youth Crime. Criminal Justice Press: New York, pp. 171–191.

33.

Hayes

(2006) Reoffending and restorative justice. In: Johnstone

Van Ness

(eds) Handbook of Restorative Justice. New York: Routledge, pp. 426–444.

34.

Hoyle

Noguera

(2008) Supporting young offenders through restorative justice: Parents as (in)appropriate adults. British Journal of Community Justice 6(3): 67.

35.

Kahwati

Kane

(2020) Qualitative Comparative Analysis in Mixed Methods Research and Evaluation. New York: Sage.

36.

Keenan

Griffth

(2019) Two women’s journeys: Restorative justice after sexual violence. In: Pali

Lauwaert

Pleysier

(eds) The Praxis of Justice. The Hague: Eleven International Publishers, pp. 305–318.

37.

Keenan

Zinsstag

(2022) Sexual Violence and Restorative Justice: Addressing the Justice Gap. New York: Oxford University Press.

38.

Lawler-Row

Thye

Yoon

(2008) Social exchange and micro social order. American Sociological Review 73(4): 519–542.

39.

Lazare

(1995) Go ahead, say you’re sorry. Psychology Today 28(1): 40–55.

40.

Lazare

(2004) On Apology. New York: Oxford University Press.

41.

Lloyd

Borrill

(2020) Examining the effectiveness of restorative justice in reducing victims’ post-traumatic stress. Psychological Injury and Law 13(1): 77–89.

42.

Wylie

Luo

(2019) Apologies repair trust via perceived trustworthiness and negative emotions. Frontiers in Psychology 10: 758.

43.

McAlinden

(2023) Acts of contrition: Forgiveness and effective intergroup apologies for historical institutional abuse. International Review of Victimology 30(20): 358–378.

44.

Marino

(2023) Restoration, retribution, and sexual assault: The value of apologies. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 171(3): 869–912.

45.

Marshall

(1999) Restorative Justice: An Overview. London: Home Office.

46.

Ministry of Children Community Social Services (MCCSS) (2024) Service Objectives Youth Justice Services (2022-2023). Ministry of the Attorney General Ontario, at: https://www.ontario.ca/document/mccss-service-objectives-youth-justice-services/services-delivered-youth-justice-committee

47.

Petrucci

(2002) Apology in the criminal justice setting: Evidence for including apology as an additional component in the legal system. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 20: 337–362.

48.

Retzinger

Scheff

(1996) Strategy for community conferences: Emotions and social bonds. In: Galaway

Hudson

(eds) Restorative Justice: International Perspectives. New York: Criminal Justice Press, pp. 315–336.

49.

Rossner

(2019) Restorative justice, anger and the transformative energy of forgiveness. The International Journal of Restorative Justice 2(3): 368–388.

50.

Scheff

Retzinger

(1991) Emotions and Violence: Shame in Destructive Conflicts. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

51.

Shapland

(2016) Forgiveness and restorative justice: Is it necessary? Is it helpful? The Oxford Journal of Law and Religion 5(1): 94–112.

52.

Shapland

(2020) The ins and outs of signals of forgiveness in restorative justice. In: Millie

(ed.) Criminology and Public Theology. Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 273–293.

53.

Shapland

Atkinson

, et al. (2007) Restorative Justice: The View of Victims and Offenders. The Third Report from the Evaluation of Three Schemes. London: Ministry of Justice.

54.

Sherman

Strang

Angel

, et al. (2005) Effects of face-to-face restorative justice on victims of crime in four randomized controlled trials. Journal of Experimental Criminology 1(3): 367–395.

55.

Slocum

Allan

(2011) An emerging theory of apology. Australian Journal of Psychology 63(2): 83–92.

56.

Snow

Powell

(2012) Youth (in)justice: Oral language competence in early life and risk for engagement in antisocial behaviour in adolescence. Trend and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice 1: 435.

57.

Strang

Sherman

Mayo-Wilson

, et al. (2013) Restorative Justice Conferencing (RJC) Using Face-to-face Meetings of Offenders and Victims: Effects on Offender Recidivism and Victim Satisfaction. A Systematic Review. Oslo: The Campbell Collaboration.

58.

Strauss

Corbin

(1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

59.

Struthers

Eaton

Santelli

, et al. (2008) The effects of attributions of intent and apology on forgiveness: When saying sorry may not help the story. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44(4): 983–992.

60.

Stubbs

(2007) Beyond apology? Domestic violence and critical questions for restorative justice. Criminology and Criminal Justice 7: 169–187.

61.

Suzuki

(2022) Possibility of sincere apology in restorative justice: When and how? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 68: 1342–1356.

62.

Suzuki

Jenkins

(2023) Apology-forgiveness cycle in restorative justice, but how? International Review of Victimology 29(1): 3–15.

63.

Suzuki

Jenkins

(2024) Redefining forgiveness in restorative justice. Criminal Justice Studies 2(27): 1–17.

64.

Tangney

Stuewig

Hafez

(2011) Shame, guilt, and remorse: Implications for offender populations. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology 22(5): 706–723.

65.

Tavuchis

(1991) Mea Culpa: A Sociology of Apology and Reconciliation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

66.

Turner

(2019) The effects of cultural, structural, and interpersonal dynamics on interaction rituals. In: Weininge

Lareau

Lizardo

(eds) Ritual, Emotion, Violence. New York: Routledge, pp. 153–178.

67.

Tyler

Sherman

Strang

, et al. (2007) Reintegrative shaming, procedural justice, and recidivism: The engagement of offenders’ psychological mechanisms in the Canberra RISE drinking-and-driving experiment. Law and Society Review 41(3): 553–585.

68.

Vanfraechem

(2015) Victims and conferencing. In: Vanfraechem

Bolívar

Aertsen

(eds) Victims and Restorative Justice. New York: Routledge, pp. 153–171.

69.

Wade

Bailey

Shaffer

(2005) Helping clients heal: Does forgiveness make a difference? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 36(6): 634–641.

70.

Weiseman

(2004) Showing remorse: Reflections on the gap between expression and attribution in cases of wrongful conviction. Canadian Journal of Criminal Justice 46(2): 121–138.

71.

Wohl

Hornsey

Bennett

(2012) Why group apologies succeed and fail: Intergroup forgiveness and the role of primary and secondary emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 102(2): 306–322.

72.

Wohl

Kuiken

Noels

(2006) Three ways to forgive: A numerically aided phenomenological study. The British Journal of Social Psychology 45(3): 547–561.

73.

Worthington

(2003) Forgiving and Reconciling: Bridges to Wholeness and Hope. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

74.

Worthington

(2006) Forgiveness and Reconciliation: Theory and Application. London: Routledge.

75.

Youth Criminal Justice Act, SC (2002).