본문 바로가기
  • Home

Facilitators' perception of restorative poling - Focusing on the restorative dialogue program -

  • Legal Theory & Practice Review
  • Abbr : LTPR
  • 2025, 13(3), pp.393~424
  • Publisher : The Korea Society for Legal Theory and Practice Inc.
  • Research Area : Social Science > Law
  • Received : July 15, 2025
  • Accepted : August 27, 2025
  • Published : August 31, 2025

Lim, Hyungjin 1 MoonKwi KIM 2

1백석대학교
2호서대학교

Accredited

ABSTRACT

This study examined how facilitators perceive the restorative dialogue program being promoted by the National Police Agency. To this end, a survey and analysis were conducted with 144 facilitators, and the results are as follows: (1) Facilitators recognized that resolving conflicts and restoring relationships between the parties is more important than compensation for damages, and they believed that the success of restorative dialogue depends on the restoration of relationships between the parties. (2) Many perceived the role of the facilitator as that of a supporter who helps facilitate relationship restoration through dialogue. (3) Facilitators believed that the current level of police involvement (participation) is appropriate. (4) They recognized that the restorative dialogue program is essential to complement the typical police activities focused on apprehending offenders. (5) Facilitators perceived restorative dialogue as more effective than existing investigative procedures in terms of victim recovery and preventing recidivism. (6) They showed somewhat negative reactions regarding the possibility of restorative dialogue in cases of sexual offenses. (7) Facilitators generally held a positive view on the necessity for facilitators to contact the parties in advance to increase the rate of agreements. The results of this study have several policy implications: (1) While police officers directly facilitating restorative dialogue programs could be efficient by reducing the time and costs associated with securing professional facilitators from specialized agencies, this approach seems to require sufficient discussion. (2) It appears necessary to establish a clear understanding of the facilitator's role within restorative dialogue programs. (3) To improve the effectiveness of restorative dialogue programs, it is essential to strengthen pre-contact between facilitators and both offenders and victims. (4) There is a need to continue expanding restorative dialogue programs, for example, by identifying more cases suitable for these programs. (5) When referring cases to restorative dialogue programs, caution is required for sexual offenses and serious violent crimes. Conversely, cases involving violent crimes between acquaintances, domestic violence, property crimes committed by juveniles, and violent crimes committed by juveniles could be confidently referred. (6) It is necessary to develop restorative dialogue programs into one of the key recidivism prevention initiatives.

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2024 are currently being built.