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.

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)

Sharpe, Susan. The Other Dimension of Restorative Justice: What Makes It Justice?

To date, definitions of restorative justice have focused primarily on restorative values. Most discussions of restorative justice theory seem to take for granted a shared understanding of justice, focusing primarily on what restorative justice is -- that is, on what makes this approach to justice different from the conventional approach. This presentation will a) suggest that an adequate definition of restorative justice must articulate what is meant by 'justic' as well as what is meant by 'restorative,' b) propose that a social contract theory of justice can explain what is occurring when restorative justice is successful, and c) discuss implications for restorative justice practice. Abstract courtesy of the Centre for Justice and Peace Development, Massey University, http://justpeace.massey.ac.nz.

Richards, Kelly. "From modest begininnings..."? Considering the emergence of restorative justice

This paper, which draws on my doctoral research, will explore some issues surrounding the history of restorative justice. In the initial conference brief, we were told that restorative justice had emerged from "modest beginnings" some thirty years ago. Usually, both the history of restorative justice, and the significance of this history on current practice, is overlooked. This paper will attempt to address this by critiquing the various histories of restorative justice that have been out forward, and outlining an alternative method of examining the past of restorative justice - genealogy. Genealogy, or "history of the present", seeks to explore how a particular phenomenon - in this case, restorative justice - came into being. In other words, why restorative justice, and why now? This method of inquiry elicits a historical picture quite different to that which we are usually offered in the restorative justice literature. This paper will report on the results of my research - and this developing picture of the emergence of restorative justice - to date. Abstract courtesy of the Centre for Justice and Peace Development, Massey University, http://justpeace.massey.ac.nz.

Braithwaite, John. The Evolution of Restorative Justice

A new Western wave of restorative justice began with victim-offender mediation programmes in Canada and the United States in the 1970s. Then at the end of the 1980s family group conferences more like the one used in the story of Hiroshi were first developed in New Zealand. Since then there has been a proliferation of new and varied models of restorative justice. My contention is that the defining thing they have in common is that they are a process where all the stakeholders affected by a crime can come together to discuss the consequences of the crime and what can be done to right the wrong. (excerpt)

Goold, Benjamin. Restorative Cautioning, Theories of Reintegration, and the Influence of Japanese Notions of Shame

Certainly one of the most significant developments in the treatment of young offenders in Britain over the past decade has been the move away from punitive forms of cautioning towards a new type of informal disposal known as "restorative cautioning". Although there is now a considerable body of academic and professional literature that examines the theory and practice of restorative cautioning, recently little has been written about the intellectual and cultural origins of this new approach to punishment and dispute resolution. This article explains some of the central notions of restorative justice, drawing particular attention to the influence of Japanese notions of shame and community on cautioning practices in Britain and elsewhere. (excerpt)

Claassen, Ron. Two Useful Models for Implementing Restorative Justice

I came into this field after being a teacher of mathematics. Patterns and models are important to me. When reading Getting Disputes Resolved by Ury, Brett, and Goldberg, I was stimulated to search for a pictorial model to represent power, rights, and interests. What emerged was the Four Options Model. (extract) I

Matthews, Roger. Shame, Guilt and Trust: Developing a Basis for Peace Making and Peace Building.

In recent years there has been an ongoing debate about the theoretical and practical basis on which to build forms of Restorative Justice. A number of leading contributors to this debate such as John Braithwaite have advocated a shame-based model. While others have argued that most Western countries are guilt-based societies and that developing forms of shaming may not only be inappropriate but counterproductive. IN this paper it is argued that it is ‘trust’ which is the key concept in play in restorative and peace making practices and that if we wish to develop more effective interventions that we need to further explore the processes by which trust is lost and investigate ways in which it can be re-established. (author's abstract)

Hill, Jane and Wright, Graham. Reforming the Criminal Justice System Through Social Healing.

The article identifies social healing as the key value that should underpin restorative justice. This builds on the work of Bazemore (2001: 209) who states healing is ‘[T]he first and most important big idea of the restorative perspective…’ It is a value that has even been obscured by intra-restorative debates, particularly those that have dichotomised process and outcome. Through the focus on healing, it is argued that it is possible to gain a more convincing commitment to restorative principles through which a challenge to the taken-for-granted assumptions of traditional criminal justice can take place. It is our contention that healing has the potential to take place on three levels –the individual level, between victims and offenders; at the criminal justice policy level where those implementing restorative justice strategies can bring about institutional changes through their practice; at the societal level where greater community and inter-agency involvement in restorative processes become the filter through which, to use Zehr’s analogy, the lens is changed. (excerpt)

Meier, Bernd-Dieter. Restorative Justice -- A New Paradigm in Criminal Law?

An analysis of the arguments on which the scepticism is based shows that the main deficiency of the idea of restorative justice lies in its incapacity to deal with normative, especially legal arguments. Restorative justice is mostly presented as an alternative which stresses the great and hardly refutable attractiveness of the ideas of mutual understanding, reconciliation, peace and humanity. In modern Western societies, however, the criminal justice system has specific functions and works on certain premisses -- protection of the weak, search to truth, equality before the law, to name but a few -- which are often not respected enough by proponents of the restorative justice concept. It therefore seems advisable to once again ascertain the theoretical bases of the idea of restorative justice. (excerpt)

London, Ross D.. Paradigms Lost: Repairing the Harm of Paradigm Discourse in Restorative Justice.

The promotion of restorative justice as a new ‘paradigm’ of criminal justice, while bringing attention to its originality, has also resulted in some unfortunate consequences, including the creation of unnecessary dichotomies. Because restorative justice must retain reliance on the conventional system to achieve the essential goals of criminal justice, however, restorative justice does not manifest the ‘incommensurability’ with the prevailing model that would qualify it as a genuine ‘paradigm’ consistent with Kuhnian analysis. Understood as a new criminal justice goal rather than as a new paradigm, however, restorative justice may fulfill its potential for significant change throughout the criminal justice system. (author's abstract)

Gabbay, Zvi. Justifying Restorative Justice: A Theoretical Justification for the Use of Restorative Justice Practices.

This article analyzes the philosophical premises of the two main theories of punishment that influence sentencing in most Western countries—retributivism and utilitarianism—and compares them to the basic values and practices of restorative justice. The article argues that if justice is given a deeper meaning and punishment is viewed more broadly, restorative justice practices do not contradict the basic principles upon which the current criminal justice system is based. Rather, restorative justice can be included in the criminal justice system to not only uphold the theories of that system, but also to help amend some of its deficiencies and further its goals. This article begins by exploring the deficiencies of the current criminal justice system and how restorative justice can address these deficiencies by including victims in the process and preparing the offender and community for his or her re-entry into society. The second half of the article argues that restorative justice practices are not only justifiable on a practical level, but that they also satisfy the theoretical requirements of the two major theories of punishment in Western societies—retributivism and utilitarianism. The article concludes with a discussion of how restorative justice differs from the “rehabilitative ideal”, popular in the early part of the 20th century, and whether restorative justice practices can provide enough uniformity and equality to be successful in the criminal justice systems of most Western countries.

Doolin, Katherine. But What Does It Mean? Seeking Definitional Clarity in Restorative Justice.

This article examines, considers the effects of, and proposes resolutions to a number of significant tensions arising from the way the fundamental concepts of restorative justice are defined and used. The article uses as a framework two key issues. First, whether restorative justice should be defined primarily in terms of the process to be used or the outcomes to be achieved. Secondly, attention will be drawn to the lack of clarity in defining restoration. This article proposes a list of irreducible core values of restorative justice and contends that agreement about these will best advance the theoretical debate, assist the appraisal of restorative justice in practice and prioritise the restoration of victims and the fair treatment of offenders.(author's abstract)

Menkel-Meadow, Carrie J. Restorative Justice: What is it and Does it Work?

This article reviews the now extensive literature on the varied arenas in which restorative justice is theorized and practiced - criminal violations,community ruptures and disputes, civil wars, regime change, human rights violations, and international law. It also reviews - by examining empirical studies of the processes in different settings - how restorative justice has been criticized, what its limitations and achievements might be, and how it might be understood. I explore the foundational concepts of reintegrative shaming, acknowledgment and responsibility, restitution, truth and reconciliation, and sentencing or healing circles for their transformative and theoretical potentials and for their actual practices in a variety of locations - family abuse, juvenile delinquency, criminal violations, problemsolving courts, indigenous-colonial-national disputes, ethnic and religious conflicts, civil wars, and liberation struggles. Restorative justice, which began as an alternative model of criminal justice, seeking healing and reconciliation for offenders, victims, and the communities in which they are embedded, has moved into larger national and international arenas of reintegration in political and ethnic conflicts. This review suggests that there are important and serious questions about whether restorative justice should be supplemental or substitutional of more conventional legal processes and about how its innovations suggest potentially transformative and challenging ideas and “moves” for dealing with both individual and group transgressive conduct, seeking peace as well as justice. (author's abstract)

Wright, Martin. Justice and Peace: A Restorative Response to Crime

This article by Martin Wright actually consists of several short pieces dealing with restorative justice as a response to crime. One part sketches modern origins of victim-offender mediation and reconciliation in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada. Another looks at historical roots of restorative justice in traditional cultural and religious ideas and practices from different parts of the world. One piece introduces key restorative justice ideas and values. There is also a section on current restorative justice developments in England. Additional parts of the article provide information for further reading in restorative justice, and point toward future developments in restorative justice.

Van Ness, Daniel W. An Introduction to Restorative Justice

Dan Van Ness, asked to provide an introduction to restorative justice at a conference, begins by recounting the effects of a crime of house burglary and vandalism. The victims of the crime – the owners of the house – were on vacation when young people broke into and damaged their home and possessions. When the owners returned and found the destruction, they were told by the police that the perpetrators had been arrested, had pled guilty, and would be sentenced to significant time in prison. Hence, they – the victims – did not have to do anything. The criminal justice process was working just fine! But the victims, left out of the process almost entirely, were not satisfied. Why? What did they need in the aftermath of the crime? Why would that be relevant to criminal justice? Van Ness uses this case to enter into a discussion of the framework of modern criminal justice in comparison with the framework of restorative justice. How do these two frameworks view the nature of crime, its effects, and the appropriate response to crime?

McAnallen Martin. Restorative Justice

Restorative justice is a philosophy that views crime as harming victims, offenders, and the community. When harm, in the form of crime, is done, it creates obligations to repair that harm, to look forward, rather than back, to determine what can be done to heal the harm and restore equilibrium. The retributive justice paradigm, on the other hand, views crime as a violation of the law and the state as the victim. Justice is achieved by means of a contest between adversaries to determine guilt and dispense punishment proportionate to the seriousness of the crime. The implementation of due process for the defendant is a central focus of this paradigm. Restorative justice focuses on the needs of victims by being attentive to the specific harms done to the victim by the offender's behavior, giving the victim a voice in declaring how the crime has affected his/her life, and involving the victim in the framing of a plan for healing. Restorative justice also focuses on offender needs, as he/she is made aware of how the crime has affected the victim, is given the opportunity to atone for the crime and repair the harm, and learns how to behave positively toward others. The community benefits from restorative justice through restoration of its faith in the system, being given a chance to be heard, involvement with those affected, and making a contribution to community safety. Family conferencing is presented as an example of a forum that facilitates the implementation of the restorative justice philosophy. Abstract courtesy of the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, www.ncjrs.org.

Haley, John O. Comment on Using Criminal Punishment to Serve Both Victim and Social Needs.

By expanding the frame of reference, restorative justice can be defined as a paradigm whose scope encompasses more than victim–offender mediation (VOM) and whose emphasis includes the needs of society and offenders as well as victims. Restorative justice involves a wide variety of processes and programs that are more apt to restore both those who commit and those who suffer wrongs. It includes children-at-risk programs, drug courts, violence-treatment programs, as well as victim–offender mediation programs. It also includes efforts to assist former convicts returning to the community to engage in constructive lifestyles and sustainable roles in families, workplaces, and neighborhoods. It is a paradigm that includes any program or approach that satisfies the following criteria:1) Offenders must acknowledge their wrongdoing, expressing remorse and apology. 2) Offenders must be accountable and accept responsibility for all harms or injury their actions have caused to themselves and others, and must be willing to take corrective or remedial action as well as make appropriate reparations to those they have harmed.; 3) In response, the community, including victims if appropriate and possible in some realistically effective manner, pardons and assists in the reintegration of such offenders. (excerpt)

O'Brien, Sandra. Restorative justice: Principles, practices, and Application.

A modern-day movement is transforming the way that communities and justice systems thing about and respond to crime and wrongful occurrences. This response implements a holistic continuum of services, providing for prevention, intervention, diversion, commitment, probation, reentry, and aftercare. This approach-known as restorative justice-seeks to balance the needs of the victim and the community with consequences for the offender, and requires that each should be actively involved in the process to the greatest extent possible. This article will define restorative justice, outline its core principles, and present practical models and application for justice and educational systems. (Excerpt).

Wachtel, Ted. Defining restorative.

The IIRP distinguishes between the terms restorative practices and restorative justice. We view restorative justice as a subset of restorative practices. Restorative justice is reactive, consisting of formal or informal responses to crime and other wrongdoing after it occurs. The IIRP’s definition of restorative practices also includes the use of informal and formal processes that precede wrongdoing, those that proactively build relationships and a sense of community to prevent conflict and wrongdoing.

Whitehead, John T and Braswell, Michael C. In the Beginning was the Student: Teaching Peacemaking and Justice Issues.

This article is written in the spirit of Richard Quinney's contributions to teaching as an exploration into the contradictions, ironies, and connections (both obvious and hidden) that allow learning to unfold and show itself to teachers and students. A critique of the conflict between developing expertise and experiencing learning is offered. The value of feelings and intuition, thinking and knowledge, and imagination and creativity are examined as a way to bring teacher and student together in the process of learning into wisdom. (author's abstract)