Victim-offender dialogues help victims’ healing process

At its heart, the criminal justice system is a mechanism for protecting rights, sanctioning misconduct and mitigating harm. The government, as the prosecutor, takes on the role of the aggrieved party on behalf of society. The aim is to uphold the rule of law, protect the interests of the public and maintain order. 

But often, victims in this process are relegated to a secondary position. They often feel disconnected from proceedings and decisions. And as the government pursues conviction or resolution, victims’ needs, concerns and desires can be overshadowed.

A growing trend, however, known as victim-offender dialogue, is showing evidence of addressing many of these needs, while at the same time helping prevent recidivism.

Over the past 40 years, states have pursued reforms that establish and protect victims’ rights. Broadly, victims in Florida have constitutional rights “to be informed, to be present and to be heard when relevant, at all crucial stages of criminal proceedings, to the extent that these rights do not interfere with the constitutional rights of the accused.” 

This means victims are notified regarding court hearings and other developments in their cases. They are entitled to provide testimony during trial and make a statement at the time of sentencing. Victims may also receive financial compensation through restitution payments or a victims’ compensation fund. 

Yet, many victims are left seeking more. 

It is common for victims to want to speak with the person who harmed them — to express how the offender’s conduct impacted their life and directly hear the offender accept responsibility for his or her actions. 

Victim-offender dialogue — sometimes referred to as restorative justice dialogue or victim-offender mediation — is a tool for addressing the needs, concerns and desires of victims.

Essentially, this process is non-adversarial, and all parties must be willing participants. 

There is extensive vetting prior to contact between victims and offenders to ensure no additional harm occurs. Moreover, victims initiate the process, which means that victim-offender dialogue only occurs if the victim seeks it. 

When these dialogues occur, trained and experienced facilitators mediate them. 

Victim-offender dialogue is not appropriate in all cases and is not a substitute for the traditional criminal justice system. It is just an additional tool to address needs that criminal prosecution does not meet. 

With some caveats, research evidence suggests that victim-offender dialogue can have positive impacts on victims’ healing and may even have positive effects against recidivism. 

A recent review of research found that victim-offender dialogue programming may help reduce symptoms of post-traumatic stress among victims of crime. This matters because many victims report they do not receive help dealing with this trauma through the criminal justice system. What’s more, large majorities of crime victims prefer alternative accountability mechanisms over incarceration, according to a recent survey.

Additional studies have reported high levels of satisfaction among victims and offenders participating in victim-offender dialogue programs compared to those exposed solely to the traditional criminal justice system. 

In addition, offenders participating in victim-offender dialogue are less likely to re-offend, although some of these outcomes may be attributed to self-selection rather than the dialogue itself. In other words, offenders who voluntarily participate and show remorse may already be at low risk for re-offending, so it is difficult to attribute lower rates of re-offending directly to their participation in victim-offender dialogue. 

Nevertheless, the primary objective of victim-offender dialogue is to address the harm experienced by victims, rather than solely focusing on reducing recidivism.

In light of these positive research findings, many states have embraced victim-offender dialogue. In 2020, Florida’s Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) released a report examining research evidence on victim-offender dialogue and its use across the country. Thirty-seven states provide some statutory support for victim-offender dialogue or similar restorative justice practices. Many of these states have programs that enable victim-offender dialogues within the adult criminal justice system. Other states, such as Florida, have programming that is limited to the juvenile justice system. 

As the OPPAGA report noted, there is only limited statutory support for restorative justice in Florida, and the Florida Department of Corrections does not have any formal victim-offender dialogue programs for adults. 

Despite a lack of statutory support and official programming, victim-offender dialogue is occurring in Florida. In pockets around the state, organizations such as the Florida Restorative Justice Association are working with public officials and facilitating victim-offender dialogues. The informal nature of this work unfortunately means that many victims are unaware that victim-offender dialogue is an option in the state.

Florida has made great strides establishing and protecting victims’ rights, but too often, victims are still relegated to a secondary role.

It is essential for Florida lawmakers to consider reforms that further enable victim-offender dialogues throughout the state. 

Even relatively minor steps such as defining victim-offender dialogue in statute and ensuring that victims are aware of its availability would go a long way. 

Vittorio Nastasi is director of criminal justice reform at Reason Foundation and lives in Tallahassee. A version of this article appeared in The Journal of the James Madison Institute.