The Victims’ Directive and What Victims Want From Restorative Justice

Following fierce campaigning by victims’ groups, the European Commission has entered into a process of legislative and policy reforms with the aim of repositioning the victim in criminal proceedings. By November 2015, member states will need to have demonstrated that they have modified their domestic laws to give effect to the Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on the rights, support, and protection of victims of crime. For the first time, restorative justice is explicitly regulated at EU legal level, as the Directive aims to establish a baseline for its safe implementation across member states. With this EU-wide policy backdrop and using original data, the article posits evidence-based recommendations for the implementation of the Directive. The research was carried out in 2013–14 as part of the “Restorative Justice in Europe” project co-financed by the European Commission. The research took place in the United Kingdom and combined desk research and qualitative research strategies with victims, while it triangulated its findings with follow-up surveys with offenders and professionals.     

When do People Value Rehabilitation and Restorative Justice Over the Punishment of Offenders?

The authors explored the characteristics of individuals that affect their attitudes toward restorative justice-—in which offenders, victims, and communities meet to redress the damage the offence had caused. Across three studies, participants completed questionnaires that assessed whether they believe that people in general, or offenders in particular, can change fundamentally as well as attitudes toward restorative justice, rehabilitation, and punishment. In one study, the questionnaire also included measures of social dominance orientation, goal orientation, and future clarity. Generally, participants who believed that offenders can change fundamentally were more likely to agree to participate in restorative justice meetings and endorse rehabilitation over punishment. Yet, the belief that individuals in general can change fundamentally was not significantly associated with these attitudes toward alternative responses to crime. Social dominance orientation was inversely, and a learning orientation and future clarity were positively, associated with this belief that offenders can change. Thus, interventions that diminish inequality in income, privileges, and influence—and thus curb a social dominance orientation—may foster an openness toward restorative justice. Initiatives that continually reward people who gradually develop their expertise, and thus promote a learning orientation, should also foster this openness toward alternatives to custodial sentences.     

What is Restorative Justice? Fresh Answers to a Vexed Question

Abstract

It has become commonplace to say that restorative justice cannot be defined. I argue that restorative justice can and must be defined concretely as a justice mechanism. I develop this argument with four points: (1) restorative justice is not a type of justice, it is a justice mechanism; (2) retributive justice is not a type of justice or a justice mechanism; (3) restorative justice is one of many justice mechanisms under an innovative justice umbrella; and (4) restorative justice can be defined. The way forward is to assess and compare a variety of justice mechanisms, which reside on a continuum from conventional to innovative. In time, the justice mechanisms studied may come to matter more than the concept of restorative justice.     

The state of public discourse in Kenya’s post-Moi era: Where are Kenya’s organic intellectuals?

One of the defining moments in Kenya’s political landscape was the defeat of KANU, the party that had been in power since the country’s independence in 1963, by the National Rainbow Coalition, NARC in 2002. The victory was hailed as a new dawn that would entrench good governance, equity, rule of law, and human rights. After all, the victory was a culmination of many years of agitation against KANU dictatorship. Furthermore, NARC was a mass movement with national appeal and led by renowned anti-establishment politicians, civil society, and activist intellectuals and clergy. But, these aspirations would be betrayed by fragmentation of elites in NARC and re-invention of corruption by the same elites. This paper investigates the ramifications of the NARC collapse to the country’s post-Moi democratization process, more so the diminished role of intellectuals in public discourse. The paper demonstrates the urgent need for organic intellectuals and the way forward.     

Māori,Family Group Conferencing and the Mystifications of Restorative Justice

Abstract

The Family Group Conferencing (FGC) forum is often presented by policy entrepreneurs and advocates as indicative of the ability of restorative justice (RJ) to accommodate the cultural and justice needs of diverse populations. In this article, we present recent empirical research from one of the authors on Māori experiences of the forum. Drawing from this research, as well as other secondary sources, we demonstrate that far from being an exemplar of culturally appropriate justice practice, the forum is experienced by some Māori participants as one that encloses Indigenous culture and Indigenous participants within a Eurocentric, formulaic, and standardized process. The final section of our article reveals changes to the development of restorative policies and the practice in the Aotearoa New Zealand context that Māori participants believe are necessary to make the movement, and interventions such as the FGC, an empowering experience for Māori.