The Role of (Self-)Forgiveness in Restorative Justice: Linking Restorative 

Justice to Desistance 

 

Masahiro Suzuki1; Tamera Jenkins2 

 

1 School of Business and Law, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Australia 

2 Griffith Criminology Institute, Brisbane, Australia 

Corresponding Author 

Name: Masahiro Suzuki 

Position: Lecturer 

Affiliation: School of Business and Law, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, 

Australia  

Email: m.suzuki@cqu.edu.au 

 

Published in European Journal of Criminology (2020). 

  



1 

 

Abstract 

Since interpersonal forgiveness has been considered a ‘gift’ that should not be forced on 

victims in restorative justice (RJ), the role of forgiveness in RJ remains peripheral. In 

this paper, we aim to advance the role of forgiveness in RJ. However, we do not focus 

on interpersonal forgiveness. We instead focus on another dimension of forgiveness: 

self-forgiveness for offenders. Because self-forgiveness is linked with both RJ and 

desistance respectively, self-forgiveness has the potential to function as a catalyst to 

connect RJ with desistance. Drawing on their relationship, we offer a process-based 

model of how offenders may or may not desist through RJ. We conclude with offering 

implications for research on RJ. 

 

Keywords 

Restorative justice, forgiveness, self-forgiveness, desistance 

  



2 

 

Introduction 

Since its emergence in the field of criminology, scholars have discussed what 

restorative justice (RJ) can offer to its participants, such as victim participation and 

offender accountability (e.g. Zehr 2002). The extant literature highlights numerous 

benefits that RJ holds for participants including emotional and psychological restoration 

for victims and positive behavioural change on the part of offenders (e.g. O’Mahony 

and Doak 2017). Forgiveness, however, has rarely been a focus of discussion in RJ 

literature (Armour and Umbreit, 2018; Shapland, 2016). There are reasons why 

forgiveness has received scant attention in RJ literature. For example, forgiveness in RJ 

is a complex concept that requires a consideration of interactions between various 

stakeholders as well as the context of offending (Armour and Umbreit, 2006). Given the 

difficulty of exploring such complex dynamics, with the notable exception of recent 

research conducted by Armour and Umbreit (2018), the lack of studies on forgiveness 

in RJ is understandable. Yet, there may be a more probable reason for the dearth of 

studies on forgiveness in an RJ context. That is, the assertion that forgiveness should 

not be aimed for in RJ, but rather it should be considered a ‘gift’ (Blyth, 2016a). As a 

result, the role of forgiveness remains peripheral in RJ. 

We aim to advance the role of forgiveness in RJ. However, we wish to stress that it 

is not our intention to oppose the above discourse on forgiveness as a gift in RJ. We 

wholeheartedly concur that forgiveness should not be forced on victims in RJ. In this 



3 

 

paper, we instead focus on another dimension of forgiveness: self-forgiveness for 

offenders1 (Webb et al., 2017). To our knowledge, self-forgiveness has similarly lacked 

attention in RJ literature. Even if self-forgiveness is referred to in RJ literature (e.g. 

Blyth, 2016b; Shapland, 2016), it is mentioned only briefly. The role of self-forgiveness 

in RJ has yet to be deeply probed. Understanding the role of self-forgiveness in RJ is 

important because it may be associated with desistance (McConnell, 2015; Tangney et 

al., 2005). Although the conceptual link between RJ and desistance has been discussed 

elsewhere (e.g., Maruna 2016), little is known about how RJ is theoretically linked with 

desistance. In our view, self-forgiveness can serve as a catalyst to connect RJ with 

desistance. Exploring the role of self-forgiveness in RJ will contribute to filling a gap 

between theory and practice in RJ (O'Mahony and Doak, 2017), particularly in terms of 

how offenders may or may not start to desist through RJ.  

In this paper, we first discuss why forgiveness should be considered a ‘gift’ in RJ 

practices. Second, we describe what self-forgiveness is. Third, we argue why self-

forgiveness is important for offenders based on the benefits of self-forgiveness 

including its link with desistance. Fourth, we consider the relationship between self-

forgiveness and RJ. Finally, we offer the role of self-forgiveness in RJ. Specifically, 

 
1 This is not to say that self-forgiveness is neither relevant nor necessary to victims. Self-forgiveness may 

also be important for victims because victims may blame themselves for their victimisation (Wohl and 

McLaughlin, 2014). 



4 

 

using self-forgiveness as a catalyst between RJ and desistance, we propose a process-

based model of how offenders may or may not desist through RJ. We conclude by 

offering implications for future research.   

Forgiveness as a ‘gift’ in restorative justice 

RJ may have the potential to facilitate forgiveness because a theoretical relationship 

exists between RJ and forgiveness. This theoretical link particularly lies in an 

interactive process within RJ. As noted elsewhere (e.g. Rossner, 2013), the most 

important component of RJ is the interaction between victims and offenders through 

face-to-face dialogue. Offenders are given an opportunity to be held accountable for the 

harms they have caused to the victims, while victims are given an opportunity to 

express the harm they experienced as a result of the offender’s actions. Ideally, it is in 

this bilateral process of RJ that forgiveness may occur. Humanistic communication with 

offenders may allow victims to deal with their negative feelings caused by the crime, to 

see offenders as a real human beings, and to promote their empathy towards offenders 

(Umbreit et al., 2015; see also Mauss, 1966; Stein, 1989 for how empathy arises 

through interactions between people). 

Empirical research has shown that forgiveness occurs in RJ. In research conducted 

in multiple locations in Australia and UK, Sherman et al. (2005) reported that the rate of 

the victims forgiving the offenders in RJ conferencing ranged from about 30 to 70 



5 

 

percentage across the research sites. Evaluating youth justice conferencing in Northern 

Ireland, Campbell et al. (2006: 77) observed that about 80 per cent of victims 

‘expressed some level of forgiveness toward the young person [the offender]’. In their 

interviews with victims of serious violent crimes who participated in victim-offender 

mediation in the US, Umbreit et al. (2006) noted that of the 24 who referred to 

forgiveness in the interviews, 15 victims reported that they had forgiven the offenders. 

Furthermore, in their evaluation of family group conferencing in New Zealand, 

Maxwell et al. (2004) reported that about half of young offenders felt that they 

experienced some sense of forgiveness.  

Despite these theoretical and empirical links between RJ and forgiveness, as 

philosophers argued in the context of historical injustice (for example, see Derrida, 

2001; Ricoeur, 2004), RJ scholars have almost unanimously agreed that forgiveness 

needs to be considered as a ‘gift’ that should not be a pursued outcome (Armour and 

Umbreit, 2018; Chapman and Chapman, 2016; Van Stokkom, 2008). It is Braithwaite 

(2002) who has perhaps most systematically articulated such a role of forgiveness in RJ. 

Braithwaite (2002) has proposed three types of standards for RJ: constraining, 

maximising, and emergent. The constraining standards contain elements that must exist 

in the RJ process, such as respectful listening and equal concern for all stakeholders. 

The maximising standards are those which, if present, increase the likelihood of the 

dialogue process becoming ‘restorative’. They include, for example, restoration of 



6 

 

human dignity and restoration of damaged human relationships. Emergent standards, 

such as forgiveness, remorse, apology, and mercy, may only occur in RJ as a result of 

the participants’ emotional engagement with the process and with each other. According 

to Braithwaite (2002: 571), forgiveness should be considered an emergent value of RJ 

because it can be meaningful only when it is derived from ‘a genuine desire in the 

person who forgives’. Forgiveness in RJ should thus be considered a ‘gift’ because 

forcing or pressuring victims to forgive offenders is morally wrong (Fiddes, 2016). 

Whether to forgive offenders or not must entirely be up to victims in RJ (Armour and 

Umbreit, 2006; Zehr, 2002). As a consequence, the role of forgiveness has rarely been 

discussed in RJ literature (Armour and Umbreit, 2018; Shapland, 2016). 

What is self-forgiveness? 

While the above discussion applies to interpersonal forgiveness, forgiveness has 

another dimension: self-forgiveness (Webb et al., 2017). Snow (1993: 79) argued that 

‘[s]elf-forgiveness can be a second best alternative to interpersonal forgiveness in 

situations in which full forgiveness is not or cannot be achieved . . . because of its 

centrality in restoring our capability for agency after we have wronged or harmed 

others’. This certainly is the case for RJ because interpersonal forgiveness must not be 

forced on victims in RJ. To discuss the role of forgiveness in RJ, we focus on self-

forgiveness for offenders.  



7 

 

The RJ literature has paid scant attention to interpersonal forgiveness and even less 

to the topic of self-forgiveness. To our knowledge, self-forgiveness in RJ literature has 

been briefly mentioned in relation to face-to-face dialogue (Blyth, 2016b; Shapland, 

2016), spirituality (Bender and Armour, 2007), and custodial settings (Armour et al., 

2005; Newell, 2007; Toews, 2016). What is common among this literature is that self-

forgiveness has not been clearly defined. An exception might be Blyth (2016b: 70) who, 

drawing on Gulliford (2004), suggested that ‘[i]ntrapersonal forgiveness is inward 

directed, embracing the self’ and ‘concerns the feelings, thoughts, and behaviour 

associated with forgiveness within the individual seeking to forgive’. The lack of 

definition of self-forgiveness is the problem not only in the RJ literature but also in the 

literature in general. Because self-forgiveness is a relatively new concept that has 

recently experienced rapid growth in the literature (see McConnell, 2015), scholars in 

different disciplines have proposed different definitions of self-forgiveness (for example, 

see Enright and the Human Development Study, 1996 for psychology, Williston, 2012 

for philosophy, and Bryan et al., 2015 for traumatology).  

Research suggests that self-forgiveness is both an iterative and sequential process. 

Jenkins (2018) found from interviews with 19 criminal offenders who committed a 

variety of offences including petty theft, sexual assault, drug trafficking, armed robbery 

and first-degree murder that, for many, self-forgiveness was a conscious decision 

wherein the forgiveness was focused, not on the crime or the harm they caused to others, 



8 

 

but was centred on self-harms; the damage done to their own lives as a result of their 

criminal actions. Self-forgiveness was depicted as a ‘day to day’ process and an 

‘ongoing journey’ of self-reflection and self-acceptance wherein offenders said they had 

to continually ‘revisit’ their notions of personal worth in light of their criminal actions. 

Self-forgiveness is also a sequential process as some offenders insisted that they must 

cease offending and have a positive input into the community prior to forgiving 

themselves. It is debatable whether it is self-forgiveness that is aroused by the 

generosity or empathy of others. For some, forgiveness received from family or from 

victims motivated them to be ‘better people’ and move forward with their life in a 

manner that facilitated positive growth. For others, receiving forgiveness would not 

alleviate the psychological or emotional burden of their crimes. As one offender said, 

‘whether they forgive me or not, I still have to live with what I’ve done’ (Jenkins, 2018: 

200).  

It is argued that self-forgiveness first requires taking responsibility for one’s own 

wrongdoing. Like interpersonal forgiveness, self-forgiveness does not entail excusing, 

condoning, justifying, or forgetting the wrongdoing. For self-forgiveness to be genuine, 

the wrongdoer must acknowledge what they have done to the victims as well as show 

remorse and willingness to restore relationships. This argument is demonstrated in  

research conducted by Wenzel et al. (2012). Using hypothetical scenarios of and 

participants’ experiences of transgressions, they examined what distinguishes ‘genuine’ 



9 

 

self-forgiveness from pseudo-self-forgiveness. Their study focused on the process of 

achieving self-forgiveness because both genuine and pseudo-self-forgiveness are 

somehow associated with positive self-regard, and existing studies that focused on the 

outcomes of self-forgiveness could not reveal the differences between genuine and 

pseudo-self-forgiveness. Their findings indicated that the difference between genuine 

and pseudo-self-forgiveness lies in the degree of responsibility acceptance. Pseudo-self-

forgiveness occurred when offenders downplayed their responsibility in order to 

maintain their self-esteem. Instead, genuine self-forgiveness occurred when offenders 

fully acknowledged their responsibility for their wrongdoing and reaffirmed the violated 

values. This difference between genuine and pseudo-self-forgiveness is important when 

considering the continuation of offending because ‘there can be no motivational change, 

as the offender already is motivated to act benevolently toward the self’ (Hall and 

Fincham, 2005: 627). In other words, without commitment to shared values through 

genuine self-forgiveness that involves a full acknowledgement of responsibility, 

offending may continue. 

There are several differences between self-forgiveness and interpersonal 

forgiveness (Webb et al., 2017). Self-forgiveness is distinct from interpersonal 

forgiveness in terms of conditionality. Whereas interpersonal forgiveness is conditional 

because it depends on victims’ willingness to forgive offenders, self-forgiveness is 

unconditional because it is ultimately a self-reflection process undertaken by the 



10 

 

offenders that is focused on their own wrongdoing (Hall and Fincham, 2005). Self-

forgiveness is also different from interpersonal forgiveness in terms of whether it 

requires reconciliation. While interpersonal forgiveness does not indicate reconciliation 

between victims and offenders, self-forgiveness requires the offenders to reconcile with 

themselves. For, to forgive themselves, offenders need to face what they have done to 

the victims (Kim and Enright, 2014).  

Why does self-forgiveness matter for offenders? 

Self-forgiveness can benefit wrongdoers in multiple ways. Self-forgiveness has been 

found to hold emotional (e.g. Woodyatt and Wenzel, 2013), psychological and physical 

(e.g. Davis et al., 2015) benefits. Perpetrators of crime often suffer significant painful 

and destructive after-effects as a result of their actions, such as shame, guilt, and self-

condemnation (Jenkins, 2018). Self-forgiveness may be important in terms of helping 

offenders address and perhaps heal from these self-created harms. 

Self-forgiveness is also related to self-esteem, self-trust, more empathy for the 

victim and a greater desire for reconciliation (Woodyatt and Wenzel, 2013). According 

to Wohl, DeShea and Wahkinney (2008: 9), ‘the process of self-forgiveness may be the 

catalyst for personal growth’ because those who self-forgive are more likely to feel, act 

and think constructively towards the self and see themselves as worthy. This benefit is 

evident in a recent study of criminal offenders’ perceptions of offence-related effects 



11 

 

and meaningfulness of forgiveness (Jenkins, 2018). Jenkins (2018) found that over half 

(58%, N = 19) of the offenders viewed self-forgiveness as an important element in their 

efforts to better understand, address and overcome the harm they caused as a result of 

their offences. Most wrestled with feelings of shame, guilt, psychological and emotional 

distress, and negative self-worth consequent to their crimes. While self-forgiveness did 

not come easily to offenders, those who forgave themselves, or strongly desired to do so, 

identified numerous benefits to self-forgiveness. Offenders credited self-forgiveness 

with helping them to critically reflect on the underlying causes of their criminal 

behaviour, to separate their worth as a person from the ‘bad’ act they committed, to 

challenge, if not totally repudiate, the degrading labels affixed to them because of their 

crimes, to cease ‘beating’ themselves up over their wrongdoing, and to commit to future 

law-abiding behaviour (Jenkins, 2018).  

Among these benefits, what we see as the most important and relevant to RJ is the 

link between self-forgiveness and identity transformation. Through a process that 

involves acknowledging their wrongdoing, gaining understanding of the issues that led 

to their wrong, learning self-compassion, committing to future moral behaviour and 

desisting from seeing themselves as a ‘moral monster’ (Griswold, 2007), offenders 

undergo a change of heart. Having morally improved, the offender is able to 

legitimately forgive themselves (Murphy, 2003). As McConnell (2015: 153) put it, 

offenders may start to desist from crime because they ‘recognize they cannot change the 



12 

 

past, but choose to continue to respect themselves and others by altering the future 

[behaviour] (Dillon, 2001; Holmgren, 2002; 2012)’. As such, ‘positive value 

reorientation and personal esteem restoration are each necessary components of self-

forgiveness’ (Griffin et al., 2018: 723). 

Due to this transformative effect on identity in its process, self-forgiveness may 

facilitate change towards desistance. According to desistance theories, such as 

redemption script (Maruna, 2001) and feared self (Paternoster and Bushway, 2009), 

offenders may need to transform their identity of self to start desisting from crime. By 

examining narratives of ex-prisoners who were still involved in crime and those who 

ceased offending, Maruna (2001) found that those who desisted ‘portrayed and 

understood themselves as defiant rebels all of their lives’, while those who were still 

engaged in offending described their lives in ‘very much deterministic, almost 

mechanical terms’ by referring to ‘a cycle of poverty, stigma, and criminal associates’ 

(Maruna et al., 2004b: 225). Self-forgiveness, which involves reconstruction of morality 

and self and commitment to future moral behaviour, may be an important precursor to 

change towards desistance. 

Research supports this sequence because it suggests that identity reconstruction 

precedes change towards desistance. To examine how subjective factors including 

motivation and hope influence the desistance process in comparison to social factors, 

such as unemployment, LeBel et al. (2008) conducted a prospective, longitudinal study. 



13 

 

In their study, offenders were interviewed about their perceptions towards self and 

offending before their release from prison. Analysing the reconviction and 

reimprisonment of offender-participants during the 10-year follow-period, their findings 

showed that having a positive self, such as ‘belief in one’s ability to “go straight”’, 

before their release from prison contributed more to the desistance process than social 

factors (LeBel et al., 2008: 154). Interviews with offenders who were not involved in 

self-report offending during a two-year probation supervision, King (2013: 155) also 

found that these offenders started to construct their identity as a desister in the early 

phase of their desistance process because they ‘sought to identify alternative future 

identities and potential courses of action that could facilitate longer-term moves away 

from crime’. To examine whether identity transformation precedes change towards 

desistance, Rocque et al. (2016) employed a prospective, longitudinal study. In this 

study,  data was collected over 20 years from three cohorts of individuals who were 

aged 12, 15 and 18 when the data collection started. Analysing how the identity changes 

over time and how it relates to offending behaviour, they found that an increase in pro-

social identity occurred before the decrease in the level of involvement in offending.  

What is the relationship between self-forgiveness and RJ? 

Self-forgiveness is conceptually compatible with RJ (Tangney et al., 2005). This 

relationship is evident when considering RJ as an intervention to deal with the aftermath 



14 

 

of crime. Similar to therapy interventions on recovery from addition by endorsing self-

forgiveness (Baker, 2008; McGaffin et al., 2013), RJ can function as a ‘tool’ or ‘setting’ 

to promote self-forgiveness. In other words, RJ can help offenders meet conditions 

necessary for the development of self-forgiveness.  

Participation in RJ processes can help offenders achieve genuine self-forgiveness. 

In RJ, offenders are treated and listened to fairly, which helps to nurture repentance 

within offenders (Braithwaite, 2000). RJ encourages offenders to be actively engaged in 

making amends for the harm they caused rather than passively taking responsibility by 

merely admitting their offence (Braithwaite and Roche, 2001). This effect is evident in 

empirical research on RJ. Using a quasi-experimental design, Calhoun and Pelech 

(2013) examined victims’ perceptions about offender responsibility, indicating that 

victims who participated in RJ were more likely to feel that the offender took 

responsibility than victims in the conventional justice system. In an experimental study 

conducted in Thailand, Boriboonthana and Sangbuangamlum (2013) also showed that 

more offenders who participated in RJ perceived that they were held accountable for 

their offending than offenders who participated in the conventional justice system. 

Furthermore, reanalysing the Reintegrative Shaming Experiment data, Kim and Gerber 

(2012) demonstrated that offenders who attended RJ were more likely to show a 

willingness to repay the victim and society, and feel remorse than those who were 

processed in the conventional justice system.  



15 

 

For self-forgiveness within offenders to occur, offenders may need to recognise that 

their wrongdoing is forgivable. This recognition is important for offenders ‘to begin the 

process of moral transformation’ (Szablowinski, 2012: 687) because it ‘enables 

perpetrators to understand the past in a way that relieves from [the] irreversibility’ of 

their offending (Chapman and Chapman, 2016: 149). Drawing on longitudinal research 

design, Hall and Fincham (2008) examined the process of how self-forgiveness is 

achieved and what factors contributed to self-forgiveness. Their findings indicated that 

self-forgiveness increased gradually after offending. Their findings also suggested that 

the process of achieving self-forgiveness was facilitated by reparation to victims as well 

as forgiveness from victims or a higher power, such as God.  

These findings help serve to establish the relationship between self-forgiveness and 

RJ. For offenders to forgive themselves, forgiveness from victims is desirable but not 

required. The message that offending is forgivable can be derived from people other 

than victims (Szablowinski, 2012). Given the characteristic of forgiveness in RJ as a gift 

and the lower prevalence rate in comparison to other RJ outcomes, such as consistently 

high levels of satisfaction and fairness (Doak and O'Mahony, 2018), the ‘forgivable’ 

message may be more likely to come from supporters of offenders in RJ than victims. 

RJ may facilitate self-forgiveness in offenders because supporters, such as family 

members and close friends, are present in RJ. The support shown to offenders by their 



16 

 

loved ones can convey to them the message that they are loved and cared for and that 

what is needed is for them to make amends for what they have done. 

Related to this supportive environment in RJ is how offenders and offending are 

viewed in RJ. Braithwaite’s (1989) reintegrative shaming is considered as one of the 

representative theories for RJ (Suzuki and Wood, 2018). According to this theory, 

reintegrative shaming is more effective for offender reintegration than stigmatising 

shaming because reintegrative shaming encourages acceptance of offenders as a person 

while offenders’ wrongful actions are condemned. Because self-forgiveness involves 

admitting one’s own wrongdoing, it entails self-condemnation, which subsequently 

produces negative emotions, such as shame and guilt (Woodyatt et al., 2017). To 

achieve self-forgiveness, these negative emotions need to be reduced or released from 

offenders (Hall and Fincham, 2008). RJ can be helpful in promoting the self-esteem of 

offenders because research showed that reintegrative shaming is more likely to occur in 

RJ than in criminal courts (Strang et al., 2011). By treating offenders with respect, RJ 

can promote self-forgiveness because it helps offenders ‘declare the wrongdoing as 

being peripheral to their self, as not being representative of who they really are, thereby 

maintaining positive self-regard’ (Wenzel et al., 2012: 625). RJ can help offenders 

reconcile with negative emotions as a result of acknowledging their wrongdoing while 

being accepted by other participants in RJ (Ahmed et al., 2001). 



17 

 

The reparative behaviours common to RJ processes, such as victim compensation 

and apology, may also help offenders achieve self-forgiveness. The RJ process normally 

consists of two processes—storytelling and outcome discussion—and participants are 

expected to reach a reparative agreement about what offenders should do make amends 

to victims.  According to a meta-analysis conducted by Latimer et al. (2005), offenders 

who participated in RJ were more likely to complete the reparative agreement than other 

offenders who were ordered to make restitution in other interventions. In addition to 

Hall and Fincham (2008), other research showed that engagement in reparative 

behaviours can promote self-forgiveness. Carpenter et al. (2014) examined the 

relationship between conciliatory behaviours and self-forgiveness and how they are 

interlinked with each other. Using past experiences of participants and a hypothetical 

transgression case in an experimental setting, they found that conciliatory behaviours, 

such as apology, confession and restitution, can aid in achieving self-forgiveness. 

Additionally, their findings revealed the mechanism of how self-forgiveness was 

promoted by reparative behaviours. By engaging in conciliatory behaviours, offenders 

may start to feel that self-forgiveness is morally appropriate, resulting in a higher 

likelihood of achieving self-forgiveness because involvement in reparative behaviours 

decreases guilt in offenders (Carpenter et al., 2014).  



18 

 

What is the role of self-forgiveness in RJ? 

We have delineated the links between self-forgiveness and desistance, and between self-

forgiveness and RJ respectively. We are not the first to discuss these relationships. 

Some scholars have already (although briefly) suggested the links between self-

forgiveness and desistance (e.g. McConnell, 2015), and between self-forgiveness and 

RJ (e.g. Tangney et al., 2005) respectively. Yet, to our knowledge, each relationship has 

not been discussed as extensively. More importantly, the relationship between them all 

together has yet to be explored. 

In our view, self-forgiveness can play a major role to connect RJ with desistance 

among other variables related to RJ. The effect of RJ in reducing reoffending may be 

inconclusive because, while some research reported a positive impact of RJ on reducing 

recidivism (e.g. Sherman et al., 2015), other studies found minimal or no effects (e.g. 

Livingstone et al., 2013). This failure of RJ in reducing reoffending may be 

understandable because RJ may be ‘only one of many factors in an offender’s life—bad 

friends, traumatic life events and the failure to succeed are just some of the subsequent 

life events that can lead someone to re-offend’ (Maxwell, 2008: 93). However, existing 

but limited empirical research on RJ and desistance research showed how RJ supported 

change towards desistance. Interviewing adult offenders who participated in RJ in the 

UK, Claes and Shapland (2016: 317) noted that RJ may ‘have the possibility to foster 

agency, change the narrative, alter cognitive mindsets and create a shift in the identity of 



19 

 

the (ex-)offender’. Lauwaert and Aertsen (2016) interviewed young offenders who had 

participated in RJ in Belgium. In their study, offenders reported that RJ helped their 

desistance process because it helped to induce conscience for their wrongdoing. These 

findings shed light on the link between RJ and desistance, but we need to take into 

account the fact that RJ is a time-limited and one-off intervention (Hayes, 2007) that 

cannot deal with the underlying problems of offending (Lofton, 2004). While offenders 

face numerous difficulties in their everyday life to desist, such as unemployment, these 

circumstances that lead offenders to crimes are not addressed in RJ (Courakis and 

Gavrielides, 2018; Hansen and Umbreit, 2018; Walgrave et al., 2019). Given the 

profound effects of challenges facing offenders in their everyday life, for RJ to be what 

Giordano et al. (2002) call a ‘hook for change’ or what Sampson and Laub (1993) call a 

‘turning point’ to start desisting from crime, offenders may need something more that 

connects RJ and desistance. RJ can offer important conditions to achieve self-

forgiveness, and self-forgiveness may be an important precursor to change towards 

desistance. Thus, self-forgiveness may serve as a catalyst to connect RJ with desistance. 

Based on this link, we propose a process-based model of how offenders may or 

may not start to desist from crime through RJ. To develop our model, we build on a path 

model of self-forgiveness proposed by Wohl and McLaughlin (2014: 429). Put it simply, 

this path model offers four possible paths of self-forgiveness: genuine self-forgiveness, 

pseudo-self-forgiveness, no need for self-forgiveness, and no self-forgiveness. Genuine 



20 

 

self-forgiveness can occur when offenders accept full responsibility by internalising 

attribution of their wrongdoing. This condition leads to an increased likelihood of 

change towards desistance. Pseudo-self-forgiveness can occur when offenders 

acknowledge only partial responsibility or neutralise their wrongdoing. This situation 

may result in a continuation of offending because these offenders do not challenge their 

morality and self. Where offenders deny their responsibility by externalising the 

attribution of their wrongdoing, they feel no need for self-forgiveness. These offenders 

are more likely to continue their offending behaviours. Even when offenders accept full 

responsibility for their wrongdoing, some offenders may not forgive themselves. In this 

case, ‘the wrongful behavior is likely to cease, but negative psychological and 

physiological effects will typically ensue’ (Wohl and McLaughlin, 2014: 431). 

We consider Wohl and McLaughlin’s (2014) path model useful to develop our 

model due to the following two reasons. Unlike other models of self-forgiveness (c.f. 

Hall and Fincham 2005; McConnell 2015), it describes aftermaths of self-forgiveness in 

terms of behavioural changes. This characteristic fits with our purpose to explain how 

offenders may or may not start to desist from crime through RJ. In addition, it shows 

not only a path in which genuine self-forgiveness occurs but also a path in which 

offenders fail to achieve self-forgiveness and to discontinue wrongful behaviours. As 

Daly (2002) observed, RJ is not always ‘successful’. As Walgrave (2011: 135) put it, it 

is necessary to develop knowledge on ‘what restorative justice can achieve or not’. 



21 

 

However, the number of such studies on RJ is limited to date (e.g. Rossner and Bruce, 

2018). It is important to account for not only how offenders can achieve self-

forgiveness and subsequently start to desist from crime through RJ, but also why they 

fail to do so. For these reasons, we have decided to develop our process-based model 

based on Wohl and McLaughlin’s (2014) path model of self-forgiveness. We are 

interested in how the RJ process fits in with these models and what elements unique to 

RJ can add to it.  

Before describing our model, we discuss a limitation of its scope. Our model does 

not focus on the interactive process of RJ, while we are aware that it is an important 

feature of RJ. The success of RJ may depend on the core sequence between victims and 

offenders, such as expressions of offenders’ genuine remorse followed by victims’ 

mercy (Retzinger and Scheff, 1996). Even if offenders are reluctant to acknowledge 

their responsibility at the beginning of RJ, full acceptance of responsibility may be 

elicited from interactions with empathetic victims (Hayes, 2006). Yet, we focus solely 

on an offender perspective because achieving self-forgiveness is ultimately the 

offenders’ self-reflection process on their own wrongdoing (Hall and Fincham, 2005). 

Although acknowledging the responsibility of wrongdoing is an important condition for 

offenders to achieve self-forgiveness (Woodyatt et al., 2017), our model does not offer 

reasons why some offenders accept only partial responsibility or fail to acknowledge 

their responsibility in RJ. Our focus is not on how and why offenders accept or deny 



22 

 

responsibility in RJ. Our focus is on what may occur in offenders’ behaviours as a result 

of taking or denying responsibility in RJ. With these limitations in mind, we elaborate 

on our model.  

Our process-based model of self-forgiveness in RJ is described in Figure 1. Our 

model provides three main paths towards desistance or persistence of offending. The 

paths are differentiated by the extent to which offenders accept their responsibility 

because acknowledging responsibility for wrongdoing is an important prerequisite for 

self-forgiveness (Woodyatt et al., 2017). There are three starting points of the paths: (1) 

full responsibility, (2) partial responsibility, and (3) denial of responsibility. 

[Figure 1 about here] 

When offenders acknowledge what they have done to the victims and show remorse 

and willingness to restore relationships in RJ, it is considered that they accept their full 

responsibility. This acceptance means that they are in the process of achieving genuine 

self-forgiveness (Wenzel et al., 2012). This process can be facilitated in RJ by care and 

support from the community of care, which can subsequently help offenders to 

discharge negative feelings, such as shame, and completing the agreement plan to make 

amends for victims. Once offenders achieve genuine self-forgiveness, they have a 

transformed identity of positive self and reconstructed morality. These together 

encourage offenders to commit to future law-abiding behaviours. As a result, these 

offenders have an increased likelihood of being on the path to desistance.  



23 

 

On the other hand, not all offenders accept their responsibility in RJ. Some 

offenders may take only partial responsibility or deny responsibility by blaming victims 

or failing to clearly express their remorse (for example, see Kenney and Clairmont 

2008; Rossner and Bruce 2018). When offenders do so, what they can achieve is only 

either pseudo-self-forgiveness or no self-forgiveness. This may be still the case even 

when offenders receive support and care from their family members and friends who are 

present in RJ or complete the agreement plan for victims because accepting full 

responsibility needs to be the first step toward genuine self-forgiveness (Woodyatt et al., 

2017). Without genuine self-forgiveness, offenders may not reflect their own morality 

that leads them to the wrongdoing in the first place. As a consequence of failing to 

transform their identity as a ‘moral monster’, they may be more likely to continue their 

offending. 

Conclusion 

Because interpersonal forgiveness should be considered a ‘gift’ in RJ, the role of 

forgiveness in RJ remains peripheral. To develop the role of forgiveness in RJ, we have 

focused on another dimension of forgiveness: self-forgiveness for offenders. Self-

forgiveness is associated not only with RJ but also with desistance. Self-forgiveness can 

play the role to connect RJ with desistance. Building on these relationships, we have 

offered a process-based model of how offenders may or may not desist through RJ.  



24 

 

Our process-based model of self-forgiveness in RJ is significant because it fills the 

void in RJ literature. Recent RJ scholarships have been shifting their research focus 

from ‘what works’ to ‘how it works’ (Suzuki and Wood, 2017) because little is known 

about how, in what conditions and for whom RJ works (O'Mahony and Doak, 2017). 

Following this trend, different scholars have focused on different aspects of the RJ 

process and outcomes, such as procedural justice and legitimacy in RJ (Miller and 

Hefner, 2015). To our knowledge, what lacks among these attempts is to connect RJ 

with desistance. Using self-forgiveness as a catalyst between RJ and desistance, our 

process-based model bridges this gap in RJ literature.  

While our model contributes to RJ literature, it is necessary to conduct empirical 

research based on our process-based model. Because our model is theory-based, it 

remains speculative without examining how it fits in with the reality of RJ practice. 

Future research is important because our model may show an over-simplified sequence 

of RJ, self-forgiveness and desistance. Self-forgiveness is ‘a process that unfolds over 

time’ (Hall and Fincham, 2008: 194). In other words, it may require a long time for 

offenders to achieve self-forgiveness. This process may be even longer when the 

offence is more severe (Hall and Fincham, 2008). Likewise, desistance is also a (long) 

process, in which offenders often experience lapses and relapses of being involved in 

offending (Abrams and Terry, 2017). Given this commonality between self-forgiveness 

and desistance as a complex, long process, the sequence proposed in our model may not 



25 

 

necessarily be the case; for example, some offenders may forgive themselves as a result 

of desistance because they are no longer involved in any antisocial behaviours. Or, 

offenders who already forgive themselves before RJ may be more willing to restore 

relationships with victims by making amends and offering an apology. Because our 

model is hypothetical at this stage, we may have merely offered a novel way of 

exploring forgiveness in RJ. It is important to empirically test our model. We conclude 

our paper by providing implications for research.  

To conduct research on the role of self-forgiveness in RJ, we need a measurement 

to examine whether offenders achieve self-forgiveness or not. Because self-forgiveness 

is a relatively new concept in the literature (McConnell, 2015), a variety of scales to 

measure self-forgiveness exists. According to Strelan (2017: 78) who reviewed existing 

scales of self-forgiveness, a common problem of the existing measurements for self-

forgiveness is that they lack ‘a mechanism for identifying when a respondent is a 

pseudo self-forgiver’. Tangney et al. (2005: 151-152) argued that this problem arises 

because the existing measures for self-forgiveness ‘essentially measure an outcome—an 

endpoint—without assessing crucial elements of the process that lead up to that 

outcome’. In other words, the existing measurements of self-forgiveness do not allow to 

distinguish genuine and pseudo-self-forgiveness because they do not ‘capture critical 

aspects of the process that leads to the outcome of a self at peace with the self’ 

(Tangney et al., 2005: 152, emphasis in the original). To address this problem of the 



26 

 

measurement for self-forgiveness, Woodyatt and Wenzel (2013) developed 

Differentiated Process Scales of Self-Forgiveness (DPSSF). Unlike other existing 

measurements for self-forgiveness, DPSSF conceptualises genuine self-forgiveness as 

‘the culmination of a transformative learning process’ that involves engagement in self-

reflection and reparative behaviours as well as commitment to change (Strelan, 2017: 

82). The validity of DPSSF has been confirmed by Woodyatt and Wenzel (2013) 

because their finding showed that only those who achieved genuine self-forgiveness had 

increased self-esteem and empathy. Given the distinct paths in our model, genuine and 

pseudo-self-forgiveness need to be distinguished. We suggest employing DPSSF to test 

our model.  

Because our model suggests a causal relationship between RJ, self-forgiveness and 

desistance, a research design to empirically test our model should be longitudinal. In 

particular, what Farrall (2006) calls ‘qualitative longitudinal research’ may be beneficial. 

Desistance scholars emphasises the importance of examining ‘secondary’ desistance—

‘the movement from the behaviour of non-offending to the assumption of the role or 

identity of a “changed person”’—rather than ‘primary’ desistance that indicates ‘any 

lull or crime-free gap in the course of a criminal career’ (Maruna et al., 2004a: 19). This 

type of research requires exploring offenders’ ‘thoughts, emotions, identity traits, and 

feelings that change as social circumstances do’ (Cooley and Sample, 2018: 498). Our 

model is in line with this trend in the desistance research because our model suggests 



27 

 

that self-forgiveness, which involves reconstruction of morality and self and 

commitment to future moral behaviour, may be an important precursor to change 

towards desistance.  

Drawing on the proposed research design, we suggest the following data collection 

strategies. First, the RJ process needs to be observed to explore whether it helps 

offenders meet conditions necessary for the development of self-forgiveness. After the 

participation in RJ, the level of self-forgiveness within offender needs to be examined 

by using DPSSF. Finally, it is necessary to investigate whether ‘secondary’ desistance 

that entails an identity transformation (Maruna et al., 2004a) occurs or not, and how it is 

related to self-forgiveness. Based on the collected data, researchers can examine 

whether self-forgiveness facilitates change towards desistance through RJ as described 

in our model.  

When examining the proposed sequence in our model, it may also be beneficial to 

address another problem in the literature of self-forgiveness. Research suggests that 

whether offenders can achieve self-forgiveness may depend on various factors, such as 

gender and personality (e.g. Tangney et al., 2005; Rangganadhan and Todorov, 2010). 

Yet, there is not much research on this topic to date. The roles of gender and race in RJ 

have also not gained attention in the literature (Gavrielides, 2014; Österman and 

Masson, 2018). Further, extant desistance literature suggests desistance processes may 

vary between gender (Rodermond et al., 2016), race (Glynn, 2014), and ethnicity 



28 

 

(Calverley, 2013). Given these common scarcities of research, following variation 

research approach proposed by Hayes and Daly (2003), future research should also 

examine how ‘variability’—differences within offenders—influences self-forgiveness 

through RJ. For example, it may be important to examine whether the proposed 

sequence in our model varies in terms of offenders’ gender and race. Examining this 

question while testing our model will yield fruitful knowledge on how, for whom, and 

in what conditions RJ facilitates change towards desistance.   



29 

 

References 

Abrams L S and Terry D J (2017) Everyday desistance: The transition to adulthood 

among formerly incarcerated youth. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University 

Press. 

Ahmed E Harris N Braithwaite J and Braithwaite V (Eds.). (2001). Shame management 

through reintegration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

Armour M and Umbreit M (2018) Violence, restorative justice, and forgiveness: Dyadic 

forgiveness and energy shifts in restorative justice dialogue. London, UK: 

Jessica Kingsley Publishers. 

Armour M P Sage J Rubin A and Windsor L C (2005) Bridges to life: Evaluation of an 

in-prison restorative justice intervention. Medicine and Law 24(4): 831-851. 

Armour M P and Umbreit M S (2006) Victim forgiveness in restorative justice dialogue. 

Victims & Offenders 1(2): 123-140. 

Baker M E. (2008) Self-forgiveness: An empowering and therapeutic tool for women in 

recovery. In: MalColm W, DeCourville N & Belicki K (eds) Women's 

reflections on the complexities of forgiveness. New York, NY: Routledge, 61-74. 

Bender K and Armour M (2007) The spiritual components of restorative justice. Victims 

and Offenders 2(3): 251-267. 

Blyth M N (2016a) Introduction to the section on restorative justice. Oxford Journal of 

Law and Religion 5(2): 49-53. 



30 

 

Blyth M N (2016b) Re-imagining restorative justice: The value of forgiveness. Oxford 

Journal of Law and Religion 5(2): 66-78. 

Boriboonthana Y and Sangbuangamlum S (2013) Effectiveness of the restorative justice 

process on crime victims and adult offenders in Thailand. Asian Journal of 

Criminology 8(4): 277-286. 

Braithwaite J (1989) Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge 

University Press. 

Braithwaite J (2000) Survey article: Repentance rituals and restorative justice. The 

Journal of Political Philosophy 8(1): 115-131. 

Braithwaite J (2002) Setting standards for restorative justice. British Journal of 

Criminology 42(3): 563-577. 

Braithwaite J and Roche D. (2001) Responsibility and restorative justice. In: Bazemore 

G & Schiff M (eds) Restorative community justice: Repairing harm and 

tranforming communities. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co., 63-84. 

Bryan A O Theriault J L and Bryan C J (2015) Self-forgiveness, posttraumatic stress, 

and suicide attempts among military personnel and veterans. Acta 

Anaesthesiologica Belgica 21(1): 40-46. 

Calhoun A and Pelech W (2013) The impact of restorative and conventional responses 

to harm on victims: A comparative study. British Journal of Community Justice 

11(1): 63-84. 



31 

 

Calverley A (2013) Cultures of desistance: Rehabilitation, reintegration and ethnic 

minorities. Oxon, UK: Routledge. 

Campbell C Devlin R O'Mahony D Doak J Jackson J Corrigan T and Mcevoy K. (2006). 

Evaluation of the Northern Ireland youth conference service. Belfast, Northern 

Ireland: Northern Ireland Office. 

Carpenter T P Carlisle R D and Tsang J-A (2014) Tipping the scales: Conciliatory 

behavior and the morality of self-forgiveness. Journal of Positive Psychology 

9(5): 389-401. 

Chapman T and Chapman A (2016) Forgiveness in restorative justice: Experienced but 

not heard? Oxford Journal of Law and Religion 5: 135-162. 

Claes B and Shapland J (2016) Desistance from crime and restorative justice. 

Restorative Justice 4(3): 302-322. 

Cooley B N and Sample L L (2018) The difference between desistance from sexual 

offending and not reoffending. Journal of Crime and Justice 41(5): 483-503. 

Courakis N E and Gavrielides T. (2018) Beyond restorative justice: Social justice as a 

new objective for criminal justice. In: Gavrielides T (ed), Routledge 

international handbook of restorative justice. London, UK: Routledge, 43-55. 

Daly K (2002) Restorative justice: The real story. Punishment & Society 4(1): 55-79. 

Davis D E Ho M Y Griffin B J Bell C Hook J N Van Tongeren D R DeBlaere C 

Worthington E L and Westbrook C J (2015) Forgiving the self and physical and 



32 

 

mental health correlates: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Counseling 

Psychology 62(2): 329-335. 

Derrida J (2001) On cosmopolitanism and forgiveness. London, UK: Routledge. 

Dillon Robin S (2001) Self-forgiveness and self-respect. Ethics 112(1): 53-83. 

Doak J and O'Mahony D. (2018) Evaluating the success of restorative justice 

conferencing based approach. In: Gavrielides T (ed), Routledge international 

handbook of restorative justice. London, UK: Routledge, 211-223. 

Enright R D and The Human Development Study Group (1996) Counseling within the 

forgiveness triad: On forgiving, receiving forgiveness, and self-forgiveness. 

Counseling and Values 40(2): 107-126. 

Farrall S. (2006). What is qualitative longitudinal research? (LSE methodology 

institute's discussion paper no.11). London, UK: London School of Economics. 

Fiddes P S (2016) Restorative justice and the theological dynamic of forgiveness. 

Oxford Journal of Law and Religion 5(1): 54-65. 

Gavrielides T (2014) Bringing race relations into the restorative justice debate: An 

alternative and personalized vision of “the other”. Journal of Black Studies 

45(3): 216-246. 

Giordano Peggy C Cernkovich Stephen A and Rudolph Jennifer L (2002) Gender, crime, 

and desistance: Toward a theory of cognitive transformation. American Journal 

of Sociology 107(4): 990-1064. 



33 

 

Glynn M (2014) Black men, invisibility and crime: Towards a critical race theory of 

desistance. New York, NY: Routledge. 

Griffin B J Worthington E L Davis D E Hook J N and Maguen S (2018) Development 

of the self-forgiveness dual-process scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology 

65(6): 715-726. 

Griswold C (2007) Forgiveness: A philosophical exploration. Cambridge, UK: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Gulliford L. (2004) Intrapersonal forgiveness. In: Watts F & Gulliford L (eds) 

Forgiveness in context: Theology and psychology in creative dialogue. London, 

UK: T & T Clark International, 83-105. 

Hall J H and Fincham F D (2005) Self-forgiveness: The stepchild of forgiveness 

research. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 24(5): 621-637. 

Hall J H and Fincham F D (2008) The temporal course of self-forgiveness. Journal of 

Social and Clinical Psychology 27(2): 174-202. 

Hansen T and Umbreit M (2018) Regenerative justice, beyond restoring. Contemporary 

Justice Review 21(2): 185-207. 

Hayes H (2006) Apologies and accounts in youth justice conferencing: Reinterpreting 

research outcomes. Contemporary Justice Review 9(4): 369-385. 

Hayes H. (2007) Reoffending and restorative justice. In: Johnstone G & Van Ness D W 

(eds) Handbook of restorative justice. Devon, UK: Willan Publishing, 426-444. 



34 

 

Hayes H and Daly K (2003) Youth justice conferencing and reoffending. Justice 

Quarterly 20(4): 725-764. 

Holmgren M R. (2002) Forgiveness and self-forgiveness in psychotherapy. In: Lamb S 

& Murphy J G (eds) Before forgiving: Cautionary views of forgiveness in 

psychotherapy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 112-135. 

Holmgren M R (2012) Forgiveness and retribution: Responding to wrongdoing. New 

York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 

Jenkins T (2018) Offence-related effects and perceptions of forgiveness: Experiences of 

victims and offenders. Doctoral dissertation, Griffith University. 

Kenney J S and Clairmont D (2008) Using the victim role as both sword and shield: The 

interactional dynamics of restorative justice sessions. Journal of Contemporary 

Ethnography 38(3): 279-307. 

Kim H J and Gerber J (2012) The effectiveness of reintegrative shaming and restorative 

justice conferences: Focusing on juvenile offenders’ perceptions in Australian 

Reintegrative Shaming Experiments. International Journal of Offender Therapy 

and Comparative Criminology 56(7): 1063-1079. 

Kim J J and Enright R D (2014) A theological and psychological defense of self-

forgiveness: Implications for counseling. Journal of Psychology and Theology 

42(3): 260-268. 



35 

 

King S (2013) Early desistance narratives: A qualitative analysis of probationers’ 

transitions towards desistance. Punishment & Society 15(2): 147-165. 

Latimer J Muise D and Dowden C (2005) The effectiveness of restorative justice 

practices: A meta-analysis. The Prison Journal 85(2): 127-144. 

Lauwaert K and Aertsen I (2016) With a little help from a friend: Desistance through 

victim-offender mediation in Belgium. Restorative Justice 4(3): 345-368. 

LeBel T P Burnett R Maruna S and Bushway S (2008) The 'chicken and egg' of 

subjective and social factors in desistance from crime. European Journal of 

Criminology 5(2): 131-159. 

Livingstone N Macdonald G and Carr N. (2013). Restorative justice conferencing for 

reducing recidivism in young offenders (aged 7 to 21) Cochrane Dataase of 

Systematic Reviews: Cochrane Collaboration. 

Lofton B P. (2004) Does restorative justice challenge systemic injustices? In: Zehr H & 

Toews B (eds) Critical issues in restorative justice. Boulder, CO: Criminal 

Justice Press, 381-390. 

Maruna S (2001) Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. 

Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. 

Maruna S (2016) Desistance and restorative justice: It's now or never. Restorative 

Justice 4(3): 289. 



36 

 

Maruna S Immarigeon R and LeBel T P. (2004a) Ex-offender reintegration: Theory and 

practice. In: Maruna S & Immarigeon R (eds) After crime and punishment: 

Pathways to offender reintegration. Devon, UK: Willan Publishing, 3-26. 

Maruna S Porter L and Carvalho I (2004b) The liverpool desistance study and probation 

practice: Opening the dialogue. Probation Journal 51(3): 221-232. 

Mauss M (1966) The gift: Forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies 

(Cunnison I, Trans.). Mansfield Centre, CT: Martino Publishing. 

Maxwell G. (2008) Crossing cultural boundaries: Implementing restorative justice in 

international and indigenous contexts. In: Miller H V (ed), Restorative justice: 

From theory to practice. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing, 81-95. 

Maxwell G Kingi V Robertson J Morris A Cunningham C and Lash B. (2004). 

Achieving effective outcomes in youth justice final report. Wellington, New 

Zealand: New Zealand Ministry of Social Development. 

McConnell J M (2015) A conceptual-theoretical-empirical framework for self-

forgiveness: Implications for research and practice. Basic and Applied Social 

Psychology 37(3): 143-164. 

McGaffin B J Lyons G C B and Deane F P (2013) Self-forgiveness, shame, and guilt in 

recovery from drug and alcohol problems. Substance Abuse 34(4): 396-404. 



37 

 

Miller S L and Hefner M K (2015) Procedural justice for victims and offenders?: 

Exploring restorative justice processes in Australia and the Us. Justice Quarterly 

32(1): 142-167. 

Murphy J G (2003) Getting even: Forgiveness and its limits. Oxford, UK: Oxford 

University Press. 

Newell T (2007) Face to face with violence and its effects: Restorative justice practice 

at work. Probation Journal 54(3): 227-238. 

O'Mahony D and Doak J (2017) Reimaging restorative justice: Agency and 

accountability in the criminal process. London, UK: Bloomsbury. 

Österman L and Masson I (2018) Restorative justice with female offenders: The 

neglected role of gender in restorative conferencing. Feminist Criminology 

13(1): 3-27. 

Paternoster R and Bushway S (2009) Desistance and the "feared self": Toward an 

identity theory of criminal desistance. The Journal of Criminal Law and 

Criminology 99(4): 1103-1156. 

Rangganadhan A R and Todorov N (2010) Personality and self-forgiveness: The roles 

of shame, guilt, empathy and conciliatory behavior. Journal of Social and 

Clinical Psychology 29(1): 1-22. 



38 

 

Retzinger S M and Scheff T J. (1996) Strategy for community conferences: Emotions 

and social bonds. In: Galaway B & Hudson J (eds) Restorative justice: 

International perspectives. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, 315-336. 

Ricœur P (2004) Memory, history, forgetting (Blamey K & Pellauer D, Trans.). Chicago, 

IL: University of Chicago Press. 

Rocque M Posick C and Paternoster R (2016) Identities through time: An exploration of 

identity change as a cause of desistance. Justice Quarterly 33(1): 45-72. 

Rodermond E Kruttschnitt C Slotboom A-M and Bijleveld C C J H (2016) Female 

desistance: A review of the literature. European Journal of Criminology 13(1): 

3-28. 

Rossner M (2013) Just emotions: Rituals of restorative justice. Oxford, UK: Oxford 

University Press. 

Rossner M and Bruce J (2018) Trajectories and typologies of pre-sentence restorative 

justice rituals. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 51(4): 502-

518. 

Sampson R J and Laub J H (1993) Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points 

through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Shapland J (2016) Forgiveness and restorative justice: Is it necessary? Is it helpful? 

Oxford Journal of Law and Religion 5(2): 94-112. 



39 

 

Sherman L W Strang H Angel C Woods D Barnes G C Bennett S and Inkpen N (2005) 

Effects of face-to-face restorative justice on victims of crime in four randomized, 

controlled trials. Journal of Experimental Criminology 1(3): 367-395. 

Sherman L W Strang H Mayo-Wilson E Woods D J and Ariel B (2015) Are restorative 

justice conferences effective in reducing repeat offending? Findings from a 

campbell systematic review. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 31(1): 1-24. 

Snow N E (1993) Self-forgiveness. The Journal of Value Inquiry 27(1): 75-80. 

Stein E (1989) On the problem of empathy (Stein W, Trans.). Washington, DC: ICS 

Publications. 

Strang H Sherman L W Woods D and Barnes G C. (2011). Experiments in restorative 

policing: Final report on the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments 

(RISE). Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology. 

Strelan P. (2017) The measurement of dispositional self-forgiveness. In: Woodyatt L, 

Worthington E L J, Wenzel M & Griffin B J (eds) Handbook of the psychology 

of self-forgiveness. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 75-86. 

Suzuki M and Wood W R (2017) Restorative justice conferencing as a 'holistic' process: 

Convenor perspectives. Current Issues in Criminal Justice 28(3): 277-292. 

Suzuki M and Wood W R (2018) Is restorative justice conferencing appropriate for 

youth offenders? Criminology & Criminal Justice 18(4): 450-467. 



40 

 

Szablowinski Z (2012) Self-forgiveness and forgiveness. The Heythrop Journal 53(4): 

678-689. 

Tangney J P Boone A L and Dearing R L. (2005) Forgiving the self: Conceptual issues 

and empirical findings. In: Worthington E L J (ed), Handbook of forgiveness. 

New York, NY: Routledge, 143-158. 

Toews B (2016) This backyard is my serenity place: Learning from incarcerated women 

about the architecture and design of restorative justice. Restorative Justice 4(2): 

214-236. 

Umbreit M S Blevins J and Lewis T (2015) The energy of forgiveness: Lessons from 

those in restorative dialogue. Eugene, OR: Cascade Publications. 

Umbreit M S Vos B Coates R B and Armour M P (2006) Victims of severe violence in 

mediated dialogue with offender: The impact of the first multi-site study in the 

u.S. International Review of Victimology 13(1): 27-48. 

Van Stokkom B (2008) Forgiveness and reconciliation in restorative justice conferences. 

Ethical Perspectives 15(3): 399-418. 

Walgrave L (2011) Investigating the potentials of restorative justice practice. Journal of 

Law & Policy 36(1): 91-139. 

Walgrave L Ward T and Zinsstag E (2019) When restorative justice meets the good 

lives model: Contributing to a criminology of trust. European Journal of 

Criminology. 



41 

 

Webb J R Bumgarner D J Conway-Williams E Dangel T and Hall B B (2017) A 

consensus definition of self-forgiveness: Implications for assessment and 

treatment. Spirituality in Clinical Practice 4(3): 216-227. 

Wenzel M Woodyatt L and Hedrick K (2012) No genuine self-forgiveness without 

accepting responsibility: Value reaffirmation as a key to maintaining positive 

self-regard: Genuine self-forgiveness. European Journal of Social Psychology 

42(5): 617-627. 

Williston B (2012) The importance of self-forgiveness. American Philosophical 

Quarterly 49(1): 67-80. 

Wohl M J A DeShea L and Wahkinney R L (2008) Looking within: Measuring state 

self-forgiveness and its relationship to psychological well-being. Canadian 

Journal of Behavioural Science 40(1): 1-10. 

Wohl M J A and McLaughlin K J (2014) Self-forgiveness: The good, the bad, and the 

ugly: Self-forgiveness. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 8(8): 422-

435. 

Woodyatt L and Wenzel M (2013) Self-forgiveness and restoration of an offender 

following an interpersonal transgression. Journal of Social and Clinical 

Psychology 32(2): 225-259. 

Woodyatt L Worthington E L J Wenzel M and Griffin B J. (2017) Orientation to the 

psychology of self-forgiveness. In: Woodyatt L, Worthington E L J, Wenzel M 



42 

 

& Griffin B J (eds) Handbook of the psychology of self-forgiveness. Cham, 

Switzerland: Springer, 3-16. 

Zehr H (2002) The little book of restorative justice. Intercourse, PA: Good Books. 

  



43 

 

Figure 1. Process-Based Model of Self-Forgiveness in RJ 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Partial 

responsibility 
Persistence 

of offending 

Full 

responsibility 

• Acknowledged shame 

• Community of care 

• Agreement compliance 

Genuine 

self-forgiveness 

Desistance 

Pseudo 

self-forgiveness 

Denial of 

responsibility 

No 

self-forgiveness 

• Transformed identity 

• Commitment to future 

law-abiding behaviour 

Partial 

responsibility 
Persistence 

of offending