Victim-Offender Encounters in Restorative Justice Practices: Emotional Representations versus Genuine Affects

Öz

Restorative justice is an alternative practice in justice whereby offenders and victims voluntarily encounter, empathise and finally reconcile with each other in the presence of family and relatives, and other mediators. However, studies of restorative justice reveal the problem of offenders’ sincerity and genuineness in terms of their remorse and guilt in such encounters. Based on a psychosocial criminological perspective, this paper offers a conceptual distinction between emotion and affect, and further argues that emotion refers to symbolic bodily–linguistic signifiers being adaptable and consciously manipulable according to social contexts, whilst affect indicates an energy or intensities experienced unconsciously and not being symbolised. Setting out various case studies and pieces of evidence, the paper suggests that under the pressure of negative affects such as anxiety and fear of a possible failure of restorative justice conferences, offenders tend to display positive symbolic-emotional representations in a way that would convince victims and other mediators of their guilt and shame. The latter usually leads to the expected–idealised result of the victim-offender encounter. A psychosocial criminological perspective should always be taken into consideration while restorative justice practices are claimed to be successful and implemented in a specific social and judicial setting.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Restorative justice,psychosocial criminology,emotions

Onarıcı Adalet Pratiklerinde Mağdur-Fail Karşılaşması: Duygusal Temsiller karşısında Hakiki Duygulanımlar

Öz

Onarıcı adalet mağdur ve failin gönüllülük temelinde, yakınlarıyla birlikte ve arabulucular eşliğinde, karşı karşıya geldiği ve birbirleriyle empati kurarak uzlaştıkları alternatif bir adalet pratiğidir. Tartışmaların onarıcı adaletin hukuki ve sosyokültürel imkanlılık koşullarına odaklaştığı kriminoloji yazınında, sözü pek geçmese de taraflar arası uzlaşının aslî koşulu, failin utanç ve pişmanlık duymasını mümkün kılacak karşılıklı pozitif duygusal etkileşim ve aktarıma dayanmaktadır. Öte yandan onarıcı adalet araştırmaları, mağdur-fail karşılaşmalarında pişmanlık duygusu, özrün samimiliği ve sahihliği sorununu ortaya koymaktadır. Bu makale, psikososyal kriminolojik bir perspektifle duygu ve duygulanım arasında bir ayrıma gitmekte; duyguların sosyal bağlama göre bilinçle manipüle edilebilir sembolik bedensel–dilsel gösterenler olduğunu tartışırken, duygulanımların bilinçdışı deneyimlenen ve sembolikleştirilemeyen enerji ve yoğunluklar olduğunu ileri sürmektedir. Çeşitli vaka analizi ve bulgulardan hareketle makale, failin onarıcı adalet pratiğinin başarısızlığı neticesinde olası bir ceza tehdidi karşısında deneyimlediği endişe ve korku gibi negatif duygulanımlar nedeniyle, karşılaşmadan beklenilen idealize edilmiş sonucu sağlayacak ve mağduru ikna edebilecek pozitif sembolik-duygusal temsiller sergileyebilme durumunu tartışmaktadır. Bu nedenle, mağdur ve fail arasındaki etkileşim sürecinde duygusal kırılma anlarındaki duygulanımsal yoğunluklara dikkat edilmelidir. Belirli bir sosyal ve hukuki düzlemde onarıcı adalet uygulamalarının başarısı ve tesisi ileri sürülürken psikososyal kriminolojik perspektif göz önünde bulundurulmalıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Onarıcı adalet,psikososyal kriminoloji,duygular

Kaynakça

1. Acorn A, Compulsory Compassion: A Critique of Restorative Justice (UBC Press, Vancouver 2004).
2. Ahmed S, The Cultural Politics of Emotion (Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh 2004).
3. Bailly L, Lacan Beginners Guides (Oneworld, London 2009).
4. Baytaz AB, ‘Onarıcı Adalet’e Genel Bir Bakış’ [2013] 71 İÜHFM 117, 122–6.
5. Bosworth M, ‘Affect and authority in immigration detention’ (2018) PC https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1462474518803321/ erişildi 15 Ocak 2019.
6. Braithwaite J, ‘Rape, Shame, and Pride: Address to the Stockholm Criminology Symposium’ [2006] 7 JSSCCP 2.
7. —— ‘Restorative justice: Assessing optimistic and pessimistic accounts’ [1999] 25 CJ 1, 4–9.
8. —— Crime, Shame, and Reintegration (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1989).

9. —— Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation (Oxford University Press, New York 2002).
10. Breuer J ve Freud S, Studies on Hysteria (ilk basım 1895 Penguin, London 1988).
11. Clarke RV, ‘Situational crime prevention’ [1995] 19 CJ 91.
12. Cullen FT ve Agnew R, Criminological Theory: Past to present (Oxford University Press, New York 2006).
13. Daly K ve Stubbs J, ‘Feminist engagement with restorative justice’ [2006] 10 TC 9, 17.
14. —— ‘Restorative justice and sexual assault: An archival study of court and conference cases’ [2005] 46 BJC 334, 346.
15. —— ‘Restorative justice: The real story’ [2002] 4 PS 55
16. Dolu O, Büker H ve Uludağ Ş, ‘Türk Ceza Adalet Sisteminin Caydırıcılık Kapasitesine İlişkin Bir Değerlendirme’ [2012] 61 AÜHFD 69.
17. Ekman P ve Friesen WV, Unmasking the face: A guide to recognizing emotions from facial clues (Prentice Hall, New Jersey 1975).
18. Ferrell J ve Sanders CR, Toward a cultural criminology (Northeastern University Press, Boston 1995).
19. —— ‘Criminological Verstehen: Inside the Immediacy of Crime’ içinde Jeff Ferrell and Mark S. Hamm (der) Ethnography at the edge: Crime, deviance, and field research (Northeastern University Press, Boston 1998).
20. ——, Hayward K ve Young J, Cultural Criminology: An Invitation (Sage, London 2008).
21. Freud S, Inhibitions, Symptoms and Anxiety (ilk basım 1926 Hogarth Press, London 1971).
22. ——, On Metapsychology (ilk basım 1915 Penguin, London 1991).
23. Glynos J ve Stavrakakis Y, ‘Lacan and political subjectivity: Fantasy and enjoyment in psychoanalysis and political theory’ [2008] 24 S 256, 267.
24. Goodwin J, Jasper JM ve Polletta F (der), Passionate politics: Emotions and social movements (University of Chicago Press, Chicago 2009).
25. Gregg M ve Seigworth GJ (der), The affect theory reader (Duke University Press, Durham 2010).
26. Gross JJ ve PJ Oliver, ‘Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: implications for affect, relationships, and well-being’ [2003] 85 JPSP 348.
27. Hayward K, ‘Situational crime prevention and its discontents: rational choice theory versus the ‘culture of now’’ [2007] 41 SPA 233.
28. Hirschi T, ‘Self-control and crime’, içinde Kathleen D. Vohs ve Roy F. Baumeister (der), Handbook of Self-Regulation: Research, Theory, and Applications (Guilford, New York 2004).
29. Johnston A ve Malabou C, Self and emotional life: Philosophy, psychoanalysis, and neuroscience (Columbia University Press, New York 2013).
30. Johnstone G, Restorative justice: Ideas, values, debates (Routledge, London 2002).
31. Karstedt S, ‘Emotions and criminal justice’ [2002] 6 TC 299.
32. Katz J, Seductions of Crime: The Moral and Sensual Attractions of Doing Evil (Basic Books, New York 1988).
33. Luke G ve Lind B, Reducing Juvenile Crime: Conferencing vs Court. Crime and Justice Bulletin (New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research 2002).
34. Massumi B, Parables for the Virtual: Movements, Affect, Sensation (Duke University Press, Durham 2002).
35. Matsumoto D, ‘Ethnic differences in affect intensity, emotion judgments, display rule attitudes, and selfreported emotional expression in an American sample’ [1993] 17 ME 107.
36. Maxwell G ve Morris A, ‘Restorative Justice and Reoffending’ içinde John Braithwaite ve Heather Strang (der) Restorative Justice: Philosophy to Practice (Ashgate Publishing, London 2000).
37. Mercan BA, ‘Doing criminological research: Affective states versus emotional reactions’ (2018) TC https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1362480618779399/ erişildi 15 Ocak 2019.
38. Munezero MD, Montero CS, Sutinen E ve Pajunen J, ‘Are they different? Affect, feeling, emotion, sentiment, and opinion detection in text’ [2014] 5 IEEETAC 101.
39. Nugent W, Williams M ve Umbreit M, ‘Participation in Victim-Offender Mediation and the Prevalence and Severity of Subsequent Delinquent Behavior’ [2003] 1 ULR 137.
40. Retzinger S ve Scheff T, ‘Strategies for Community Conferences: Emotions and Social Bonds’ içinde Burt Galaway and Joe Hudson Monsey (der) Restorative Justice: International Perspectives (Criminal Justice Press, New York, 1996).
41. Rodriguez N, ‘Restorative Justice at Work: Examining the Impact of Restorative Justice Resolutions on Juvenile Recidivism’ [2007] 53 CD 35.
42. Rossner M, ‘Emotions and interaction ritual: A micro analysis of restorative justice’ [2011] 51 BJC 95.
43. Sherman LW, Strang H ve Woods D, Recidivism Patters in the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) (Australian National University, Canberra 2000).
44. Shouse E, ‘Feeling, emotion, affect’ (2005) MJ http://journal.mediaculture.org.au/0512/03-shouse.php/ erişildi 15 Aralık 2018.
45. Spinoza B, ‘Ethics’ içinde Michael L. Morgan (der) Spinoza Complete Works (ilk basım 1677 Hackett Publishing, Indianapolis 2002).
46. Strang H, Repair or Revenge: Victims and Restorative Justice (Oxford University, Oxford 2002).
47. Stubbs J, ‘Beyond apology? Domestic violence and critical questions for restorative justice’ [2007] 7 CCJ 169, 170–1.
48. Sümer O ve Önkal G, ‘Onarıcı Adalet Bakımından Uzlaştırma Mekanizmasının Suç Önleme İşlevi’ içinde Hukuk Felsefesi ve Sosyolojisi Arkivi, 26. Kitap (İstanbul Barosu Yayınları, İstanbul 2014) 383–403.
49. Thrift N, Non-Representational Theory: Space Politics and Affect (Routledge, London 2008).
50. Tibbetts SG ve Myers DL, ‘Low self-control, rational choice, and student test cheating’ [1999] 23 AJC 179.
51. Triggs S, New Zealand Court-Referred Restorative Justice Pilot: Two year Follow-up of Reoffending (New Zealand Ministry of Justice 2005).
52. Umbreit M, Coates R ve Vos B, ‘Restorative Justice Dialogue: A Multi-Dimensional, Evidence-Based Practice Theory’ [2007] 10 CJR 23.
53. van Stokkom V, ‘Moral emotions in restorative justice conferences: Managing shame, designing empathy’ [2002] 6 TC 339, 341–3.
54. Walshe B ve Geske J, ‘Dialogical Processes Examined: A Victim offender dialogue case study’ [2007] 1, 1.
55. Wetherell M, Affect and Emotion: A New Social Science Understanding (Sage, London 2012).
56. Williams S, Emotion and social theory: corporeal reflections on the (ir)rational (Sage, London 2001).
57. Wright BRE, Caspi A, Moffitt TE ve Paternoster R, ‘Does the perceived risk of punishment deter criminally prone individuals? Rational choice, self-control, and crime’ [2004] 41 JRCD 180.
58. Yavuz HA, ‘Onarıcı Adalet ve Uzlaştırma Kurumu Bağlamında Ceza Adalet Sisteminde Mağdurun Konumu’ [2015] TAAD 85.
59. Young A, Imagining Crime (Sage, London 1996).