system for dealing with offending behaviour which focuses on the rehabilitation of offenders through reconciliation with victims. Enables the offender to see the impact of their crime and serves to empower surviviors by giving them a 'voice'.
changes the emphasis
switches the emphasis from the needs of the state (to enforce law and punish) to needs of the individual victim.
aims of RJP
focuses on the victim/survivor of the crime and their recovery.
the offender and their recovery/rehabilitation
key features of RJP
trained mediator supervises the meeting.
non-courtroom setting where offenders voluntarily meet with survivors.
face-face or online
survivor given opportunity to confront the offender and explain how they were affected.
active involvement from all parties.
focus on positive outcome.
Strength - research evidence on positive outcomes
Restorative justice council reported results of a 7 year research project.
85% of survivors reported satisfaction with process of meeting their offender face to face.
78% recommend to other people.
60% of survivors felt better about the incident. had closure.
2% felt worse.
Limitation - not all research is positive.
Wood + Suzuki
argue restorative processes are not as survivor-focused as often reported in satisfaction surveys.
can become distorted when survivors are 'used' as a way of helping rehabilitation and not themselves.
survivor may be seen as secondary to need to rehabilitate offenders.
Strength - reduces recidivism
Strang et al
meta-analysis of 10 studies of offenders who experienced face to face restorative justice compared to those who just experienced custodial sentencing.
RJ group significantly less likely to reoffend. Reduction larger in offenders convicted of violent crime.
Limitation - abusing the system
success of RJP may hinge on offenders intentions on being honorable.
offenders may use it as a way to avoid punishment, play down their faults and take pride in direct contact instead of because they genuinely regret the hurt they caused.