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.     

Contesting policy that undermines restorative justice for victims of crime☆

A policy provision in the Criminal Victim Assistance Program in British Columbia excludes the offender from participating in restorative justice approaches with the victim (and other affected parties) during counseling. A historical analysis of victim responses to crime shows that the victim experience to crime is socially constructed. In this regard, this policy act that excludes offenders from the victim healing process is consistent with a traditional approach to justice, which understands the offender to have committed a crime against the state, not the victim; however, separating the offender from the healing process is problematic within a restorative framework of justice where relationality is a central premise. Using a restorative lens, this policy act is contrary to an accompanying statute that has explicit provisions for counseling support for crime victims, as well as other statutes that provide for restorative responses to crime in Canada. The way we counsel and support victims from the harms created by crime cannot be separated from our view of justice.     

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.     

Exploring community protection

This is an attempt to provide conceptual clarity to the community protection component of Pennsylvania’s restorative justice enterprise. After a brief background of the legislative changes to Pennsylvania’s juvenile justice system and the theoretical development of restorative justice, data from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are utilized to define and measure what is meant by community protection.     

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.     

Anonymously restored: the natural partnership and mutual instruction of Alcoholics Anonymous and restorative justice

Today, western academicians continue to examine, learn from, and respect the many indigenous forms of what is often deemed ‘restorative justice.’ The following paper presents a similar process of learning through the Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) program. AA is a time-tested practice that persists because of its ability to promote personal and group harmony. It is isolated as a western subgroup that, like many indigenous justice traditions, contains a restorative fabric and may serve as an instructive case study. As a living model of restorative practice, AA is able to sharpen aspects of restorative justice theory, though this theory is also used to comment upon perceived weaknesses in the AA program. More generally, this paper seeks to raise awareness for restorative practice that occurs naturally in many western contexts. It is important that proponents/advocates of restorative justice begin to consider the ways in which unseen or anonymous allies may support the development and expansion of restorative justice.     

平和司法：恢复性司法的本土化——关于平和司法理念与实践的调研报告

平和司法是在学习国外恢复性司法理念、实证分析烟台市检察机关的办案实践、考察外地检察机关的先进经验的基础上提出的全新命题,是恢复性司法本土化的一个尝试。平和司法可分为司法心态(基础要素)、司法模式(手段要素)、司法境界(目的要素)三个层面,与恢复性司法最大的不同就在于它的层次性和层次之间的互动性。平和司法在执法理念上与传统的司法理念有很大的转变,与宽严相济的刑事政策相适应,符合社会主义法治理念的本质要求。实践平和司法将对维护社会和谐稳定、预防犯罪、节约司法资源、维护被害人和犯罪人合法权益具有积极意义。     

International Policy Formation: The Development Of Restorative Justice Policy Within The United Nations

Restorative justice and its related terms moved from the background of ancillary sessions to the floor of the United Nations Congress. This article documents and discusses the transfer of local policy to the international arena using the UN forum and restorative justice as a case study. First, a historical timeline traces the three influential forces, (1) the United Nations forum, (2) the non-governmental organization (NGO) activities, and (3) the individual Member States’ activities, behind the restorative justice movement onto the UN agenda. An integrated modification of Blumer’s process of collective problem definition is used as a framework to analyze the policy formation. Finally, the context of how future researchers may make use of the process is analyzed by comparing the traditional research development framework to Blumer’s policy framework. A need for wide spread implementation and outcome evaluations are needed as the policy is implemented is among the key findings.     

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.     

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.     

“And focused upon victims’ needs”: towards an assessment of the victim-friendly principles of restorative justice practice

Scholars and policy-makers typically laud restorative justice as being ‘victim-friendly’ in its rules and practices. High levels of victim satisfaction with its outcomes are put forward to substantiate this claim. However, there has been little research that engages with the constitutive role of restorative justice in shaping conceptions of identities, practices and needs. To address this gap, this article develops an analytic framework through which to assess the victim-friendly approach of restorative justice processes across social and legal contexts. In so doing, it engages with three key elements of restorative justice processes: firstly, how this justice approach conceives victims; secondly, how it shapes its practices (and not just outcomes) to address their concerns; and thirdly, how it responds to individual needs. The paper argues that engagement with the constitutive processes can bring a fresh perspective to the relationship between victims and restorative justice.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

恢复性司法与我国和谐社会建设

恢复性司法是指由受害人、违法者及其他可能受犯罪行为影响的个人或者社区成员积极参与刑事事务的解决的任何程序.恢复性司法理念有利于我们的和谐社会建设,在我国适用恢复性司法存在着有利的群众基础、政策支持、组织保证和实践经验.     

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.     

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.

Restorative Sentencing: Exploring the Views of the Public

Within the past decade, restorative justice has emerged as a truly global phenomenon. Although retributive justice has dominated the penal landscape, more recently, restorative principles at sentencing have attracted increased attention. Restorative sentencing emphasizes the importance of compensation and reconciliation between victims and offenders and pays less attention to establishing proportionality between the seriousness of the offense and the severity of the sentence imposed. Although voluminous (and proliferating), the scholarly literature on restorative justice has to date neglected one critical issue: public opinion with respect to this justice paradigm. Public opinion researchers too, have generally overlooked this topic. The goal of this paper is to determine which elements of the new paradigm generate public approval, and which features are likely to encounter or provoke public opposition, drawing upon related international research published in English over the past 20 years (1982–2002). The review reveals widespread support for restorative sentencing options, such as community service, compensation, and restitution, particularly when applied to young offenders. However, it also seems clear that public support for these alternatives to punitive sentencing options declines as the seriousness of the offence increases, suggesting strong public adherence to the retributive principle of proportionality in sentencing.     

Real-world assignments for restorative justice education

Academic coursework on restorative justice is rapidly emerging in professional schools. As members of applied disciplines entrusted to serve the public good, students must be readily able to transfer classroom-based learning into real world application. This paper describes a weekend intensive, multidisciplinary graduate school course and how three ‘real world’ assignments are used to integrate restorative justice values, principles, and practices. The assignments include interviews with criminal justice representatives, group projects that propose restorative justice practices for addressing social issues and legal cases, and participation in community-based programs. The assignments use processes grounded in experiential learning theory to underscore various dimensions of restorative justice. They also convey and deepen the understanding of restorative justice principles and practices while at the same time develop a sense of moral agency in students.     

Toward a restorative justice pedagogy: reflections on teaching restorative justice in correctional facilities

Restorative justice is currently practiced in a variety of ways inside correctional facilities. One such way is the facilitation of restorative justice education. If grounded in restorative values, such education can contribute to outcomes similar to other restorative practices, such as victim offender dialogue. These outcomes include opportunities to speak to personal experiences, personal change, and growth, and a desire to engage in positive relationships and give back to the community. This paper draws on the teaching and facilitation experiences of the author and incarcerated peer facilitators to develop a restorative justice pedagogy. This pedagogy, based on restorative values, aims to inspire individual and social transformation; build community among participants; give voice to the unique experiences of participants; offer opportunities for real-life problem solving; provide a creative learning environment that is co-created by students and facilitators; view students as practitioners, theorists, and educators; and invite instructors to view themselves as students and share in the learning process. Implications of the restorative justice pedagogy for teaching outside the prison context and with course material other than restorative justice conclude the article.