Paradigm Muddle: The Threat to Restorative Justice Posed by Its Merger with Community Justice

The restorative justice movement has great potential to reform the way society responds to crime and wrongdoing. One might logically assume that the greatest challenge to the new restorative justice paradigm is the traditional punitive criminal justice paradigm itself. A more immediate threat, however, is posed by merging community justice, another approach to reforming the justice system, with restorative justice. Community justice has superficial similarities to restorative justice but relies on the underlying authoritarian assumptions of the existing criminal justice system and on processes that exclude most of those individuals directly affected by the offense. This paper clarifies and contrasts the key elements of both the restorative justice and the community justice paradigms and explains the threat to restorative justice posed by combining and confusing the two.     

The longmont community justice partnership: Restorative justice practice as collaboration

This paper documents the application of restorative justice principles using a model which was developed by the Longmont Community Justice Partnership (LCJP) and is being used in other communities in Colorado. It explains the structure and operation of this model as well as addresses some of the challenging issues program participants faced during the startup, development, and maintenance phases of the program. Among other issues we consider community support, team development, evaluation, restorative language, funding, and the limitations of the model. Finally we discuss the way in which this program has potential for other communities which seek to implement restorative justice practices.     

An outcome evaluation of a restorative justice alternative to incarceration

Restorative justice has become an increasingly popular alternative to traditional applications of criminal justice. The emphasis on victim needs and the personalizing of conflict resolution offers an attractive choice for those dissatisfied with the adversarial, impersonal, and retributive focus of the present criminal justice system. Many evaluations of restorative justice programs, especially those with a diversion goal, have rarely controlled for the possibility of net widening and the influence of offender risk on recidivism. This evaluation examined a prison diversion program that followed restorative justice principles. Using a matched comparison group and controlling for offender risk, the program demonstrated a diversion effect and a significant reduction in offender recidivism. The results are encouraging for jurisdictions experimenting with this new approach to justice and seeking a more integrated role for victims in criminal justice processing.     

Punishment and Beyond: Achieving Justice Through the Satisfaction of Multiple Goals

We investigated the hypothesis that people's need for punishment does not preclude a desire for restorative sanctions that address the repairing of the harm to victims and communities caused by wrongdoing. Study 1 showed that although people felt it was important to punish the offender to achieve justice, they viewed additional justice goals as equally necessary. Study 2 revealed that people viewed sanctions as differentially able to fulfill various justice goals. Study 3 showed that the target on which respondents focused—the offender, victim, or community—determined which sanctions they selected to achieve justice; and that people did tend, by default, to focus on punishing the offender when responding to crime. These findings, taken together, suggest that people view the satisfaction of multiple justice goals as an appropriate and just response to wrongdoing, which allows for a possible reconciliation between the "conflicting" goals of restorative and retributive justice.     

Harm and Repair: Observing restorative justice in Vermont

This paper analyzes the decision-making process for negotiating reparative contracts with offenders in a restorative justice model. Based on a content analysis of videotaped Community Reparative Board meetings with probationers in Vermont, this paper defines restoration as a core concept in restorative justice; examines how boards identify harm to victims and community; discusses how boards identify strategies to repair identified harm; addresses how repair often becomes a line item in reparative contracts; and offers interpretation for situations in which harm is not identified and/or not repaired.     

Narrative accounts from the citizens,victims, and offenders restoring justice program

This paper describes the Citizens, Victims, and Offenders Restoring Justice (CVORJ) program, a prison-based program conducted as a pilot study at the Washington State Reformatory. The program brings together offenders and victims - though not involved in the same crime - in the company of interested community members to discuss restorative justice principles. The program focuses on the sharing of personal narratives of crime to explore how the harms resulting from crime can best be addressed and justice achieved. Of interest was how a restorative justice model that highlighted community participation could be incorporated into a correctional setting and whether healing could result from the use of surrogate offenders, victims, and community members. The restorative nature of the program, its method of operation, results from the qualitative evaluation, and key implementation challenges are presented.     

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.     

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.     

Evaluation of a restorative justice-based,community-based program for people who have offended sexually: participant impact

Community Justice Initiatives, Kitchener, Canada, offers a Restorative Justice program called Revive to people impacted by sexual harm, including men who have offended sexually. This volunteer-led program treats participants with compassion while holding them accountable for sexual harm perpetrated. Program goals include reducing isolation, promoting self-awareness, and fostering healing. Based on restorative justice principles, positive community reintegration and reduction of further sexual offending are the ultimate goals of the program.

We evaluated information from a questionnaire administered at intake, after the 7-week phase, and again after participation in the peer-support group. Participants responded quantitatively about the impact of Revive on six sexual offense-related outcomes statements (e.g., gaining understanding of their triggers, understanding why they sexually offended). They also indicated the impact of Revive on psychosocial dimensions such as stigma perception and social support. Qualitative questions further elucidated the experience of Revive participation. Findings suggest that Revive has an impact on self-understanding of why they sexually offended, victim empathy, as well as stress reduction and increased self-esteem. We conclude that the restorative justice framework is a very hopeful, positive one and that the Revive program is effective at enacting restorative justice-based principles.     

Aboriginal youth with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder and enmeshment in the Australian justice system: can an intercultural form of restorative justice make a difference?

Aboriginal youth with Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) are overrepresented in the justice system. FASD results from prenatal alcohol exposure, and may lead to cognitive, social and behavioural difficulties that increase susceptibility to contact with the justice system. This paper explores the potential contribution of restorative justice in creating diversionary options for Aboriginal youth with FASD, and related cognitive impairments, to prevent enmeshment in the justice system. The lesson from work in Australia and New Zealand is that restorative justice and Indigenous justice are different, but not irreconcilable, projects. We suggest that there is the potential for creating rich intercultural engagement spaces ‘in between’ restorative practices and Indigenous processes: provided that restorative justice – as an essentially Eurocentric paradigm of the Global North – does not attempt to colonise Indigenous justice. An appropriate model would have Aboriginal people engaged in the planning and management of diversionary options, with greater focus on diversion into place-based, Aboriginal owned and managed services. Restorative justice needs to engage with the historical demands of Indigenous peoples for their land and their way of life; though constantly imperilled by forces of neo-liberalism and colonialism, Indigenous peoples remain resilient and provide a vision of an alternative to Euro-modernity.     

Beyond Retribution: Conceptualizing Restorative Justice and Exploring its Determinants

Previous research considering reactions to injustice has focused predominantly on retributive (i.e., punitive) responses. Restorative justice, a relatively understudied concept, suggests an alternative justice response which emphasizes bilateral discussion in an attempt to reach a consensus about the meaning of the offense and how to address the transgression. The current research explores the additional contribution of restorative justice processes, examining the extent to which bilateral consensus is viewed as a fairer response to transgressions than unilateral decisions. Results show that, independent of the punishment, restorative responses are generally regarded as fairer than nonrestorative responses. And compared to punishment, which tends to be moderated by offender intent and seriousness of the harm, restorative responses are regarded as particularly fair when the involved parties share an identity. Findings suggest the importance of distinguishing retributive justice from a “restorative notion of justice”—a notion that focuses on addressing concerns over the maintenance of existing social relationships and identity-defining values.

Paradigm Muddle or Paradigm Paralysis? The Wide and Narrow Roads to Restorative Justice Reform (or,a Little Confusion May Be a Good Thing)

McCold (2004 McCold, P. (2004). Paradigm muddle: The threat to restorative justice posed by the merger with community justice. Contemporary Justice Review, 7: 13–35. [Taylor &; Francis Online] , [Google Scholar], this issue) argues that community justice and balanced and restorative justice (BARJ) models confuse people and distort the restorative justice movement. We argue that there are many sources of confusion and explain the differences between these approaches. Neither model poses any threat to restorative justice, and both community justice and BARJ can garner new support for restorative justice. We respond to misleading portrayals in McCold’s account of these movements (and of our writings about them) and suggest that more time should be spent on truly critical debates within the restorative justice movement, and in confronting real barriers to restorative justice reforms.     

Persia to China: the Silk Road of Restorative Justice I

This paper to the 2016 Beijing meeting of the Asian Criminological Society is the first of two lectures on the theme of The Silk Road of Restorative Justice. The second is the annual lecture of the European Forum for Restorative Justice held jointly with the Asia-Pacific Forum for Restorative Justice in Milan (Braithwaite 2017). This first paper opens the idea of restorative justice as a way of thinking that flows back and forth along the Silk Road with a special focus on the development of relational, republican, and feminist thought in ancient and modern China and Persia. Both contemporary China and Iran are left today with quite a universal yet modest national policy of support for restorative justice. Some co-optation of restorative justice by the state and disengagement from it by many key justice professionals are evident in both China and Iran. The second paper argues more normatively for openness to hybridity along the Silk Road. It identifies virtues of being a republican-socialist-capitalist-feminist advocate of restorative justice in light of what we learn along the Silk Road. The unifying message of both papers is that excellence in restorative justice is nurtured by travelling many roads in search of helpful hybrids.

     

Transforming Teens: Measuring the Effects of Restorative Justice Principles in a Teen Court Setting

This paper examines the impact of restorative justice principles in a teen court setting. Specifically, our research attempts to quantitatively measure learning of certain restorative justice principles through the teen court process by comparing matched, pre‐ and post‐survey responses to questions involving the adolescent's ability to understand their crime as a violation of relationships within their community, as opposed to merely a violation of law. Qualitative responses regarding the efficacy of the teen court program from both teen participants and their parents are also examined in the context of restorative justice principles. Finally, the efficacy of the teen court model is discussed in terms of recidivism rates compared to teens who do not experience the teen court process.     

Restorative justice in Belgian prisons: the results of an empirical research

Justice – when spelled with a capital ‘J’ – should be discursive [31] and based on equal respect ([40]: 206, 210) allowing a plurality of voices within the discourse. Particularly in the present research, this thread of pluralism is important. Prisoners’ voices have rarely been heard. Yet, if we wish to be true to the principle that restorative justice is discursive, it follows that the discourse is not complete without also accommodating their voices. To date, little research attention has been paid to the inner motivations of imprisoned offenders for willing to participate in restorative justice initiatives, as well as to their perceptions about their relationships with the victim and the community and the impact of religion on them. Hence, the present empirical study, conducted in several prisons across Belgium, endeavours to shed light on these aspects that have been theoretically overlooked, providing valuable information at policy-level about the design of future restorative justice programmes.     

Responding to academic dishonesty in universities: a restorative justice approach

The implementation of restorative approaches in schools has been commonly seen in elementary and high schools, yet the development of restorative approaches in post‐secondary institutions has not been fully explored. In respect to university education, a more restorative approach to student discipline can be a proactive educational response mediating the response of student discipline boards to instances of student wrongdoing. Existing practices are explored, and critiqued from a restorative justice perspective. The rationale behind moving to a restorative response is outlined, and the experiences of student discipline boards that currently employ restorative approaches are assessed to determine how effective this paradigm shift could be. How university responses to student misconduct might function if aspects of the academic environment were built on restorative values and principles is explored, in particular, through looking at the benefits accruing to the development of restorative practices in the classroom, in distance education and for students who experience language difficulties.     

Restoring (dis)order: Sanctions,resolutions, and "social control" in anarchist communities

This essay explores the restorative implications of anarchist communities through an analysis of processes such as norm formation, sanctioning, conflict resolution, and economic exchange. The study explores ways in which anarchist communities employ various restorative measures to maintain group cohesion and achieve a modicum of social control through the application of natural phenomena such as diffuse power, fluid authority, community consensus and mutual aid. Drawing upon studies of communities manifesting anarchist tendencies--Aincluding utopian experiments, indigenous cultures, and the unique case of the Rainbow Family of Living Light--a picture begins to emerge wherein conceptions of property and the social dynamics that inhere within a community are inextricably linked, suggesting the propensity of anarchist communities to promote an organic synthesis of self, society, and nature. In the end, by exploring tenets associated with the nascent restorative justice paradigm, it is observed that anarchist communities manifest principles that challenge the dominant conceptions of criminality and legality, providing a framework for envisioning models of justice-in-practice that appear on the horizon of possibility and potentiality.     

Role-taking and restorative justice: Social practices of solidarity and community in Shakespeare's measure for measure

This article examines to what extent role-taking inspired characters in Shakespeare's play Measure for Measure to new modes of consciousness and concomitant social practices of restorative justice. The play's main character, Duke Vincentio, engages in a series of role-taking episodes through which he undergoes a self-transformation. He subsequently enacts the social practice of restorative justice. However, the play is neither a paragon case of self-transformation nor of restorative justice, especially since (1) manipulation and power are employed in the reintegrative shaming ceremony; (2) some characters are stigmatized and humiliated; and (3) the Duke still practices duplicitous, power-based, and punitive measures. Nevertheless, through the process of self-discovery and the recognition of others as like himself, the Duke reconceives his kingly role from that of an executor of law violators to that of a mediator of troubled relationships. The Duke's character reflects in part the cultural contradictions and social transformations ongoing in Shakespeare's Renaissance England.     

Restoration and Retribution: How Including Retributive Components Affects the Acceptability of Restorative Justice Procedures

Two studies investigated people’s perceptions of the acceptability of restorative justice procedures for handling crimes that differ in severity. Results from Study 1 supported our hypothesis that as crimes increase in seriousness, people require a restorative justice procedure that also has a possible retributive component (i.e. a prison sentence). Study 1 also demonstrated that individuals assigned lower prison sentences for offenders who successfully completed a restorative procedure as compared to a traditional court procedure. The results from Study 2 replicated those from Study 1, as well as demonstrating that offenders who failed to successfully complete the restorative procedure received no reduction in prison sentence. These findings suggest that in order for citizens to view a restorative justice procedure as an acceptable alternative to the traditional court system for serious crimes, the procedure must allow for the option of some retributive measures.

The next generation of court-mandated domestic violence treatment: a comparison study of batterer intervention and restorative justice programs

Objectives

The most common approach to treatment of domestic violence crimes in the United States is the mandated group-based Batterer Intervention Program (BIP). Several alternative treatment approaches have been developed over the years, including a restorative justice-based treatment program for domestic violence offenders called Circles of Peace (CP). This study compared a CP program administered in Arizona with a local BIP program, in controlled settings.

Methods

This study involved a randomized controlled trial with 152 domestic violence cases randomly assigned to either BIP or CP between September 2005 and March 2007. Independent sample t tests were used to measure treatment outcomes post-random assignment, in terms of both domestic violence and non-domestic violence re-arrest rates during four follow-up periods (6, 12, 18, and 24 months).

Results

CP participants experienced less recidivism than BIP during all follow-up comparisons. However, statistically significant differences were detected only for the 6-month (p?<?.1) and the 12-month (p?<?.05) follow-up comparisons for non-domestic violence re-arrests, and no statistically significant differences were detected for the domestic violence re-arrests.

Conclusions

The findings are generally statistically non-significant at .05. While these results do not suggest a change in policy from BIP to CP for domestic violence crimes, it does dispel the popular belief that restorative justice cannot be used to treat domestic violence criminal activity, in that CP does no worse than the traditional batterer intervention program. Given the low statistical power and high attrition rates, more research is necessary to test CP and restorative justice treatment generally in court-mandated domestic violence cases in order to understand the treatment impact on both domestic violence and non-domestic violence offenders.