It has been argued that not only does restorative justice minimize certain drawbacks of the traditional criminal justice system, it also has a number of beneficial qualities uniquely attributable to the restorative paradigm.

(1) Wright contends that prosecution would only proceed when the offender fails to make adequate reparations. Victims and offender would proactively participate. The primary intent of the justice system would be restoration, with retribution a secondary intent (Wright, 1991 at 117). According to Wright, the State would set the example that constructive problem-solving is the appropriate means of dealing with conflict, instead of the confusing message sent today by its infliction of punishment motivated by a pursuit of retribution. Parties would have the power to settle the conflict themselves, instead of State imposition of a sanction. Accountability and assumption of responsibility would be affirmed (132). The State would retain residual powers to assure a fair process.

(2) Restorative processes focus upon repairing the relations that have been injured by crime (Bazemore, 1997 at 2).

(3) Bakker posits that restorative processes deal with crime in a constructive manner. Victims and offenders have the opportunity to communicate directly. Both parties have the opportunity to break down stereotypes, and to understand the motivations for and the impact of crime. Victims have the opportunity to participate, to regain some sense of control over their lives; to express emotions; to confront the offender; to recoup losses. Offenders have the opportunity to express remorse, to make restitution, and to generally assume responsibility. Information and understanding can be gained by both victim and offender. Incarceration is used sparingly. Restitution is likely to be agreed upon and fulfilled. Victim and offender are more likely to feel that the process handled them fairly than if they were to proceed through the traditional court system. Communities are empowered, and State intervention reduced. According to Bakker, restorative programs reduce the caseload handled by the formal court system, allowing more time to be devoted to cases that remain in court. Satisfaction levels are high. There is some evidence that restorative programs effectively reduce recidivism rates. The needs of both victim and offender are taken into account (Bakker, 1994 at 1500-1505, 1515).

(4) Two studies find that mediation programs had significantly higher rates of restitution completion than in court-administered programs. These same studies found that victims experienced significant reductions in fear and anxiety after proceeding through mediation than before they participated. Canadian and English studies confirm U.S studies which demonstrate that the rate of victim fear of revictimization is significantly lower for those victims who participated in mediation programs than for those victims who did not. Recidivism rates appear to lower for those offender participating in mediation programs. High victim and offender satisfaction rates and perceptions of fairness have been observed (Umbreit, 1996 at 17-20).

(5) Wright contends that a criminal justice system predicated on the use of punishment is itself criminogenic. That is, the use of punishment as the primary response to crime itself elicits crime. This argument is strengthened by evidence that prison life fosters the wrong responses to conflict, failing to provide prisoners with the effective means of handling disputes. A restorative justice system, however, it is argued, sets the ethical and appropriate example for the approach to dealing with conflict. Restorative programs are reconciling, affirming the values of compromise, understanding and constructive communication (Wright, 1991 at 108-112).

(6) According to Bazemore, current approaches may be criminogenic in the sense that they isolate and stigmatize the offender, reducing the likelihood of successful reintegration into the law-abiding community. Punishment makes the offender less likely to focus on the victim of the crime than on himself. Familial relationships with the offender are damaged. Restorative sanctions, on the other hand, require accountability. They require the offender to take responsibility for his actions by making right of the wrong that he has inflicted on the victim. At the same time, restorative justice exhorts the community to make every effort to facilitate the successful reintegration into the community. In this way, he argues, restorative justice has the better potential to rehabilitate offenders (Bazemore, 1997 at 17).

(7) Restorative justice would:

• increase understanding, emphasize accountability and promote reacceptance of the offender into the community;
• integrate social policies within crime prevention policy;
• set the example for appropriate behavior;
• promote communication and participation by victim, offender and community;
• use incarceration sparingly only when necessary (Wright, 1992 at 529-30).

This document prepared by Christopher Bright. Copyright 1997 by Prison Fellowship International.