Balancing risk in sexual violence restorative justice : professional views on risk assessment for restorative justice processes addressing sexual violence : a thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctorate in Clinical Psychology at Massey University, Wellington, New Zealand
Loading...
Files
Date
2024
DOI
Open Access Location
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Massey University
Rights
© The Author
Abstract
Sexual violence is an ongoing international human rights issue, often resulting in significant negative impacts, and not always well addressed within conventional criminal justice systems. Restorative justice following sexual violence (SVRJ) is a victim-centred justice process showing significant benefits for victim-survivors (including meeting justice needs and supporting recovery), perpetrators of harm (including insight, community reintegration, and reduced reoffending), and wider communities (encouraging accountability and addressing harmful beliefs). However, there is a risk of causing further harm through SVRJ, meaning professionals in this space have an obligation to manage risk as best as possible. Risk of further harm is one reason why SVRJ is not particularly common around the world, and why opinions are often divided regarding the appropriateness of its use. Currently, there are no standardised guidelines for assessing risk within SVRJ. Instead, professionals may rely on their judgement alone, which is the least reliable and valid method of risk assessment. The current research seeks to address this by investigating professional perspectives about the factors important within SVRJ risk assessment, and subsequently developing SVRJ risk assessment guideline recommendations, which could enable a structured and more reliable approach to SVRJ risk assessment. Professionals (n=16) experienced in the areas of SVRJ and RJ risk assessment were interviewed about their experiences of SVRJ risk assessment, particularly what they considered within their assessments and risk-related decisions. Interview data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, with four themes identified: perceived participant preparedness, safe support systems, culturally competent assessment, and participant alignment. These findings formed the basis for developed SVRJ risk assessment guideline recommendations. Wider implications of the findings for SVRJ risk assessment, policy and practice are discussed. It is hoped that this research provides important insight into SVRJ professional practice and risk assessment and contributes to the safe use of SVRJ both in Aotearoa New Zealand and internationally, allowing more people to access the benefits of SVRJ in safe and considered ways.
Description
Keywords
Restorative justice, Evaluation, Criminal justice personnel, Attitudes, Sexual abuse victims, Protection, Harm reduction, sexual violence, victim-survivor, risk assessment, guideline recommendations, Aotearoa New Zealand