International Journal on Criminology Volume 4, Number 2, Winter 2016 | Page 141

International Journal on Criminology
the stress associated with these negative emotions by seeking other ways to channel
them: judicial proceedings, vindictive vengeance, denial, and so on. But they still
sometimes try to fully replace these emotions with positive ones, which makes it
to seem that they have inverted their emotions, to the point where it seems like
“forgiveness”—even though many aggressors or victims say that it is not a matter of
forgiving the other party, but of “forgiving oneself.” All of this is in fact the result
of a real jumble of emotions, very normal in dramatic situations: this is exactly what
happens when a person participates in a restorative justice program. Associating an
attempt to retake control of one’s emotions with forgiveness is a mistake. Furthermore,
this involves a counter-truth or a misunderstanding that may prove to be significant,
since it was demonstrated by Murphy (2003) that associating victims’ feelings with
“reconciliation” or “forgiveness” can lead victims to feel like they have been judged.
They lead people to think that the feelings of anger or rage expressed by victims have
to disappear as quickly as possible and that they are unacceptable. This is a real revictimization.
However, it is interesting to realize that the process of “forgiveness”
is certainly at the center of the issue of restoration and has been studied many, many
times. (Petersen-Armour and Umbreit (2006) have compiled the results.) We can
even find many victims who themselves mention this contested concept. However,
very particular emotions can in fact be found at the heart of the debate: expressed
remorse, sincere apologies, and the development of empathy are, in this sense,
directly related to appeasing the wrongs caused to victims. Victims appear to be
more satisfied in cases of restoration that allows them to express themselves and
obtain apologies from a perpetrator than those in which they obtain only a financial
reparation or restitution (Sherman and Strang 2007). This nuance concerning the act
of "forgiving," however, remains critical.
Healing
How many times have we heard that restorative justice heals? How many
studies have looked at the therapeutic effects of restorative programs? Healing should
be treated like forgiveness, in that it also involves a misunderstanding. There is first a
literal misunderstanding: the application of this concept to restorative justice comes
from terms used by aboriginal people (see Rossi 2015b) to refer to social healing (of
the social and spiritual group), never in reference to the result of individual therapy.
There is a misunderstanding figuratively speaking as well, since the feelings of
restoration or appeasement experienced after a restoration approach become mixed
up in an emotional drama such that it becomes easy for someone promoting the
scientific proof in the human sciences to use it inappropriately. Thankfully, recent
studies have demonstrated that the healing metaphor—because it is, in the end,
unquestionably a metaphor—is unfounded. It can even become a problem and have
negative consequences on victims, perpetrators, and mediators/facilitators—the
140