Canada’s new Protecting Victims Act strengthens legal provisions for victims of crime, representing one of Canada’s most significant reforms to addressing intimate partner violence (IPV).
Yet, the different needs of survivors — including healing, receiving answers from authorities, accountability and being provided the chance to be part of the legal process in a meaningful way — are not always met through conventional criminal justice systems alone.
We argue it’s time to consider how restorative justice may complement broader efforts to respond to the needs of survivors. This aligns with recommendations from the 2022 Ontario coroner’s inquiry examining the 2015 murders in eastern Ontario of Carol Culleton, Anastasia Kuzyk and Nathalie Warmerdam to explore restorative justice in dealing with appropriate cases of IPV.
Read more: 3 potential consequences of Ontario’s reluctance to deem intimate partner violence an epidemic
What is restorative justice?
Restorative justice aims to address crime by discussing what happened, its impact and how to work on repairing the harm caused.
It’s a process that includes the people who were harmed, such as victim-survivors, those who caused the harm, family members, friends and community. Many of the underlying principles reflect longstanding approaches to conflict resolution by First Nations in Canada and Indigenous communities around the world.
In the legal system, community-based models that provide restorative justice options vary. They can be in place before sentencing, alongside sentencing or after a criminal conviction.
Best practices are voluntary and require acceptance of responsibility for the harm caused before moving ahead.
Read more: How technology can help victims of intimate partner violence
Ongoing debate about IPV cases
Existing research has found that victims who participate in restorative justice programs report feeling heard and involved in the legal process, and express high rates of satisfaction and closure.
At the same time, using restorative justice in IPV cases is disputed. Critics have raised important and legitimate concerns about survivor safety, power imbalances, coercion, retraumatization and pressure to get back together with an abusive partner. Others argue that it is primarily reactive, working at an individual-level rather than at a preventive, systems-focused level.
These concerns have led some jurisdictions in Canada to restrict — or even ban — its use in cases of IPV.
But our preliminary research, which included interviews with more than 50 survivors of IPV — along with restorative justice practitioners, gender-based violence experts and criminal legal professionals — suggests there is cautious support for developing restorative programs in carefully selected cases provided there are effective safeguards in place.
Six ways to move forward
As interest in exploring restorative justice measures for IPV expands, it’s important to examine how they can be put into practice safely and responsibly. Based on our research, we suggest several principles that should guide program development:
1. Survivor-informed and community-led: Programs should be designed with, rather than for, survivors and the communities that support them. They should reflect the diverse experiences and needs of survivors and, when appropriate, include meaningful leadership from Indigenous communities.
2. Flexible and adaptive programming: Restorative justice exists on a continuum of practices rather than a single model, and not all involve direct contact with the person who caused the harm. Choice and flexibility should be built into the process, recognizing that survivors’ needs, preferences and readiness will vary.
3. Cross-sector collaboration: Effective programs require working together with experts in gender-based violence, restorative justice organizations, perpetrator intervention programs and the criminal justice system. This will help ensure appropriate referrals, trauma-informed practice, risk assessment and safety planning.
4. Rigorous assessment and safety planning: Restorative justice isn’t appropriate in every case. Situations involving ongoing coercive control or people who won’t accept responsibility for the harm present genuine safety concerns. Careful screening, ongoing assessment and the ability to end restorative justice efforts at any time are essential.
5. Sustainable funding: Meaningful programs cannot be put into practice simply because they are seen as a low-cost option. Without adequate and long-term funding, community organizations will not have the capacity to implement the safeguards, training and supports necessary for meaningful participation.
6. Evaluation and awareness: Collecting information to learn about participant experiences and outcomes is critical to inform continuous improvement in restorative justice initiatives. Greater awareness of restorative options are also needed to ensure they’re fully understood and offered where appropriate.
Restorative justice isn’t a universal solution or replacement to existing criminal justice responses to IPV.
But if restorative justice programs involve survivors, are designed carefully, are adequately funded and are supported by appropriate safeguards, they could serve as one of many valuable tools offering survivors of IPV additional pathways to justice.
Comments are closed.