Defining Restorative Justice

These articles address the question “What is restorative justice? They do so by proposing definitions or principles that make up a restorative response to crime.

Steps to Peace – Restorative Justice simplified by Thich Nhat Hanh

Kris Miner's entry on Restorative Justice and Circles: Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh outlines the three steps to peace as:

A relational vision of justice

from Jennifer Llewellyn's article for Restorative Justice Week 2011: As a relational theory of justice, RJ is rooted in a relational understanding of human beings and the world. It starts from the fundamental assumption that human beings are inherently relational. This is more than merely a description about the way in which we live or a claim about the benefits that relationships bring. Human beings do indeed live in relationships with one another, but, a relational theory claims that we could not do otherwise. We are, on this account, formed in and through relationship with others. Relationship is central to who we are and who we become. This is not to say that we are just the sum of our relationships or wholly determined by them. We still make choices for ourselves and are responsible for those choices. But a relational approach reveals the extent to which our choices are made possible by and realized with the help of others. Our choices also affect others.

A restorative lens on violence

from Jennifer Haslett and Alan Edwards' article for Restorative Justice Week 2011: ....In our 14 years of working together on RJ cases involving violence, we have found that maintaining a focus on RJ as a justice process is fundamental in that it holds central the priorities of reparation of harm, accountability, safety and voice. Justice in this context is not synonymous with the criminal justice system; rather, justice as something people seek in societies and also as individuals on a daily basis, whether within families, workplaces or interactions within communities.

Restorative justice: Transforming corrections

from Daniel Patrick Dowen's article on Corrections.com: Restorative Justice is a different framework for reducing recidivism and providing public safety. It is not a program. It is a collection of concepts put into action to administer justice as a process that involves the victim, the offender and the community. It does not seek to undermine or mitigate the punitive characteristics of incarceration. Taking responsibility is fundamental and therefore more difficult for the offender. Restorative Justice Principles facilitates changing the offenders’ thinking and raising their level of moral reasoning. It attempts to teach offenders empathy and compassion for human suffering. Both qualities many offenders lack through inadequate childhood socialization, neglect or abuse.

A needle for the restorative justice compass

from the entry by Howard Zehr on Restorative Justice Blog: Injustice occurs when people are turned into objects through relationships. Justice occurs when people are honored through relationships. So for Vaandering, what is needed in restorative justice is a concerned effort to remind us all of the following: Justice is a call to recognize that all humans are worthy and to be honored. Injustice occurs when people are objectified. The term restorative justice becomes meaningful when it refers to restoring people to being honored as human.

Is restorative justice a compass without a needle?

from Howard Zehr's entry in Restorative Justice Blog: ....an important new contribution by Dorothy Vaandering. (“A faithful compass: rethinking the term restorative justice to find clarity.” Contemporary Justice Review, Vol 14, No. 3, Sept 2011, 307-328). Vaandering’s research and experiences are in the realm of education, but she speaks to the field as a whole, warning that although it has offered a compass, the compass has been lacking a needle.

Characteristics of restorative / transformational justice approaches

from the entry by RadioGirl on Criminal Injustice Kos: There is no monolithic approach to restorative/transformational justice initiatives. Some initiatives emphasize community involvement and are intended to eventually replace the harsh punishment/expanded policing orientation of the criminal legal system, while others are designed to work wholly within that system, as a more recent feature of it. There are many "blended" approaches that involve the criminal legal system, but also have components that operate independently.

Restorative terminology: A modest proposal

by Dan Van Ness Howard Zehr suggests that at the core of restorative justice are the values of respect, responsibility and relationship. Respect for others, genuine responsibility that acknowledges the true extent to which my actions affect others, and a recognition that the universe is relational and not merely material, all are reflected in what we call restorative justice. But should we apply that term to all attempts to follow those values?For example, is civility restorative justice? I just received an email message from a group called Civilination whose mission "is to foster an online culture where every person can freely participate in a democratic, open, rational and truth-based exchange of ideas and information, without fear or threat of being the target of unwarranted abuse, harassment, or lies." In other words, they want online culture to reflect respect, responsibility and relationships. They believe their work is connected to restorative justice and wanted us to inform our readers of their important work (which we've now done!).

Justice as restoration of trust

from Howard Zehr's blog entry: ....What restorative justice offers, he says, is not so much new justice practices but a different view of crime and a new goal for justice: crime is seen as a source of harm that must be repaired. Moreover, the essential harm of crime is the loss of trust, on both interpersonal and social levels. What victims and communities need is to have their trust restored. The essential obligation of offenders is to show that they are trustworthy. The purpose of justice should be to encourage this process. The overriding goal of justice, then, ought to be the restoration of trust. The attempt to achieve this on both personal and social levels, he argues, can provide a unifying umbrella for our response to crime. Rather than replacing other, more traditional goals, it would become the overriding consideration in sentencing, providing rationales for and limits to the application of goals such as incapacitation and punishment.

Debating restorative justice

Chris Cunneen and Carolyn Hoyle. Debating restorative justice. Oxford and Portland, OR: Hart Publishing. 2010. 195 pp. £15.00 (ISBN 13: 9781849460224) reviewed by Martin Wright This is the first of a new series of law books, each containing two essays of about 30,000 words on different sides of a current debate. Carolyn Hoyle suggests that there is more talk than action, and some of the action called restorative is actually punitive, such as the community service performed in conspicuous clothes. In her discussion of communitarianism she regards community participation as the presence of supporters and others at a restorative conference, but does not refer to the involvement of independent voluntary-sector mediation services (and admittedly they are thin on the ground). She considers that communitarians go too far in rejecting the state. In her view restorative justice and criminal justice are complementary: courts are necessary if the accused doesn’t admit involvement. This is true; Hoyle does not exclude the use of prison for retribution, but surely in a fully restorative system the courts would impose reparative, not punitive, sanctions. She does not explore whether these should try to be proportionate to the offender’s culpability or the harm suffered by the victim.

Promoting previously unthinkable ways

from the paper by Derek Wilson: Building a more restorative culture in society is to: build a new practice that works critically and reflectively within existing traditions and institutions; enable people to transgress traditional boundaries and meet; support existing organisations re-envision their role in the light of a new and agreed political dispensation; and set free initiatives that are transformative because of their inclusive structures or the focus of their work. ....An initial question before reading this is “what are we restoring to?”

Circling self-interest and democracy

reviewed by Dan Van Ness Lode Walgrave begins his exceptional 2008 book Restorative Justice, Self-interest and Responsible Citizenship like many writers on restorative justice. He reviews the ancient and recent history of restorative approaches, proposes and explains a definition of restorative justice, and outlines various restorative schemes. He then contrasts restorative approaches from contemporary criminal practice and identifies ways in which the former resolves practical and ethical problems of the latter. The person who crosses this familiar territory with Lode is well rewarded because he writes with analytical precision, a scholar’s restraint, and the passion of someone with conviction. He has much to say that is worth hearing. He once again explains clearly why he favours a maximalist definition of restorative justice, one that is not limited to deliberative schemes but which applies only to harm caused by crime. He carefully and thoroughly builds his case against punishment and against restorative justice being considered an alternative punishment rather than an alternative to punishment.

About restorative justice

from the ACT (Australian Capital Territory) Department of Justice and Community Security: Restorative justice (RJ) is a structured process that allows the exchange of information between the people most affected by an offence – the victim, their family and friends and the offender and their family and friends. This process gives people the opportunity to talk about three very important questions: * What happened? * How were people affected? * What needs to be done to make things better?

Blogging the Non-Adversarial Justice Conference

from the entry by Michael King on Cutting Edge Law: It is finally here – the first day of the sessions of the Non-Adversarial Justice: Implications for the Legal System and Society conference in Melbourne, Australia. After well over a year of work and planning for the conference we will see how it all turns out. It is exciting – seeing old friends from around the world, meeting new ones. ....Below I give some thoughts and highlights from the first day of the conference. I cannot hope to be comprehensive. Some of the papers will be published by Monash University Law Review next year and will thereby be more easily accessible.

Restorative justice considers the merits of cases not just rules…

from Lorenn Walker's entry on Restorative Justice and Other Public Health Approaches for Healing: The disturbing case of Albert Holland whose lawyer failed to adequately represent him points out a growing problem with our traditional courts: the focus on the law and rules vs. the facts and merits of particular cases in making rulings. Most American legal cases are being decided on procedure and law, “the rules,” and not on equity or the merits of cases. See Michael J. Sandel’s Democracy’s Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy. The merits are about people and the particular facts about their unique experience in every conflict. Our courts should be places where people can go to find fairness and justice. Court should be a place where people know they can go to have the facts of their cases heard and considered by other people, judges, who care.

Restorative justice and society

by Hans Barendrecht, Martine Cammeraat and Esther Klaassen of Gevangenenzorg Nederland, the Prison Fellowship affiliate in the Netherlands. The most important core value of Gevangenenzorg Nederland is the concept of merciful justice. This is an exciting concept that, at first, could seem like a contradiction in terms. It is not justice as contained in criminal law. Our judicial system is based on the principles of legitimacy and proportionality. This means that the punisher is working in accordance with the law and that the punishment is proportional to the offence or the crime. This is justice whereby the law may take its course but no restoration or fresh prospects are put forward. On the other hand it is not the intention that merciful justice should be thought to be a denial of the existence of guilt and harm. Not at all! If that were to happen justice would lose all meaning. Without guilt there is no injustice and without harm no need for restoration.

Restorative justice and society

by Hans Barendrecht, Martine Cammeraat and Esther Klaassen of Gevangenenzorg Nederland, the Prison Fellowship affiliate in the Netherlands. The most important core value of Gevangenenzorg Nederland is the concept of merciful justice. This is an exciting concept that, at first, could seem like a contradiction in terms. It is not justice as contained in criminal law. Our judicial system is based on the principles of legitimacy and proportionality. This means that the punisher is working in accordance with the law and that the punishment is proportional to the offence or the crime. This is justice whereby the law may take its course but no restoration or fresh prospects are put forward. On the other hand it is not the intention that merciful justice should be thought to be a denial of the existence of guilt and harm. Not at all! If that were to happen justice would lose all meaning. Without guilt there is no injustice and without harm no need for restoration.

Panel: Tribunals as restorative justice

from Erin Walrath's blog: Just a day ago I attended a panel titled Tribunals as Restorative Justice. The purpose behind this attendance was to orient myself with the judicial side of tribunals. Technically, I would argue that there is not another side of tribunals but I am sure that others would disagree with me. (Assuming that some others see tribunals as a sort of a SA Truth and Reconciliation equal, though they are quite different). The panel was a number of Korbel professors... with a range of knowledge regarding law, international law, and tribunals. Restorative justice was the primary concern. It incorporates a focus on victims, the harm done and the needs of those harmed, obligations and accountability, and participation of relevant stakeholders. According to Susan Sharpe (in Restorative Justice: A Vision for Healing and Change) there is an aim to put key decisions in the hands of those most affected by crime, make justice more healing and, ideally, more transformative, and reduce the likelihood or future offenses. Restorative justice is more common in European court systems but it seems is making its way into the US, especially in juvenile cases... so I have heard. To follow a true R.J. model then, the victim is involved in the process and feels heard and satisfied at the outcome, offenders must understand how their actions affect others and accept responsibility for them, outcomes must repair the harm done and address the reasons behind the offense, and both the victim and offender gain a sense of "closure".

Essential values of restorative justice

from the blog Minds on Fire: The purpose of restorative processes is: to empower victims by providing them a strong voice to demonstrate to offenders the harm they cause by their actions to provide a safe forum where the consequences of crime and remorse for criminal acts can encounter each other.

10 ways to live restoratively

from Howard Zehr's article on Restorative Justice Blog: 1. Take relationships seriously, envisioning yourself in an interconnected web of people, institutions and the environment. 2. Try to be aware of the impact - potential as well as actual - of your actions on others and the environment. 3. When your actions negatively impact others, take responsibility by acknowledging and seeking to repair the harm - even when you could probably get away with avoiding or denying it. (To craft a letter of apology, see the Apology Letter website developed by Loreen Walker and Ben Furman.) 4. Treat everyone respectfully, even those you don’t expect to encounter again, even those you feel don’t deserve it, even those who have harmed or offended you or others. 5. Involve those affected by a decision, as much as possible, in the decision-making process.