restorative justice

• individual vs state


  - historically, a person convicted of a criminal offence would have been regarded as committing a crime against the state

  - in contrast restorative justice (RJ) programmes switch the emphasis from the need of the state (to enforce the law) to the needs of the survivor (to feel compensated in some way and come to terms with the crime
• a healing process


  - RJ is less about 'retribution' - that is, punishing the offender

  - more about 'reparation' - repairing the harm caused

  RJ seeks to focus on two things:

  • the survivor (victim) of the crime and their recovery

  • the offender and their recovery/rehabilitation process
• key features of RJ

  • trained mediator supervises the meeting

  • non-courtroom setting where offender voluntarily meets with survivor

  • face-to-face meeting or remotely via video link

  • survivor explains how the incident affected them, so offender can understand effects

  • active rather than passive involvement of all parties

  • focus on positive outcomes for both survivors and offenders

  • other relevant community members may be involved and explain consequences
• sentencing


  - RJ may occur pre-trial and may affect sentencing

  - it may be given as an alternative to prison (especially if the offender is young)

  - RJ could occur while in prison as an incentive to reduce the length of a sentence
• restitution


  restitution is a monetary payment by the offender to the survivor for harm from the offence

  • financial - offender pays

  • practical - offender does repair themselves

  • emotional - support healing process by helping to rebuild the survivor's confidence
• the RJC


  - Restorative Justice Council (RJC) sets and monitors standards, and supports survivors and specialists in the field

  - the RJC promotes the use of RJ principles as a general way to prevent and manage conflict
• strength


  P - supports needs of survivors

  E - the RJC (Shapland et al. 2008) reported the results of a 7-year project. 85% of survivors said they were satisfied with the process

  E - 78% would recommend it, about 60% said the process made them feel better about the incident, 2% said it made them feel worse

  L - suggests that restorative justice is a worthwhile experience and helps survivors of crime cope with the aftermath of the incident

  COUNTERPOINT

  - RJ programmes are not always as survivor-focused as reported in satisfaction surveys. Survivors of crime may be used to rehabilitate offenders, not the other way round (Wood and Suzuki 2016)

  - suggests that the needs of the survivor may be seen as secondary to the need to rehabilitate offenders
• strength


  P - RJ leads to a decrease in offending

  E - in a meta-analysis Strang et al. (2013) found offenders who experienced RJ were less likely to reoffend - though reduction was larger in cases of violent crime than property crime

  E - Bain (2012) found lowered recidivism with adult offenders who had one-to-one contact with their survivor

  L - suggests that RJ has a positive impact on reoffending, maybe more so for some types of offence than others and some approaches
• limitation


  P - offenders may abuse the system

  E - the success of RJ hinges on an offender genuinely feeling regret for their actions

  E - Van Gijseghem (2003) suggests that offenders may use restorative justice to avoid punishment, play down their faults or even take pride in their relationship with the survivor

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