The University of Arizona Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health
   

Home
Concept
Process
Research
Questions
Resources
Internships
Restore Team
Contact Us
Need Help

Koss 2003 Article in PDF

RESTORE (Responsibility and Equity for Sexual Transgressions Offering a Restorative Experience) is an innovative program with four main goals:

  • To hold the Responsible Person (the person responsible for an act of sexual violence) accountable for the harm he/she has done to the Survivor of his/her actions and to the communities they are a part of.
  • To provide an avenue for reintegration of a Responsible Person into their community.
  • To treat Survivors of sexual violence with respect, validate them, and give them a safe process for face-to-face justice, empowering them to shape the resolution.
  • To increase public safety by engaging the Survivor’s and Responsible Person’s social support networks to reduce recidivism.

Responsible Persons eligible for RESTORE are first-time perpetrators of acquaintance rape committed with no more force than necessary to complete the act, or those committing non-perpetration offenses. Responsible Persons must acknowledge that a violating act occurred, and that they are responsible for having committed that act. The Survivor(s) of that act must be willing to participate in RESTORE for the offense to be considered for the RESTORE process.

Survivors who participate in the traditional system of justice may feel that their stories could not be told or that the process of proceeding through the court eliminated their voice. With RESTORE, the Survivor’s story is central to the process, and the Survivor’s desires are met through the plan made for restitution. The Survivor is empowered and helped to recover through this process. This is in contrast to one survivor's comment about the U.S. criminal justice system, “When it starts, you have rights…the right to go to court. I was not informed, nor did I have the right to be heard. They did not have time for me and I was not heard. If a deal is going to be cut, the victim is the one who should be able to cut the deal—not somebody else. You have $50,000 (in losses), and the prosecutor says the restitution is $1,000. I think it’s hard to take.”

For the Responsible Person, the traditional system of justice enables them to deny their actions and responsibility for the harm they have done. If fines or time in prison are mandated, the Responsible Person may still be encouraged to deny responsibility in the interest of the appeal process. In RESTORE, the Responsible Person admits that he/she committed a violating act, and that the act caused harm. With this admission comes an opportunity for rehabilitation and reintegration into the community. The act is separated from the person committing the act, facilitating an opportunity for a fresh start while fulfilling the obligation to “make it right” with the Survivor and his/her community. In other communities, restorative justice had positive outcomes for the participants:

  • Eighty percent of Responsible Persons felt that their debt to women and to society had been repaid, compared to 40 percent of offenders punished through the courts (Strang & Sherman, 1997).
  • Programs using restorative justice found that only 18 percent of Responsible Persons re-offended, compared to 27 percent for traditional justice (Umbreit, Coates, & Kalanj, 1994).
  • After the conference, 81 percent completed their reparation agreements compared to 58 percent with court-ordered restitution (Umbreit & Coates, 1992).
  • For Survivors, 74 percent received an apology, and feelings of distress over the crime and fear of re-victimization decreased (Umbreit, 1992).

Sources:

Strang, H., & Sherman, L. (1997). The Victim’s Perspective. RISE Working Papers, 2, Canberra, ACT: Australian National University.

Umbreit, M. (1992). "Mediating Victim-Offender Conflict: From Single-Site Analysis to Multi-Site Analysis in the U.S." In: H. Messmer and H.-U. Otto (eds.), Restorative Justice on Trial: Pitfalls and Potentials of Victim-Offender Mediation: International Research Perspectives. Dordrecht, NETH: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 431-444.

Umbreit, M. S., & Coates, R. B. (1992). Victim-Offender Mediation: An Analysis of Programs in Four States of the U.S. St. Paul, MN: Center for Restorative Justice & Mediation, School of Social Work, University of Minnesota.

Umbreit, M., Coates, R., & Kalanj, B. (1994). When victim meets offender: The impact of restorative justice and mediation. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.