Stakeholder Views on the Use of Restorative Justice for Sexual Violence: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review

This mixed-methods systematic review examined stakeholder views towards the use of restorative justice (RJ) for sexual violence. Although previous reviews have primarily focused on the experiences or effectiveness of RJ in cases of sexual violence, this review synthesised empirical evidence regarding the perceptions, attitudes, concerns and perceived benefits associated with RJ for sexual violence among victim-survivors, practitioners, advocates, activists, opinion leaders and members of the public. Eligible studies included original empirical research employing qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods designs that examined stakeholder views relating to RJ processes involving communication or dialogue between victim-survivors and offenders in cases of sexual violence. Both scholarly and grey literature published in English were included. Searches were conducted across eight scholarly databases and three grey literature databases in May 2026, supplemented by backward citation tracking. The review identified 13 eligible studies. The findings demonstrated that stakeholder views towards RJ for sexual violence were characterised by cautious and conditional support rather than clear endorsement or rejection. Participants frequently identified potential benefits relating to victim-survivor voice, validation, healing, dialogue and offender accountability, particularly in light of dissatisfaction with conventional criminal justice responses to sexual violence. However, stakeholders also consistently raised concerns regarding coercion, retraumatisation, power imbalances, offender manipulation and participant safety. Attitudes towards RJ also varied according to stakeholder group, cultural background, victim-survivor status and beliefs regarding rehabilitation. Overall, the reviewed studies suggested that many stakeholders perceived RJ for sexual violence as potentially acceptable only under carefully regulated, trauma-informed and victim-centred conditions.