Home → Resources → Theory Resources → Conceptual Issues and Justifications

Conceptual Issues and Justifications

Up one level

Bucqueroux, Bonnie. Restorative Community Justice: A Comprehensive Approach to Reducing Crime and Violence in Our Culture

While the United States has made dramatic strides in reducing the crime rate in recent years, the gains have come at the price of the world's highest rate of incarceration and crime rates are still too high and communities continue to suffer. This paper on Building a Restorative Community Justice model offers a vision of an effective alternative to the fragmented criminal and juvenile justice systems of today, as well as a three-phase plan to make this vision a reality: 1) Develop a Restorative Community Justice model - Synthesize the essence of the major criminal and juvenile justice reforms into a comprehensive, system-wide Restorative Community Justice model. 2) Promote learning organizations - Transform police, prosecutors, courts and corrections into Learning organizations that can apply systems thinking to changing times and new challenges. 3) Strengthen Communities - Create capacity within communities so that they become full partners in the process of merging formal and informal social control into a unified, community-based approach. (excerpt)

Dignan, James and Cavadino, Michael. Towards a framework for conceptualising and evaluating models of criminal justice from a victim's perspective

Recent empirical findings and theoretical writings are reviewed in order to evaluate 3 distinct models of restorative justice within a typology of victim-based measures proposed or adopted in the U.K.: the civilian, victim-offender reparation, and communitarian approaches. The communitarian model is the most coherent, credible and constructive challenger to the hitherto predominant retributive model. This model avoids many of the criticisms to which earlier alternative models were vulnerable.

Gabbay, Zvi. Justifying Restorative Justice: A Practical and Theoretical Justification for Restorative Practices.

As proponents of restorative justice, we tend to believe that these processes should be integrated into the criminal justice system because they work, they make sense and they address the real needs of the people. To us, the justification for using restorative practices in almost self evident , However, the truth is that most criminal justice practitioners are extremely skeptical about these processes, and are concerned with their feasibility, effectiveness and theoretical justification. If we want the justice system to employ restorative practices we must address these concerns. In this paper I will first present evidence that shows the potential of the restorative practices to better address victim’s interests, the way in which the criminal justice system is perceived and the effectiveness of this system. Them I will demonstrate the theoretical compatibility of restorative practices with the two main theories of punishment: retribution and deterrence, hence providing a theoretical justification for the use of restorative processes. (excerpt)

Gehm, John R. Victim-Offender Mediation Programs: An Exploration of Practice and Theoretical Frameworks

Victim-offender mediation programs--structured encounters centered around a face-to-face meeting between crime victim and offender--have been the subject of modest but increasing attention. Although considerable variation exists across programs, the common element is a direct voluntary encounter between crime victim and offender. This paper explores what is known from victim-offender mediation research as well as related literature about victim willingness to participate in such meetings and its significance for criminal justice practice. An exploratory framework is suggested, drawing from restorative justice, equity theory, and narrative theory to stimulate further investigation of this area. Specific research questions and their implications for future research are identified

Greentree, Louise. Conversion: the overlooked and underrated element in restorative practices?

The theory of restorative practices is focused on three areas or elements that make up the foundation for the process: the first area is shame theory, the second area is restorative versus retributive theory and the third area focuses on the healing qualities of repentance and forgiveness. The three areas together provide a compelling argument in favour of restorative practices and give an explanation of why restorative conferences are effective in criminological, sociological, psychological and spiritual terms. (excerpt)

Law Commission of Canada. From Restorative Justice to Transformative Justice.

This Discussion Paper is the first stage of the Law Commission of Canada's work under its Social Relationships theme. We believe there is much to be learned about how to handle complex relationships involving several competing interests from the way restorative justice is practised in Canada and throughout the world. In exploring how restorative justice can be developed within the criminal justice system, we also seek to test whether its framework and principles can be used to establish new understandings of processes for resolving civil disputes.

Llewellyn, Jennifer J. and Howse, Robert. Restorative Justice - A conceptual framework

A conceptual framework for restorative justice is required in order to understand what practices meet the demands of a restorative model. This paper is intended to develop just such a conceptual framework for restorative justice. The framework will articulate a definition of restorative justice, examine its relationship to other prevailing conceptions of justice, and identify the constitutive elements necessary for restorative justice practice.

Lofton, Bonnie Price. Does Restorative Justice Challenge Systemic Injustices?

While Bonnie Price Lofton clearly sees much merit in restorative justice and views it as a significant improvement over the legalistic, retributive approach used by most Western court systems, she also believes there are serious limitations to restorative justice. Specifically, restorative justice is limited in four ways. (1) It fails to address the socio-economic roots of crime. (2) It accepts the status quo’s definition of crime as wrongdoing between individuals; thus it fails to address the larger, more destructive systemic crimes. (3) It accepts the status quo’s simplistic labels and descriptions of individuals involved in and affected by crime as “offenders� and “victims.� (4) It is so time-consuming that it offers too little for too large a problem. Lofton discusses these four limitations, and she proposes ways to move beyond restorative justice concepts to address systemic injustice in the interests of pursuing a more just social order.

Mantle, Greg and Dhami, Mandeep K and Fox, Darrell and Dhami, Mandeep K. Restorative Justice and Three Individual Theories of Crime

The conceptual relationship between restorative justice and punishment has already attracted a great deal of attention in the literature. A similarly rich body of work has considered the two main aims of punishment, retributivism and reductivism, in relation to criminological theories. It is surprising, therefore, that relatively little (direct) attention has been paid to the relation between restorative justice and theories of crime. This paper first reviews the concept of restorative justice, and then examines the affinities and tensions between restorative justice and three 'individual' criminological theories: classicism, individual positivism, and 'law and order' conservatism. These theories have been selected because of their significance in the development of present criminal justice policies. Author's abstract.

McCold, Paul. What is the Role of Community in Restorative Justice Theory and Practice?

One of the greatest challenges facing restorative justice, claims Paul McCold, is to define the role of “community� in theory and practice. The idea of community can evoke many possible meanings and referents. It can signify a local neighborhood, a set of nations, a group of people with some common interest or occupation, and more. In restorative justice usage, the word “community� can point to a “macro-community,� such as an ethnic group or society in general. Or, it can indicate a “micro-community,� such as a victim’s or offender’s family members, friends, and immediate neighbors. The macro-community and micro-community are different populations with different needs. Indeed, McCold says, these two perceptions of community present restorative justice with an apparent conflict of interests. Can restorative justice meet the needs of both? McCold answers this question in the affirmative by presenting a needs-based theory of restorative justice that focuses on means rather than ends or outcomes with respect to restorative processes.

McEvoy, Kieran and Ellison, Graham. Criminological Discourses in Northern Ireland: Conflict and Conflict Resolution

According to Kieran McEvoy and Graham Ellison, despite the centrality of the criminal justice system to political conflict, criminological literature in general has had very little to say about such conflict. Stepping boldly into this lacuna, McEvoy and Ellison assess the significance of criminological discourses both during the Northern Ireland conflict and in the subsequent era of peace processes. They assert that some of the central tenets of criminological thought provide useful tools for analyzing and understanding the conflict and the conflict resolution processes in Northern Ireland. In particular, they employ criminology’s emphasis on the role of the state as a key constitutive actor in the study of crime as a lens for studying a conflict where the role and responsibilities of the state are politically and ideologically charged issues. They then assess the role of the criminal justice system during the conflict and criminological praxis during the processes of conflict resolution in Northern Ireland.

McEvoy, Kieran and Newburn, Tim. Criminology, Conflict Resolution and Restorative Justice

This book consists of a collection of essays exploring, from different angles, the intersection of criminology, conflict resolution, and restorative justice. The genesis of the collection stemmed from the editors’ perception that criminology has failed to engage in a substantive way with the processes of conflict resolution. Hence, the editors have gathered essays written by a number of people – essays that seek to link criminology with conflict resolution theory and practice. Several essays therefore deal with criminology and conflict resolution at the macro-level; namely, with respect to issues at national and international levels (e.g., transition in South African, conflict in Northern Ireland, and human rights in Africa). Other essays explore criminology and conflict resolution at the micro-level as well; namely, in criminal justice systems within countries as those systems function to address conflict in communities, in villages, and between individuals. Thus, this book brings together not only criminology and conflict resolution, but also restorative justice as an approach to dealing with conflicts and harms between people – with all three of these fields or perspectives being applied at both macro- and micro-levels of conflict and wrongdoing. The list of contributors includes experts in law, criminology, and restorative justice from the United Kingdom and the United States.

Morris, Ruth. Restored to What?

Ruth Morris notes that restorative justice recognizes victim needs, gives the crime back to the principle parties, and focuses on healing rather than revenge. However, she argues for transformative justice, rather than restorative justice. In this article she discusses these reasons (1) where you are going does matter, (2) restoring the past, (3) structural injustice: racism and class elitism, (4) involving the wider community, but not the state, and (5) co-optation.

O'Brien, Sandra and Bazemore, Gordon. A New Era in Governmental Reform: Realizing Community

The ‘‘good government’’ models of the 1990s realized a focus that included reinventing, reengineering, rethinking, quality, empowerment, and devolution of the organization. These organizational reform ideologies sought to increase involvement, improve productivity, manage performance, and drive results. One essential key that has been disregarded in these government models is the involvement of community in the decision-making process. This paper points to the importance of involving and empowering citizens in the decision-making process, particularly in regard to community justice based on the notion of ‘‘restorative justice system.’’ Community justice, a modern day reform movement with international proportions, is based on the principles of empowering community, repairing harm caused by a crime or disturbance, and reducing risk to the community. Author's abstract.

O'Connell, Terry and McCold, Paul. Beyond The Journey, Not Much Else Matters: Avoiding the Expert Model with Explicit Restorative Practice

Restorative justice has become more widely known and accepted over the last couple of decades. In order to sustain this momentum, the critical question we must ask is, what constitutes good restorative practice? This paper explores this question by challenging most of the existing restorative practice for its narrow focus and lack of rigor. It will argue that this practice is 'ends focused' and that the idea of embracing practice that works, without clearly understanding why it works, limits that practice's real potential. The authors propose a framework for viewing restorative justice practice that focuses, not on discrete processes or programs, but rather on a broad set of generic restorative propositions underpinned by theories that explain why this practice works. The framework links practice, theories and values in an explicit way, making it accessible to and easily understood by everyone. A case study in a school setting demonstrates how this explicit practice is capable of fostering and building healthy relationships. Abstract courtesy of the Centre for Justice and Peace Development, Massey University, http://justpeace.massey.ac.nz.

Pate, K.. Response: This Woman's Perspective on Justice. Restorative? Retributive? How about Redistributive?

Kim Pate worked for many years with the John Howard Society. As she wrote this, she was working for the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, the members of which provide services and programs on behalf of people, women in particular, who have been or are identified as at risk of being in conflict with the law. In this paper, Pate explores feminism and restorative justice. She asks basic, even radical questions, about what is feminism, what is justice, and what is restorative. In particular, she notes that how we define these terms may have much to do with position in society – that is, with where we are situated with respect to dominant values and structures of society. Depending on whether one is more a part of those dominant values and structures or less a part, the understanding of justice and restoration may differ. Pate raises these questions in the context, then, of identifying ways feminism can and should affect how we understand justice and pursue criminal justice.

Pavlich, George.. What are the Dangers As Well As the Promises of Community Involvement?

As George Pavlich notes, the concept of community occupies a significant place in restorative approaches to crime and other instances of conflict. While there a number of meanings attached to the idea of community, restorative justice proponents generally view community, however defined, in positive terms. Why is the concept of community so enticing? With this in mind, Pavlich assesses both the promise and the danger underlying restorative justice’s appeals to community. There is much of value in revitalizing communal life to redress wrongdoing and injustice. At the same time, Pavlich warns against fixed or absolute images of community and their incipient totalitarianism. As an alternative, he proposes that Derrida’s concept of hospitality offers a better way of thinking about how to live with others justly without becoming a fixed community.

Polk, Kenneth. Family Conferencing: Theoretical and Evaluative Questions

This paper discusses the recent juvenile justice diversion schemes involving family group conferences in New Zealand and Australia from their theoretical perspective and how they compare with previous juvenile justice reform efforts. Developmental and coercive justice institutional responses are compared and their limitations are presented. Polk distinguishes between integrative and reintegrative strategies, and calls for development of both approaches. It is suggested that FGCs are limited to the latter and describes the failure to involve primary institutions. Questions of the effectiveness of FGCs are raised.

Restorative Justice Consortium.. Principles of Restorative Processes 2004

This Statement of Principles is a revised version of the Statement of Restorative Justice Principles published in 2002.These Principles form the basis for restorative practices in all settings, using all models, where the primary aims are to repair harm and promote dialogue.This document will be reviewed on a regular basis and may be amended following consultation. This document will be followed by an explanatory document, which will go through each principle and explain in more detail their meaning. This will be particularly aimed at those new to Restorative processes. Restorative practices are underpinned by a set of values, these include: Empowerment, Honesty, Respect, Engagement, Voluntarism, Healing, Restoration, Personal Accountability, Inclusiveness, Collaboration, and Problem-solving. (excerpt)

Richards, Kelly. Exploring the History of the Restorative Justice Movement

Kelly Richards states at the beginning of this paper that academic literature on restorative justice has given little attention to the history of the movement. Many papers and books open with a brief summary of the movement’s history. Yet, Richards claims, these summaries often conflict with one another – with the origins of restorative justice being located in very diverse sources, such as the victims’ rights movement, indigenous justice practices, a range of religious stances, and so on. Additionally, a number of important problems arise in these attempts at portraying the history of the movement. These problems include, for example, when should this history begin? Should a history of restorative justice begin when the modern term “restorative justice� came into use? Or, should it begin with historical precursors such as restitution or indigenous justice? In view of all of this, Richards analyzes restorative justice “history-making� to argue the following hypothesis: that restorative justice literature uses history as a strategy to legitimize and 'sell' restorative justice as a present option to existing criminal justice; and such 'history-making' presents restorative justice as 'natural' and unproblematic, as almost a panacea for wrongdoing and conflict.