In criminology, restorative justice is a method or ethos of criminal justice that seeks to repair harm after crime or violence by empowering the harmed (victims) and harming parties (offenders) to participate in a dialogue. In doing so, restorative justice practitioners work to ensure that offenders take responsibility for their actions, to understand the harm they have caused, to give them an opportunity to redeem themselves, and to discourage them from causing further harm. For victims, the goal is to give them an active role in the processRebecca Webber, "A New Kind of Criminal Justice", Parade, October 25, 2009, p. 6. Retrieved 8 July 2019 and to reduce feelings of anxiety, unfairness and powerlessness. Restorative justice programmes are complementary to the criminal justice system, including retributive justice. In the matter of defining what "punishment" is, it has been argued that some cases of restorative justice constitute an alternative punishment to those atoning.
Through academic assessment, restorative justice has rendered positive results for both victims and offenders. Proponents argue that most studies suggest it makes offenders less likely to re-offend. A 2007 study also found that it had a higher rate of victim satisfaction and offender accountability than traditional methods of justice delivery. Its use has seen worldwide growth since the 1990s. Restorative justice inspired and is part of the wider study of restorative practices.
The literature summarises restorative justice practices as: victim-offender mediation, family group conferencing and circles. Their main differences between these key practices lie in the number and roles of participants. Victim-offender mediation involves meetings between the victim and the offender. Family group conferencing involves meetings with the victim, the offender and direct stakeholders such as their family and professionals supporting them including youth or social workers, the police or friends. Circles include the victim, the offender and representatives of the wider community.
Independently of the restorative justice practice, the overall goal is for participants to share their experience of what happened, to discuss who was harmed by the crime and how, and to create a consensus for what the offender can do to repair the harm from the offense. This may include a payment of money given from the offender to the victim, apologies and other amends, and other actions to compensate those affected and to prevent the offender from causing future harm. Founded upon the principle of equality, restorative justice practices are firmly rooted in the needs of the victim, as well as the offender, and thus their focus is on empowering both parties through power sharing leading to honest and equal dialogue towards resolution.
Definition
There are various definitions of restorative justice in the literature with some describing it as a "process", while others as an "ethos" and a way of living. For example, according to John Braithwaite, restorative justice is:
Although law professionals may have secondary roles in facilitating the restorative justice process, it is the citizens who must take up the majority of the responsibility in healing the pains caused by crime. The process of restorative justice thus shifts the responsibility for addressing crime.
In 2014, Carolyn Boyes-Watson from Suffolk University defined restorative justice as:Boyes-Watson, C. (2014). Suffolk University, College of Arts & Sciences, Center for Restorative Justice Reconciliation is one potential component of restorative justice. However, restorative justice does not necessarily involve reconciliation.
Difference from other approaches According to American criminologist and professor Howard Zehr, restorative justice differs from traditional criminal justice in terms of the guiding questions it asks. In restorative justice, the questions are: Who has been hurt? What are their needs? Whose obligations are these? What are the causes? Who has a stake in the situation? What is the appropriate process to involve stakeholders in an effort to address causes and put things right?Zehr, Howard. Changing Lenses – A New Focus for Crime and Justice. Scottdale PA: 2005 (3rd ed), 271. In contrast, traditional criminal justice asks: What laws have been broken? Who did it? What do the deserve?Zehr, Howard. The Little Book of Restorative Justice, Intercourse, PA: Good Books, 2002.
Others, however, have argued that there are several similarities between restorative justice and traditional criminal justice and that some cases of restorative justice constitute punishment from the perspectives of some positions on what punishment is.
Restorative justice is also different from the adversarial legal process or that of civil litigation.
As Braithwaite writes, "Court-annexed ADR (alternative dispute resolution) and restorative justice could not be philosophically further apart." While the former seeks to address only legally relevant issues and to protect both parties' rights, restorative justice aims at "expanding the issues beyond those that are legally relevant, especially into underlying relationships."Braithwaite, J. Restorative Justice & Responsive Regulation 2002, Oxford University Press, at 249.
History History of the term The phrase "restorative justice" has appeared in written sources since the first half of the nineteenth century. In fact, Gavrielides argued that the term restorative justice (επανορθωτικόν δίκαιον) was coined by Aristotle. According to Aristotle, restorative justice aims to restore αγαθά (goods) to individuals.
The modern usage of the term was introduced by Albert Eglash, who in 1977 described three different approaches to justice: "retributive justice", based on punishment; "distributive justice", involving therapeutic treatment of offenders; "restorative justice", based on restitution with input from victims and offenders.Van Ness, Daniel W., Karen Heetderks Strong. Restoring Justice – An Introduction to Restorative Justice. 4th ed. New Province, N.J.: Matthew Bender & Co., Inc., 2010: 21–22. Nils Christie, further elaborated the term "restorative justice" in his 1977 article "Conflict as Property" Christie argued that restorative justice aims to return conflict to those who have been harmed or have harmed.
Precursors in indigenous groups According to Howard Zehr, "Two people have made very specific and profound contributions to practices in the field – the Indigenous people of Canada and the United States, and the Maori of New Zealand... [I]n many ways, restorative justice represents a validation of values and practices that were characteristic of many indigenous groups," whose traditions were "often discounted and repressed by western colonial powers".Zehr, Howard. Changing Lenses – A New Focus for Crime and Justice. Scottdale PA: 2005, 268–269. For example, in New Zealand, prior to European contact, the Maori had a well-developed system called Utu that protected individuals, social stability, and the integrity of the group. Restorative justice (sometimes known in these contexts as circle justice) continues to be a feature of indigenous justice systems today.
Development of theory Zehr's book Changing Lenses–A New Focus for Crime and Justice, first published in 1990, is credited with being "groundbreaking",Dorne, Clifford K. Restorative Justice in the United States. N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2008: 167. as well as being one of the first to articulate a theory of restorative justice.Van Ness, Daniel W., Karen Heetderks Strong. Restoring Justice – An Introduction to Restorative Justice. 4th ed. New Province, N.J.: Matthew Bender & Co., Inc., 2010: 24. The title of this book refers to providing an alternative framework for thinking about – or new lens for viewing – crime and justice.Dorne, Clifford K. Restorative Justice in the United States. N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2008: 8. Changing Lenses juxtaposed a "retributive justice" framework, where crime is viewed as an offense against the state, with a restorative justice framework, where crime is viewed as a violation of people and relationships.Johnstone, Gerry, Daniel W. Van Ness. Handbook of Restorative Justice. Devon, UK: Willan Publishing, 2007: 55 (footnote). The book made reference to the positive results of efforts in the late 1970s and 1980s at victim–offender mediation, pioneered in the United States by Howard Zehr, Ron Claassen and Mark Umbreit.Van Ness, Daniel W., Karen Heetderks Strong. Restoring Justice – An Introduction to Restorative Justice. 4th ed. New Province, N.J.: Matthew Bender & Co., Inc., 2010: 27.
By the second half of the 1990s, the expression "restorative justice" had become popular, evolving to widespread usage by 2006.Johnstone, Gerry, Daniel W. Van Ness. Handbook of Restorative Justice. Devon, UK: Willan Publishing, 2007: 76–77. The restorative justice movement has attracted many segments of society, including "police officers, judges, schoolteachers, politicians, juvenile justice agencies, victim support groups, aboriginal elders, and mums and dads".Johnstone, Gerry, Daniel W. Van Ness. Handbook of Restorative Justice. Devon, UK: Willan Publishing, 2007: 77.
Contributing to the theoretical discourse on restorative justice, an African scholar/expert in restorative justice, Don John Omale profusely argues in his book how some social-psychological theories and afrocentric/indigenous principles could contribute significantly to the understanding and development of restorative justice theory.Don John Omale.Restorative Justice and Victimology: Euro-Africa Perspectives.Oisterwijk, The Netherlands: Wolf Legal Publishers,2012:32-55 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.5235/20504721.2.1.107.
Legal philosopher, Theo Gavrielides, argued that more needs to be done to justify normatively restorative justice. He argued that its implementation causes a different type of punishment, which he calls "restorative justice pain". He developed a philosophy aiming to justify this type of punishment. "Restorative justice is a powerful and painful tool that is morally problematic", he said. Similarly, Hon Sir Anthony Mason expressed his concerns that the contribution of restorative justice will remain limited until a clear philosophical framework is articulated to justify its practices.
Development of practice In North America, the growth of restorative justice has been facilitated by NGOs dedicated to this approach to justice, such as the Victim Offender Mediation Association, as well as by the establishment of academic centers, such as the Center for Justice and Peacebuilding at Eastern Mennonite University in Virginia, the University of Minnesota's Center for Restorative Justice and Peacemaking, the Community Justice Institute at Florida Atlantic University, the Center for Peacemaking and Conflict Studies at Fresno Pacific University in California, the Center for Restorative Justice at the University of San Diego, and the Centre for Restorative Justice at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada.Johnstone, Gerry, Daniel W. Van Ness. Handbook of Restorative Justice. Devon, UK: Willan Publishing, 2007: 512. Members of the Mennonites and the social-action arm of their church-community, Mennonite Central Committee, were among the early proponents.Dorne, Clifford K. Restorative Justice in the United States. N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2008: 166–167. "[T]he antinomian groups advocating and supporting restorative justice, such as the Mennonites (as well as Amish and Quaker groups), subscribe to principled pacifism and also tend to believe that restorative justice is much more humane than the punitive juvenile and criminal justice systems."