Perception Comparison of Restorative Policing(Restorative Dialogue): Professional Agency Facilitators vs. Police Officer Facilitators

This study aimed to compare how professional agency facilitators and police officer facilitators perceive restorative dialogue. To achieve this, in-depth interviews were conducted with both professional agency facilitators and police officer facilitators. Through these interviews, the study investigated each group's thoughts on the necessity of restorative policing, their perceptions of the effectiveness of restorative dialogue, and their stances on appropriate target cases for restorative dialogue. The findings can be summarized as follows: First, regarding the necessity of restorative policing, both professional agency facilitators and police officer facilitators agreed on its necessity, although their specific reasons differed somewhat. Next, the perceptions of professional agency facilitators and police officer facilitators regarding the effectiveness of restorative dialogue were as follows: Firstly, concerning the effectiveness of restorative dialogue in victim recovery, both professional agency facilitators and police officer facilitators held positive views, but their specific reasons showed some differences. Secondly, regarding the effectiveness of restorative dialogue in preventing reoffending, both professional agency facilitators and police officer facilitators agreed that restorative dialogue would be more effective in preventing reoffending than conventional case processing procedures. Finally, the responses of professional agency facilitators and police officer facilitators concerning appropriate target cases for restorative dialogue were as follows: Professional agency facilitators fundamentally maintained the position that all types of cases are suitable as target cases for restorative dialogue. They perceived that property crimes between strangers (theft, robbery, etc.), property crimes between acquaintances (fraud, embezzlement, etc.), violent crimes between strangers, domestic violence crimes, violent crimes between acquaintances, property crimes committed by juveniles, violent crimes committed by juveniles, negligent crimes, traffic-related crimes, serious crimes, sexual offenses, and abuse crimes could all be target cases for restorative dialogue. Police officer facilitators suggested acknowledging the perpetrator's harmful act, clarity of harm, relatedness, and necessity as criteria for appropriate target cases for restorative dialogue. They perceived that domestic violence crimes, violent crimes between acquaintances, property crimes committed by juveniles, violent crimes committed by juveniles, and abuse crimes could be target cases for restorative dialogue. The policy recommendations suggested by the results of this study are as follows: Firstly, there is a need to establish criteria other than crime type (juvenile delinquency, serious crimes, sexual offenses, abuse crimes, etc.) to determine what matters are appropriate for restorative dialogue. Secondly, restorative dialogue should be promoted from the perspective that it complements, rather than replaces, existing case processing procedures (including investigative procedures). Lastly, efforts may be needed to align the perspectives on restorative dialogue between professional agency facilitators and police officer facilitators.