Book Review: Restorative Justice, Self-Interest and Responsible Citizenship

By: Lode Walgrave.  Cullompton, Devon, and Portland, OR:  Willan Publishing.  2008. 
ISBN 978-1-84392-334-3 pbk  £26.00;  978-1-84392-335-0 hbk  £55.00

After editing and contributing to several books on restorative justice, Lode Walgrave has brought together his thinking in one comprehensive volume, which will prove a definitive step towards the progress of the movement by improving its theoretical base, although he compares this to the never-ending labour of Sisyphus.  He sees restorative justice as a distinct branch of ‘the other practices of resolving conflicts and injustices that are inspired by the same participatory and peace-promoting philosophy’ (p. 2), sometimes called restorative approaches.  Its essential feature is its focus on repairing harm caused by a crime, i.e. a harm which also has a public dimension;  this leads him to accept that there may be a degree of coercion when a voluntary process doesn’t work. 

Walgrave rejects what he rather inelegantly calls ‘punitive apriorism’, by which he seems to mean the presumption that the response to crime should be punitive.  In his definition, a response is not punishment merely because it involves coercion, but only when it is intended to hurt.  He gives a good overview of some of the objections to punishment:  so far from giving a ‘message’ it obstructs communication, encourages denial and defiance, is a top-down tool of social control, and is ineffective. 

As Foucault said, punishment can discipline the body but not the mind (p. 136).  It aims for a notional, unattainable proportionality of harm inflicted to harm caused.  Restorative justice, on the other hand, is based on the ideal that ‘because crime hurts, justice should heal’ (Braithwaite).  The harm should be matched not by further harm but by restorative effort.  Denunciation is achieved through the process itself.  Walgrave also says that the other traditional aim of sentencing, rehabilitation of the offender, neglects the victims’ needs;  but in fact what many victims want are measures that make re-offending less likely. 

Turning to socio-ethical grounds for restorative justice, Walgrave does not agree with Pavlich’s rejection of general ethical principles as ‘expressions of totalitarianism’;  the ideal of deliberative justice accepts the idea of discourse in order to provide ‘hospitality’ (acceptance) of others – which is itself an ethical principle. He combines Braithwaite and Pettit’s idea of ‘dominion’ (autonomy) with the ethics of care, the responsibility of the well-off for those in trouble, which combine to make communitarianism or ‘common self-interest’.  This is not natural, but learned;  it comes from replacing everlasting competition and conflict by ‘bundl[ing] my self-interest with that of others’ (p. 80), and learning to contribute collaboratively to family, class-room and so on. 

The cardinal virtues are respect, solidarity and active responsibility.  Disrespect (such as racism or intolerant religious fundamentalism) should be criminalized, though not of course punitively.  After interesting explorations of justice, freedom, and wrongfulness (which ‘depends on the harm intended’ (p. 95)), he concludes that the tensions inherent in common self-interest are about ‘how citizens participate decisively in the way society and community are governed ... and interact in daily life’ (p. 99.). 

The next chapter looks at the quality of restorative justice practice, which obviously affects the process and outcome, though not as much as earlier life experiences do.  We should not expect it to ‘work’ but to ‘help’ by acting as a ‘gate-opener’ (which, he might have added, is all sentencing can do);  where it scores over punitive sentencing is that it offers a positive motivation.  But that is only the beginning:  a person needs support, prospects and decent social conditions too.  Walgrave sets out a research proposal, and quotes figures from New Zealand showing the fall in arrests, convictions and custodial sentences after the introduction of family group conferences. 

What would a restorative system look like?  Walgrave proposes that it should start from socio-ethical and legal principles, not political ones, if it is to avoid co-optation by the state.  He does not follow Hulsman’s proposal to ‘civilize’ criminal justice, because that ignores the impact of crime on the community.  He accepts that many conflicts can be dealt with by community mediation, but this does not come within his definition of restorative justice.  He does however cite the Zwelethemba project in South Africa, which does so, and calls for parsimony (minimum state intervention).  There should be at least consideration of a restorative process before any judicial process, as in the juvenile systems in New Zealand and latterly in Belgium, not least because victims are entitled to it. 

Walgrave optimistically suggests that the mediation service should be funded but not steered by the judicial authorities.  The sanctions for enforcing agreements should themselves be restorative.  Safeguards are needed, for example the presumption of innocence and a complaints procedure.  He says he does not know of a case where an innocent person was involved as an offender in a restorative process (p. 159), but it can happen (Zernova 2007: 105-6). 

Chapter 6 takes us to the last part of the title, arguing that restorative justice could be not only a response to crime but a movement towards a particpatory democracy in which the state makes more parsimonious use of power.  Walgrave looks at the condition of the world, with globalization, penal populism and so on:  as governments cannot control the former, they fall back on the latter.  This feeds the public’s wish for security at the lowest possible cost (and, he might have added, without making the effort to work at community-building).  There is a danger that restorative justice could be co-opted into this process, and used merely as one technique in an unreconstructed system;  but criminologists can resist it if they are willing to be ‘players’ and not just ‘floaters’.

Looking ahead, Walgrave sees restorative justice developing deliberative conflict resolution practices, especially in schools – so perhaps it is part of that wider movement after all?  He ends by setting four tasks:  to improve the quality of restorative justice, to explore its relation to law, develop its theory (and that of other fields of conflict settlement), and devise a strategy to overcome resistance.  This seems to be in line with the Zwelethemba ideal of being not just a response to crime but a form of locally-based governance (Froestad and Shearing 2007). 

Although some might wish for greater emphasis on the role of non-government organizations, and on conferencing or circle sentencing as ways of involving the community, this is an important book, therefore, especially for academics who aspire  to make a difference, not only with regard to criminal justice but to the way decisions are made that affect us all.


REFERENCE

Froestad, J and C Shearing (2007) ‘Beyond restorative justice – Zwelethemba:  a future-focused model using local capacity conflict resolution.  In:  R Mackay et al., eds Images of resorative justice theory,  Frankfurt am Main:  Verlag für Polizeiwissenschaft. 

Zernova, M (2007)  Restorative justice: ideals and realities.  Aldershot:  Ashgate.

Martin Wright

September 2008