Justice in relationships: Calgary community conferencing as a demonstration project

Contemporary and alternative justice paradigms lead to definitions of wrongdoing as "lawbreaking" and "harm to social relationships" respectively. The retributive model within the contemporary justice paradigm results in strategies to accomplish justice that focus almost exclusively on the wrongdoer. In contrast, the restorative model within the alternative justice paradigm yields justice practices that focus on the relationships among all individuals harmed by the wrongdoing. Calgary Community Conferencing is an example of a restorative approach to wrongdoing. The relational emphasis of this program is operationalized through its organizational location, intended outcomes, and program activities. The challenges faced by Calgary Community Conferencing provide other agencies with ideas about dilemmas they might encounter in attempting to develop restorative justice programs.     

Rethinking the restorative–retributive dichotomy: is reconciliation possible?

While the use of restorative justice within Western criminal justice systems continues to grow, its philosophical foundations remain uncertain. This inconclusiveness impacts directly upon the theoretical discussion of restorative justice and its relationship with existing paradigms of punishment, precipitating debate regarding its ability to integrate within justice systems governed by retributive paradigms. Specifically, this ambiguity of definition renders debate regarding the extent to which restorative justice philosophy exists as an alternative punishment or an alternative to punishment, and its existence as complementary or axiomatic to retributive justice unresolved. The philosophy of restorative justice, identifying its central features and addressing those previous attempts of contrasting restorative justice with the prevailing paradigm of retribution is explored here. However, it is suggested that aspirations of reconciling restorative justice philosophy with the retributive paradigm will be ultimately unsuccessful, due to the persistent latent ambiguity regarding the central foundation upon which restorative justice philosophy is built. Such concerns are also present when seeking to affirm the continued opposition of retributive and restorative justice.     

Do Retributive and Restorative Justice Processes Address Different Symbolic Concerns?

In support of a unitary conceptualization of retributive justice (justice through the imposition of punishment) and restorative justice (justice through dialogue aimed at consensus), three studies using hypothetical and recalled experiences of victimization found that people’s endorsement of, and satisfaction with, either justice notion depends on the symbolic meaning of the transgression. In Study 1, perceiving the transgression as a status/power violation was uniquely related to the endorsement of retributive justice, whereas perceiving it as a violation of shared values was uniquely related to restorative justice. In Study 2, motivation to restore status/power was related to retributive responses, whereas motivation to restore value consensus with the offender was uniquely related to restorative responses. In Study 3, a scenario experiment, respondents called for greater additional sanction when the applied justice process (retributive vs. restorative) did not fit the salient meaning of the transgressions compared to when it did (status/power vs. values).     

Street justice: a theoretical paradigm

Three theoretical perspectives examine the role of justice as a means of informal social control and as a reactionary process to dynamics of social strain and subcultural demands. This theoretical analysis is then applied to concepts of justice, including retributive, distributive, restorative, and procedural. The derived street justice paradigm incorporates these various forms of justice as they are linked with cultural imperatives associated with street culture and street crime. The linking of these concepts provides a clearer understanding of the motives and means of exacting justice in a state of heightened relative strain that is pronounced by a preference for revenge and violence. Implications for policy, future study, and theoretical expansion are discussed with particular emphasis on the application of the paradigm to non‐street crime and to policies directed toward involving community members in the justice process.     

Retributive and Restorative Justice

The emergence of restorative justice as an alternative model to Western, court-based criminal justice may have important implications for the psychology of justice. It is proposed that two different notions of justice affect responses to rule-breaking: restorative and retributive justice. Retributive justice essentially refers to the repair of justice through unilateral imposition of punishment, whereas restorative justice means the repair of justice through reaffirming a shared value-consensus in a bilateral process. Among the symbolic implications of transgressions, concerns about status and power are primarily related to retributive justice and concerns about shared values are primarily related to restorative justice. At the core of these processes, however, lies the parties’ construal of their identity relation, specifically whether or not respondents perceive to share an identity with the offender. The specific case of intergroup transgressions is discussed, as are implications for future research on restoring a sense of justice after rule-breaking.     

Community‐based restorative transitional justice in Sierra Leone

Community‐based restorative transitional justice is an important feature of peace consolidation, maximizing access to justice and facilitating reconciliation. Examining post‐conflict Sierra Leone as a case study, the author draws on existing justice practices in Sierra Leone as examples of restorative responses to war criminality. Specifically, the traditional reintegration of former male and female combatants and the emergence of a new project, ‘Fambul Tok’ are detailed. The author discusses and compares the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to point to gaps in transitional justice that call for community‐based restorative strategies.     

The repentant defendant and the potential of international criminal justice

ABSTRACT

Repentant defendants are a more common feature of the international criminal trial than commonly thought, and offer interesting opportunities to conceptualize the possibility of restorative justice within what is otherwise a conventionally retributive framework. Repentance may arise at different stages of the trial and is an inherent part of the assessment at the plea bargain and sentencing stages. It must be understood as a particular performance from the accused, one that individualizes guilt and performs the sort of moral agency on which international criminal law is otherwise premised. Its force lies potentially in its power to break down some of the constitutive dichotomies of international criminal justice, including those between perpetrator/victim, international/domestic, and retributive/restorative justice. One needs to account, however, for the potential ambiguity of repentance and the fact that it may be subtly exonerating, as well as the fact that international criminal tribunals have reasons to encourage it that have nothing to do with restorative justice. Only if the sincerity of repentance can be ascertained and if it can be addressed to victims may the restorative potential of international criminal justice be realized.     

Retribution or restoration? Anglo–Australian's views towards domestic violence involving Muslim and Anglo–Australian victims and offenders

Abstract

The current study explored how gender, group membership and different emotional reactions to the crime of domestic violence predict attitudes and endorsement of restorative or retributive justice practices. The experiment consisted of a 2 (victim group membership: Muslim- or Anglo–Australian)×2 (offender group membership: Muslim- or Anglo–Australian)×2 (Sex of participant) between-participants factorial design. Anglo–Australian participants (43 men; 50 women) were randomly assigned to one of the four manipulated conditions, and completed an online questionnaire that involved viewing a short video clip of a woman describing her experience as a domestic violence victim. Results revealed strong preferences for restorative justice in dealing with domestic violence, with women supporting this practice more than men. The crime was perceived as most severe and retribution was endorsed most strongly when the victim was Anglo–Australian (i.e. an in-group member). Intra-group violence was also perceived to be a greater breach of shared Australian values than inter-group (i.e. cross-cultural) domestic violence. Emotional reactions further predicted participants' responses, with hatred predicting stronger support of retributive ideals and sympathy for the victim predicting greater endorsement of restoration.     

The emergence of restorative justice in Sri Lanka: a review essay

Within the framework of retributive justice, crime is understood as an offence against the State and is defined as a violation of law. It represents the punitive approach of reaction to crime, where the offenders are considered as an unwanted group who should be punished. However, with the development of criminology, offenders are identified as the persons needing rehabilitation and reintegration into the society as law abiding citizens. This novel thinking has paved the way to the establishment of the concept of restorative justice where crime is understood to be an infringement on man and human relationship. It involves reintegration of both the offender and victim within the community. The restorative justice principle could be found in community service orders, probation, parole, and other noncustodial measures as alternatives to the traditional incarceration, victim offender mediation, sentencing, peacemaking and healing circles, police cautions, and active participation of victims in the criminal justice process, and so on. This article evaluates Sri Lanka's transformation from retributive justice to restorative justice by incorporating the above-mentioned means and methods to the criminal justice system. Further, it examines how these innovations have affected the crime rate in Sri Lanka.     

Environmentalism and the internet: corporate greenwashers and environmental groups

Environmental degradation is a serious problem, for current populations and for future generations. Corporations are the largest offenders but seldom face the consequences of their actions. This article proposes that public relations campaigns and conflicting information on the internet pose significant challenges to calling for environmental accountability from corporations. Three companies – Coca‐Cola, Georgia Pacific, and Shell – are examined here in terms of questionable practices and public relations campaigns. While the internet could be an alternative news source, ‘corporate greenwash’ muffles a definitive voice on environmental issues. Both retributive and restorative justice processes are thwarted by misleading information. Despite environmental laws and efforts to increase accountability, calling for necessary change will continue to be exceedingly difficult without public knowledge of corporate behavior.     

“THE PLACE OF JUSTICE IS AN HALLOWED PLACE”1

This article discusses the concept of justice and differentiates between restorative and retributive justice. The Judeo-Christian roots of justice are explored in the context of a need to reform the adversarial nature of the process of family law.     

Community Service Orders in Hong Kong, England, and Wales: twins or cousins

Hong Kong's Community Service Order (CSO) is anchored in the probation service and has not had to face problems related to the cultural divide and professional rivalry between community service and probation staff similar to England and Wales. CSOs in both jurisdictions differ in offenders' minimum age and in seeking offenders' consent and have been rarely used for young offenders. They have widened the net of social control, and there have been difficulties in positioning them in the sentencing tariff. Although retributive penal practices might have crept into Hong Kong after China's takeover in 1997, its CSO has retained rehabilitative elements. In England and Wales, the renaming of CSO as the Community Punishment Order reaffirmed its retributive nature, however the Pathfinder projects have taken it back to its origins as a rehabilitative measure. We suggest that CSOs should move further toward restorative justice by the involvement of victims in the choice of community services.     

Restorative Justice in India

‘Restorative Justice’ reflects a crimino-victim balanced justice system where equal justice to offenders and victims is ensured. There are four potent features of Restorative Justice: repair, restore, reconcile, and reintegrate the offenders and victims to each other and to their shared environments and communities. There are many examples within Indian criminological literature that thoroughly explain the practice of restorative justice in India. The kings who ruled in various parts of the country had practiced restorative justice in a well thought out and traditional manner. Much of Gandhian philosophy and practice is based on restorative justice principles including the participatory practices of fairness and equality. Though there is a limited amount of literature on the present restorative justice practices available in India, this paper attempts to explain restorative justice practices across the continent from the view point of society and legal provision.     

Can restorative justice disrupt the ‘school-to-prison pipeline?’

The ‘school-to-prison pipeline’ now commonly refers to the impact of zero tolerance and other harsh exclusionary discipline policies on school suspensions and expulsions, especially felt among minority students of color in the United States. Abundant evidence now concludes that such students are suspended, expelled, disciplinarily referred and arrested at rates far exceeding either their representation in the population or that of their white peers. Restorative justice practices have emerged as an increasingly popular response to racial disparity in school discipline, supported by research, state and federal governmental initiatives. However, the capacity of restorative justice to limit the school-to-prison pipeline may remain unfulfilled unless it can disrupt current social-organizational structures that maintain racial inequity in institutional structures. This paper considers the effectiveness of restorative justice in schools as an alternative to overly punitive discipline policy and as a strategy for reducing racial disciplinary disparity. It then considers organizational and cultural impediments to implementing restorative justice to overcome racial disciplinary inequity for school-based youth and asserts that restorative justice must strive for more than incremental change inside existing systems.     

恢复性司法的价值与理念——报应性司法和恢复性司法比较研究

犯罪包含着犯罪人与受害方，犯罪人与社会及其国家之间的衔突。报应性司法采用形而上的哲学方法分析犯罪原因，认为犯罪是犯罪人自由选择的结果，犯罪所侵害的主要是国家的统治秩序，因此，在“以怨报怨”观念支配下，主张犯罪人承担刑罚这样的抽象责任。恢复性司法以实证的方法研究犯罪，认为犯罪是社区关系失调的产物，犯罪侵害的不仅是国家利益，还包括被害人利益和社区利益，因此，在“以直报怨”观念支配下，主张犯罪人要面对受害方承担道歉、赔偿等具体责任。     

Socrates in Aotearoa: teaching restorative justice in New Zealand

Much introductory material on restorative justice presents the subject from an idealistic point of view, in which assertions of its ethical superiority and advantages over retributive justice systems frequently go unchallenged. In New Zealand, this problem is particularly pronounced, as there is often a naïve acceptance that restorative justice is more culturally appropriate for offenders and victims with indigenous backgrounds. This article argues for a more nuanced approach to the teaching of restorative justice, using critical investigation of claims concerning its efficacy and examination of its problems in order to explore its promises and realities. One possibility for such an approach is the use of the Socratic Method, a teaching method with a demonstrated ability to engage students and foster critical thinking, but one that has also received criticism for its ability to intimidate and demean students. This method is widely used in law schools, but much less so in the social sciences. This article explores the use of this method in a New Zealand university class on restorative justice, examining both student perceptions of the use of the Socratic Method, as well as the efficacy of this approach in terms of knowledge retention and critical engagement.     

Richard Quinney on the Transformation of Self and Others: An Interview

As an alternative means of achieving justice, restorative practices are touted as community based. The ownership of decisions regarding the response to crime belongs to the key stakeholders, including victim(s), offender(s), and members of the community, both large and small. Each is invited to participate and through their participation, the stakeholders come to own the justice process and its outcomes. One challenge facing restorative practices lies in getting the community to participate. Without the community, several aspects of justice that are restorative, including forgiveness, support for participants, and reintegration are unlikely outcomes. This research examines community involvement in a victim–offender mediation program through observation and analysis of the agreements produced. The findings suggest that while restorative justice is theorized as community based, the community, in this case, appears absent.     

Responding to retributivists: a restorative justice rejoinder to the big three Desert theories

Retributive theories of legal punishment fail to justify the imprisonment of convicted offenders. There are three prominent retributive theories that attempt this: Fair Play theory, Moral Communication theory, and Intuitive Desert theory. Fair Play retributivists seek to imprison offenders in order to re-balance the distribution of benefits and burdens, which is upset by criminal offences. Moral Communication retributivists seek to imprison offenders as a means of communicating society’s condemnation of criminality. Intuitive Desert retributivists seek to imprison offenders because it is a deserved response to wrongdoing (the supporting evidence is our intuitive reactions to criminality). These theories are critiqued and attention is drawn to the superiority of certain restorative justice values and practices.     

Speaking about sexual abuse in British South Asian communities: offenders,victims and the challenges of shame and reintegration

Abstract

Cultural dynamics have a significant impact on how sexual matters, including sexual abuse, are discussed in British South Asian communities. The ways in which these communities talk about sexual violence often reinforce patriarchal norms and values, especially those concerned with honour and shame. As a result, victims are either silenced or the blame for the sexual violence they have suffered is laid at their own feet. Addressing the fact that these problems are rooted in patriarchal norms and values is key to understanding how to tackle sexual offending effectively in such communities. Both retributive and restorative justice are necessary in responding to sex crimes; retributive approaches help to recognise victims’ suffering, while restorative approaches offer promising avenues for encouraging victims and offenders alike to speak about their experiences. Both approaches are essential components to reintegrating victims and offenders into their communities.     

Frenemies: restorative justice and customary mechanisms of justice

More often than not, restorative justice is said to take roots in Indigenous practices. In fact, Indigenous and other traditional mechanisms of justice are often described as examples of restorative justice practices. In New Zealand, the government equates the Mãori approach to doing justice with family group conferences (FGC); a restorative justice mechanism which it claims embodies Mãori values and preferences. This article contends, however, that the type of ‘justice’ embodied in customary mechanisms, has often been taken out of context, and rendered universal and ahistorical through its representation as restorative justice mechanisms. Using fieldwork evidence, an analytical comparison between principles of restorative practices, New Zealand’s FGCs and the Mãori approach to justice was conducted. It concludes that this tendency to equate restorative justice with Indigenous approaches to law and justice is harmful and dangerous for it risks rendering the scholarship homogenizing and universalizing restorative justice, to the detriment of local preferences and practices.