Restorative Justice in Forensic Mental Health Settings
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Narrative Identity as Mechanisms of Change throughout Restorative Interventions in Forensic Mental Health Settings
IRAS ID
343789
Contact name
James Tapp
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
Kingston University London
Duration of Study in the UK
1 years, 2 months, 1 days
Research summary
There is no singular definition of restorative justice (RJ). RJ can be understood as an alternative approach to justice, which aims to acknowledge the harm done to all parties affected by a crime. To do this, all parties come together collectively for the reparation and rehabilitation process (Marshall, 1996). There are a variety of different practices that are based on restorative principles including, letter exchanges, mediated conversations, conferences and indirect victim-offender contact.
This research aims to shed light into the theoretical explanations for restorative justice within forensic mental health settings. Specifically, the research is focused on the impact of a shared narrative between individuals following an incident and how, if at all it contributes to a restored sense of identity. Secondary aims of the research involve measuring the outcomes and satisfaction levels of those involved in restorative justice. The focus on theoretical explanations of restorative practice in forensic settings is a response to the steady increase in restorative practice within forensic settings in which, there is no authoritative theory to date that guides this practice.
To achieve the research aims semi-structured interviews, and the completion of the self-concept and identity measure (SCIM) will be conducted with individuals who have been harmed, and individuals who have caused harm, prior to and following taking part in restorative justice. The restorative justice interaction will be led independently from the researchers and will be led by the facilities in which the individuals reside in. In order to maximise data and to provide participants with an active choice of participation level; participants may opt to proceed with a post intervention interview only.
REC name
London - Surrey Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
25/PR/0844
Date of REC Opinion
10 Sep 2025
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion