Making space for restorative justice in criminal justice and criminology curricula and courses

Restorative justice, rooted in the practices of indigenous people across the globe, has grown exponentially in both theory and practice since its beginnings in Canada in the 1970s. Restorative justice has influenced the interactions between offenders and victims, helped community members address crime and develop self-efficacy, and changed the way some countries rebuild after a history of oppression. Despite these restorative justice influenced changes, many criminology and criminal justice programs pay scant attention to restorative justice in curricula. This paper will examine ways to include restorative justice in criminal justice and criminology curriculum and the challenges involved in the process. The paper will then examine how the Law and Justice Department at Central Washington University has incrementally added restorative justice components to its curriculum, culminating most recently with the addition of a Community and Social Justice course. The paper will conclude with several examples of classroom activities and assignments that have helped connect students with the theory and practice of restorative justice.     

Balancing justice goals: restorative justice practitioners’ views

Despite the importance of facilitators, staff, and volunteers to restorative justice programs, we know very little about what they think about the goals of restorative justice. This paper fills that gap by reporting the findings of a survey of restorative justice practitioners in Nova Scotia, Canada. Participants rated the importance of 29 justice-related goals such as punishment and accountability. The results show how respondents distinguish between, prioritize, and balance competing justice goals. A factor analysis shows how goals cluster together revealing more depth about how practitioners understand goals, such as accountability, that have different meanings depending on the context. The findings are particularly interesting because the restorative justice program in Nova Scotia is deeply embedded in the criminal justice system. The findings speak to concerns about whether programs rooted in the mainstream system risk being diluted by dominant criminal justice system discourses. I conclude that restorative justice practitioners can prioritize the values of restorative justice in a program that is deeply rooted in the mainstream criminal justice system.     

Regenerative justice,beyond restoring

This paper outlines a new form of justice, called regenerative justice. Regenerative justice is the coupling of restorative justice with the notion of generative justice, which involves the explicit and intentional discovery and building of life meanings, as well as the consideration of the relationships that those meanings have with wrongdoing and ‘making things right’. This exploration comes about after first considering restorative justice, then providing a critique that uncovers potential blind spots in restorative practice. Logotherapeutic techniques, including: Socratic dialogue, attitude modulation, and dereflection, are used by therapists to help people discover meaning and purpose and have successfully assisted crime victims and offenders. Borrowing from these techniques and specific questioning approaches, restorative dialogue facilitators can enhance restorative practice, particularly in the phases of preparation for restorative dialogue and follow-up after restorative dialogue, by deliberately emphasizing meaning-building discussions (generative justice). Therefore, regenerative justice synthesizes the restoration of people and relationships with the generation of peaceful and healing meanings that can help stakeholders in wrongdoing make sense out of suffering and move forward with a sense of purpose. An example of this process is illustrated in a victim-offender dialogue in a crime of severe violence, where meaning-building can be particularly powerful.     

Connecting restorative justice with gender-responsive programming

Despite the encouraging results of public opinion assessments on restorative justice, people are not likely to spontaneously suggest restorative measures after a crime. Restorative justice thus seems in need of a public relations strategy. This paper discusses the strategy labeling victims as the universal remedy to promote restorative justice, and the proposal of promoting restorative justice through the media by foregrounding crime victims in media reports on crime. This strategy stems from a belief that the most appealing aspect of restorative justice to the public is its thoughtfulness to victims. However, I will argue that there are three problems with this approach. These concern: (1) the victim’s position in both restorative justice theory and practice; (2) the characteristics of media reporting on crime in general and victims in particular; and (3) the risk of attaining a result opposite to the initial objective (i.e. increasing punitive attitudes instead of promoting restorative justice).     

Restorative justice practice: An examination of program completion and recidivism

Studies of restorative justice programs continue to provide a review of restorative justice practice and impact. While this body of research is growing, many questions remain regarding the impact of restorative justice in reducing crime. By relying on individual and community-level data, the present study examined how offense type and poverty level influenced program completion and recidivism among juveniles in a restorative justice program. This study also examined the relationship between program completion and recidivism. Findings revealed that status offenders in the restorative justice program were more likely to complete the program and less likely to recidivate than status offenders in the comparison group. In addition, property offenders in the restorative justice program were less likely to recidivate than property offenders in the comparison group. Poverty level at the community-level had a significant influence in both program completion and recidivism.     

恢复性司法对我国刑事诉讼制度的影响

恢复性司法是一种不同于传统司法模式的新型司法模式,它寻求尽可能利用罪犯、受害者和社区的积极和自愿参与的方式,恢复受犯罪影响的所有当事方的一切权益。我国引入恢复性司法既具有刑事司法实践、刑事观念、刑事制度和社会发展的基础,也与我国当前的刑事诉讼制度存在一定冲突。恢复性司法实践与理念对我国刑事诉讼可能产生的影响,突出表现在刑事观念、诉讼制度和检察机关法律监督方式等诸多方面。     

Perceptions of affirmative action among its beneficiaries

Using data obtained through a separate study, interviews with women of color associated with and involved in the development of an affirmative action (AA) program were analyzed in light of Tyler's theories of procedural justice. Interviews were examined for respondents' implicit or explicit judgments of AA as fair or unfair in principle and in practice, and whether respondents used Tyler's six elements of justice criteria (representation, consistency, impartiality, accuracy, correctibility, and ethicality) in their assessments. Tyler's criteria are used by the respondents in their assessments. Beneficiaries perceive AA to be fair in both contexts, although fairer in principle than in practice. The issue of commitment was raised in several contexts as a salient concern of many of the respondents, and several concrete examples of deficiencies and successes in the ways AA is implemented are reported.     

A glimpse into the role of personal values within the restorative justice process: a qualitative study with restorative justice facilitators

Restorative justice is a process whereby offenders and their victims communicate to address the harm caused by the crime. Currently, there is little research looking at what characterises victims and offenders who are willing to participate in this process, who benefits, and what changes occur after participating. Personal values may be important in understanding such questions because they can influence human behaviour, appraisals of behaviour, and can change following life experiences. Hence, the aim of this study was to investigate the role that the values within Schwartz’s value theory may have in answering these questions. This was accomplished through a thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with 12 restorative justice facilitators. Consistently, the motivations they observed for both victims and offenders participating in restorative justice included themes of prosocial values. Additionally, prosocial values were among those highlighted as being important for the realisation of the benefits of restorative justice. There was also some preliminary evidence that this process may change what values are important for both victims and offenders. Overall, these findings have implications for restorative justice providers; a greater understanding of motivations, who will benefit, and how restorative justice can be presented to appeal to a wide audience.     

Restoring the professor and the students: a circle process and contemplative practices in a restorative justice seminar

Limited research is published on teaching restorative justice in the criminal justice or justice studies curriculum in higher education. This article contributes to the discourse on restorative justice pedagogy by discussing a restorative justice seminar that is taught in a circle process with contemplative practices. Students learn the process of circles, one of the major processes in restorative justice practice, by modeling the practice with participation and leadership. Contemplative practices enhance the learning of restorative justice with meditation and reflection.     

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.     

刑事和解制度论纲

平衡理论、叙说理论和恢复正义理论是当今西方刑事和解理论中流行的三种解说,其中恢复正义是刑事和解最重要的理论基础。在我国刑事司法领域中,并不存在严格意义的刑事和解制度。基于刑事和解在被害恢复与加害恢复方面的双重价值,应当对此制度进行合理化的借鉴,构建刑事和解的中国模式。     

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.     

Restorative Justice,Consistency and Proportionality: Examining the Trade-off

Abstract

Restorative justice conferences that operate as sentencing mechanisms involve the making of a trade-off between empowering lay participants to make their own decisions, and the requirements of consistency and proportionality, which are established principles of sentencing. In current restorative justice practice, this trade-off tends to be made more in favour of consistency and proportionality, at the expense of the empowerment of lay participants.

Empowerment is central to key benefits of restorative justice, such as reducing recidivism and increasing victim satisfaction. However, its importance to the effectiveness of restorative justice is not always properly acknowledged. In addition to this lack of acknowledgment, there are both conceptual and practical problems with the principles of consistency and proportionality (particularly in the way that they are presented when considered in relation to restorative justice) that are often overlooked. As a result, the tendency is for assumptions to be made about the necessary supremacy of these principles over empowerment. This paper urges more acknowledgement of the importance of empowerment in restorative justice, together with a greater appreciation of the problems with consistency and proportionality, with a view to challenging assumptions about the way that the trade-off must be made.     

Engaging students on the topic of restorative justice and serious offenses

Within contemporary society, there is a prevailing sentiment that our criminal justice system leaves much to be desired in its responses to the offender, the victim, and the community. As a potential answer to these conceded shortcomings, restorative justice has earned significant recognition and consideration. While restorative justice principles and programs have received increasing support, for many individuals this is limited to cases involving relatively ‘minor,’ first time, and/or juvenile offenses. When it comes to situations with more ‘serious’ and violent offenses, acceptance of restorative responses dissipates. Gaining broader acceptance can be particularly challenging with current college students. With many students raised in the ‘get tough on crime’ era, embracing this alternative approach to serious crimes can be a difficult paradigm shift. This article will provide a framework for approaching the feasibility of applying restorative justice with serious offenses in the college course. In addition, suggestions for readings, projects, and assignments that will further assist in effectively engaging students with these issues will be provided.     

构建刑事和解制度探讨

刑事和解应适用于刑事诉讼的各个阶段,原则上由人民调解委员会主持,检察机关参与到和解的各个过程,且应与社区矫正相对接,从而实现犯罪人和被害人的共同正义。     

A community response to a 9/11 hate crime: Restorative justice through dialogue

Nearly two hours after the September 11 terrorist attacks, a hate crime was committed against the Islamic Cultural Center in Eugene, Oregon. Rather than following the conventional criminal justice process, the director of the center and his wife chose to engage in a process of restorative dialogue with other community members and the offender himself. This case study of moving from hatred to healing occurred in the larger context of restorative justice, a movement that is now developing in many hundreds of communities in more than 17 countries. Social workers committed to community practice have played an active role in this reform movement, which has developed over the past two decades.     

Is restorative justice for sexual crime compatible with various criminal justice systems?

In addition to the more conventional approaches of the criminal justice system, this article suggests that there is a need for restorative justice as another method of addressing sexual crime. In support of this view, the present article explores the possibility of a hybrid justice system based on a complementary relationship between restorative justice and the criminal justice system. An analysis of the limits of the criminal justice system and the need for restorative justice in the contentious area of sexual crime will be followed by a detailed examination of key justice considerations when trying to marry both criminal justice and restorative justice perspectives. Such considerations include: the meaning of justice; legislation; sentencing principles; due process; victims’ rights; and the location of restorative justice within/alongside/outside the criminal justice system. The aim of this article is to determine whether it is possible to reconcile two seemingly juxtaposed methods of justice delivery in the context of sexual crime in order to create a hybrid system of justice that best protects and responds to the rights and needs of victims and offenders.     

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.     

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.     

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.