Families in Circle Process: Restorative Justice in Family Law

This article explores the use of “circle process”—a form of restorative justice—in family law and places this effort within a larger movement within the law toward law as a healing profession, or the “comprehensive law movement.” It explores the features and underpinnings of circle process and its relationship to original forms of dispute resolution such as those used in African‐style mediation and indigenous people's dispute resolution in North America. Values expressed by these forms of dispute resolution are argued to be particularly relevant in family law. Finally, it focuses on an innovative and exciting court‐sponsored program begun in Chicago in 2008, using circle process with families in conflict, in the Cook County Parentage and Child Support Court. This program's results suggest potential benefits and cautions of using circle process in family law.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Restorative justice, in particular, circle process, can be used to resolve family law cases.
• Circle process widens the group of participants in alternative dispute resolution of family law matters.
• Circle process brings more voices to the table, namely, extended family, friends, and supporters, thus enhancing the group's decisionmaking.
• Judges will want to be sure the families in question are appropriate for circle process before referring them to this method of resolving disputes.
• Circle processes can result in improved communication and relations among families in conflict.
• Circle process reflects the values of “original dispute resolution,” which often in turn reflects ubuntu, the idea that all humankind is interconnected.
• Circle process is part of a greater movement towards law as a healing profession/the comprehensive law movement, which includes therapeutic jurisprudence.

     

The Importance of Perceptions in Restorative Justice Conferences: The Influence of Offender Personality Traits on Procedural Justice and Shaming

Research suggests that restorative justice (RJ) conferences are more just than traditional court processing due to the presence of procedural justice (PJ). These conferences also promote reintegrative shaming which, in contrast to disintegrative shaming, allows offenders to repair their ties with the community. Yet, fairness and the type of shaming experienced may depend on perceptions of the offender. We argue that the personality traits of negative emotionality and low constraint influence offenders' evaluations of the fairness of these conferences, which have implications for their experience of shaming. We test these arguments using data from a sample of 498 offenders involved in the Australian Reintegrative Shaming Experiments. Results reveal that personality traits affect perceptions of PJ and both types of shaming, and that PJ mediates these effects. The findings support the notion that RJ conferences are perceived to be procedurally just and reintegrative for certain types of offenders.     

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.     

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.     

Mediation and Restorative Justice in Belgium

In this article we present, discuss and try to evaluate initiatives which were recently introduced into the Belgian criminal justice system, aimed at the development of creative answers to crime that avoid the use of traditional prison sentences. We decided to focus this analysis on the practice of mediation as it is actually considered the most innovative approach to the crime problem. Mediation as a problem-solving intervention has to be considered in direct relation to the discussion of the purpose of the criminal justice system. By putting the emphasis on the dialogue between the victim and the offender, a common solution is worked out with the help of a mediator. In this way reparation, redress and sometimes even reconciliation become core values of the penal action.     

Family Conferencing for Juvenile Offenders: A Singaporean Case Study in Restorative Justice

Restorative justice has been or is being adopted in many parts of the world, including countries in Asia. In the case of Singapore, restorative justice was adopted by the court system in 1997 as its guiding philosophy in its approach towards juvenile offenders. This article traces the adoption of restorative justice by the Juvenile Court in Singapore and the use of family conferencing in the light of the principles of restorative justice. It concludes by suggesting areas where the family conferencing system in Singapore can be improved, and possible lessons for other jurisdictions considering adopting family conferencing.     

Punitive Restoration and Restorative Justice

Criminal justice policy faces the twin challenges of improving our crime reduction efforts while increasing public confidence. These challenges are exacerbated by the fact that at least some measures popular with the public are counterproductive to greater crime reduction. How to achieve greater crime reduction without sacrificing public confidence? While restorative justice approaches offer a promising alternative to traditional sentencing with the potential to achieve these goals, they suffer from several serious obstacles, not least their relatively limited applicability, flexibility, and public support. Punitive restoration is a new and distinctive idea about restorative justice modeled on an important principle of stakeholding, which states that those who have a stake in penal outcomes should have a say about them. Punitive restoration is restorative insofar as it aims to achieve the restoration of rights infringed or threatened by criminal offences. Punitive restoration is punitive insofar as the available options for this agreement are more punitive than found in most restorative justice approaches, such as the option of some form of hard treatment. Punitive restoration sheds new light on how we may meet the twin challenges of improving our efforts to reduce reoffending without sacrificing public confidence, demonstrating how restorative practices can be embedded deeper within the criminal justice system.     

Female Delinquents and Restorative Justice

As imprisonment rates increase in America, women are being adversely affected. Although women are still a minority in terms of the total number of persons incarcerated, their numbers are rising faster than those of men. This article looks at this disheartening trend and makes the case the restorative justice can be used as gender-specific programming for female delinquents.     

司法的恢复性与社会的和谐化——恢复性司法理论国际研讨会综述

在我国建设和谐社会的宏大工程中,刑事司法是极其重要的一环,因而对发端于西方且正试行于我国实践中的恢复性司法模式展开研究,具有重要的理论价值和现实意义.会议围绕恢复性司法的理论基础、价值取向、实践模式、具体运作及其引入中国的可行性等五个主题,进行了广泛而深入的研讨,取得了丰硕的成果.     

Juvenile Justice in Oregon: Balanced and Restorative Justice in Action

The goals of Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ) are to hold juvenile offenders meaningfully accountable, hear and empower crime victims and engage communities both as stakeholders who have been negatively impacted and as advocates to make things right for the crime victim, offender, and community. This article examines how several Oregon juvenile justice agencies have put BARJ into action over the last 25 years, highlighting specific examples of how several agencies have made this the philosophical underpinning of their work. An overview of the philosophical principles, values, and goals that drive this approach is also discussed.     

Revisiting Informal Justice: Restorative Justice and Democratic Professionalism

Restorative justice is a form of informal justice growing rapidly among criminal justice practitioners. It decenters the focus of criminal justice from the offender breaking a law of the state to the harm caused the victim and community. Resolution is said to come from offenders taking responsibility and making amends for the harm done and from communities supporting the victim and providing offenders with opportunities and skills to reintegrate as contributing members.
Restorative justice theory largely ignores the role of professionals in the criminal justice process, and yet professionals have played a dominant part in initiating many restorative justice programs. Several theoretical traditions recognize professionals as being important intermediaries between citizens and the state. The theory of democratic professionalism argues that professionals can play crucial roles in increasing and improving democratic participation in public affairs. This article examines two functioning restorative justice programs to flesh out what democratic professionalism might look like in operation—what tasks professionals perform and what citizen involvement means to the professionals. We argue that restorative justice cannot get along without professionals and that democratic professionalism may help restorative justice to avoid some of the problems associated with other approaches to informal justice by increasing true community participation but balancing it with concern for individuals' rights.     

Restorative Justice, Shame and Forgiveness

Restorative conferencing is a new style of criminal justice intervention which is being increasingly used in Britain, especially as a method of delivering police cautions to youth offenders.Is is currently the subject of a lively debate, focusing on its effectiveness as a method of crime reduction, its benefits tovictims, its feasibility in modern society, its effect upon procedural rights of arrestees, and the danger of it becoming a degradation ceremony. This paper seeks to extend the debate to include less obvious, but equally important, issues. The paper focuses on the processes of reintegrative shaming which, inspired by the work of John Braithwaite, are at the core of restorative conferencing. It places these processes in broader historical and cultural contexts, such as the re-emergence ofshame sanctions in the USA, the attack on the notion ofshame launched by cultural radicals, and the changes which have occurred historically in our emotional response to offenders.Three sets of questions emerge: What is the political –as distinct from penal – meaning of the practice of shaming offenders? How does the practice affect the progressive cultural aim of fuller realization of the individual? At what point doesforgiveness become less of a virtue, more of a vice?     

Evaluating Restorative Justice Programs in Taiwan

This paper aims to evaluate four restorative justice programs in Taiwan: (1) a mediation system; (2) deferred prosecution and conditional suspended sentence; (3) a youth justice system; and (4) the Taiwan Restorative Justice Initiative. In this paper, models proposed in Marshall (Restorative justice: An overview. London: Home Office, 1999) and Braithwaite (British Journal of Criminology 42:563–577, 2002b) are used as criteria to evaluate the four programs. Based on governmental documents, official statistics, and the findings of previous empirical studies, this paper will examine whose needs and power is focused and what types of value are highlighted in those four programs. This paper finds that current restorative justice programs in Taiwan place greater emphasis on offenders than on other parties such as victims and communities. In addition, maximizing and emergent standards that Braithwaite identifies are implemented more in Taiwan’s restorative justice programs than constraining standards. This paper suggests that restorative justice practices in Taiwan need to be more concerned with victims’ needs and interests, and to strengthen constraining types of restorative justice values.