Applying Restorative Justice for Survivors of Domestic Violence in Singapore: A case study approach
Student Researchers:
Roxanne Foo Wee Ngee, Business ‘23
Nur Sabrina Bte Abu Bakar, Arts and Social Sciences ‘23
Jessy Kee, Arts and Social Sciences ‘23
Project Supervisor:
Dr Kevin S.Y. Tan, Lecturer
Chua Thian Poh Community Leadership Centre, National University of Singapore
Project Outline:
Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a surge in reported family violence in many countries. A part of the reason was due to isolation measures that compelled some women to remain at home under the same roof with perpetrators, magnifying their vulnerabilities. Singapore was no exception as the NGO-run Family Violence Specialist Centres saw a 37% increase in calls (United Nations Human Rights Special Procedures, 2020) while the Singapore Police Force saw a 22% increase in family violence reports during the Circuit Breaker in 2020 (Channel News Asia, 2020).
Situated within this context, this research project investigated and evaluated the effectiveness of Restorative Justice (or RJ) in supporting the recovery of women seeking protection in a crisis shelter after surviving family violence in Singapore. An exploratory study that is a first of its kind in Singapore, this project also sought better understand RJ's potential strengths and limitations within the local context.
According to van Alphen (2015), restorative practice, which is a broader label of restorative justice, brings about social responsibility. A restorative process brings together affected parties, including family members, friends, and neighbours, to talk through the incident of harm, its impact, and ways to repair the harm caused. Viewing behaviour within the societal context, restorative practice brings about self-reflection of persons who caused harm to initiate change. At the same time, it fosters a collaborative spirit amongst affected parties, which helps promote ownership and accountability for change and support for both persons who caused harm and persons who experienced harm.
Through this method, it is crucial for the perpetrator to realise the severity and undesirable nature of their past actions. In doing so, they are expected to initiate independent change in themselves and to improve their relationship with the victim(s). The second part of the intervention involves relevant persons, such as the survivors of family violence and others who are part of the family system of the perpetrator.
In recent years, there has been growing openness to the applicability of RJ to address and intervene in family violence on a global level. This is because there is evidence showing that persons who experience RJ intervention as victims, offenders and interested participants perceive it to be more satisfying than the mere implementation of courtroom justice. It has been argued that courtroom processes oversimplify the complexity of such issues and the kind of shared support that can be mobilised both survivors and perpetrators. However, a creative synergy between formal law and RJ may mobilise the most potent combination of information and support, suggest that there is growing evidence of how RJ may play an important role in reducing crime.
Consequently, survivors of family violence derive greater personal satisfaction as it is perceived as a fairer approach compared to courtroom justice (Braithwaite & Strang, 2002). At the same time, it is argued that RJ offers formerly abused women an alternative as well as an empowering response to gendered violence that does not entirely rely on the criminal justice system (Sottile, 2015). In addition, survivors will be able to regain a capacity to access relevant information, enable truth-telling, and seek restitution for their experience of violence (Zehr, 2002).
It is also important to note that beyond the arena of family violence, RJ and related approaches have been employed with positive results in similar contexts, such as creating supportive spaces for individuals and families after incarceration in the West (Packer, 2022).