| Research suggests that survivors of crime perceive restorative justice processes to be effective and/or satisfactory; however, less is known about how survivors are influenced from participating or what their actual experiences of engaging in restorative justice-based dialogues are like. This qualitative research study conducted eight semi-structured interviews with female survivors of severe violent crime who had completed at least two Victim Offender Education Group Dialogues with surrogate offenders, in order to gain an understanding of how survivors are impacted from their participation in this specific process. A team approach of thematic analysis was used to detect emerging themes within and across primary and secondary survivor populations. It was found that there was only one benefit that differed between surrogate participation for primary and secondary survivors, which was the opportunity to honor the deceased for secondary survivors. Five salient themes emerged from phenomenological data analysis, which were a.) Psychological outcomes of engaging in VOEG Dialogue, b.) Promoters for VOEG Dialogue open communication, c.) Benefits of surrogate participation, d.) VOEG provided alternative approach after general dissatisfaction with legal system experience, and e.) Overall impact of VOEG Dialogue on survivors. The results indicated that the subjective experience of primary and secondary survivors were consistent in the majority of the most significantly endorsed themes and subthemes. Results from this study suggest specific implications for mental health professionals and restorative justice facilitators to apply in order to foster a continuous path of healing for survivors, which included: a.) Allowing survivors to share their perspective of the crime repeatedly overtime in order to increase the fluency of their narrative; b.) Not assuming that closure is a goal for treatment; c.) Normalizing survivors desire to dialogue with actual or unrelated offenders; d.) Validating survivors experience of the crime and their response rather than displaying pity; and e.) Asking persons who have been harmed, both directly and indirectly, how they identify (e.g., victim, survivor, person who has been harmed, none of the above, etc.). In addition, results from this study further suggested legal implications, which included providing survivors with education on alternative approaches to justice available that may better address victim needs, especially if they were dissatisfied with their interaction with the legal system or lack thereof. |
