Restorative justice:

• STRENGTH:

  • Evidence suggests it has positive outcomes
  • The Restorative Justice Council (Shapland et al) reported the results of a major seven-year research project
  • The headline figures are impressive: 85% of survivors reported satisfaction with the process of meeting their offender face-to-face and 78% would recommend it to other people experiencing a similar situation
  • 60% of survivors felt the process had made them feel better about the incident - enabling them to feel closure
  • 2% said it had made them feel worse

  helping survivors of crime cope with the aftermath of the incident
• COUNTERPOINT:

  • Not all research is overwhelmingly positive
  • William Wood et al argue that restorative processes are not as survivor-focused as often reported in satisfaction surveys

  Indeed, the researchers say that restorative justice processes can become distorted, such as when survivors of crime are 'used' as a way of helping to rehabilitate offenders, rather than being helped themselves

  This suggests that the needs of the survivor in restorative justice may be seen as secondary to the need to rehabilitate offenders.
• LIMITATION:

  • offenders may abuse the system
  • The success of restorative justice programmes may hinge on an offender's intentions being honourable - that is they must be taking part because they genuinely regret the hurt caused and they want to make amends
  • However Gijseghem suggests that offenders may use restorative justice for all kinds of reasons: avoiding punishment, playing down their faults, even taking pride in their relationship with the survivor using direct contact

  This would explain why not all offenders ultimately benefit from restorative justice and go on to reoffend