undefined

undefined

doi:undefined

2
https://doi.org/10.1215/08879982-2012-1013

Controversies Around Restorative Justice

Jan 1, 2012
Tikkun
David Belden

Listen

TL;DR

Restorative justice is gaining momentum as a cost-effective, empathetic alternative to traditional punishment, with potential to reduce incarceration and address systemic inequalities. Its diverse support across political spectrums hinges on practical effectiveness and transformative social change.

Abstract

Translate Article

Restorative justice is a movement with traction. People are excited by it. They are volunteering in growing numbers to make it happen. Some people are even getting paid to do it, especially in schools, and usually through nonprofits like Restorative Justice for Oakland Youth, Community Works, and the Insight Prison Project (all discussed in this issue). Marilyn Armour’s article (page 25) sums up the progress so far.Its practitioners say the movement’s innovative practices have immediate benefits and radical long-term potential.There is hope, first, that it will keep young people and especially young people of color out of the criminal justice system, out of the school-to-prison pipeline. Once that is well under way, many believe that other visions will appear possible, all the way to the end of prisons as we know them and a reconception of the entire legal system (see Peter Gabel’s piece on page 18). Many hope this movement can also provide new ways of responding both to conflicts in general (Kay Pranis, page 33) and to the inherited oppressive structures of race and class (see Fania Davis’s piece on page 30, Denise Breton’s on page 45).Restorative justice may be poised for a breakthrough into public awareness. It would be a boon for budget-cutting politicians and taxpayers if only the public could buy into it. For example, in the San Francisco Bay Area it costs around $50,000 to run a juvenile offender through the justice system, not counting the cost of incarceration if there is to be any, versus about $4,500 for a restorative process that typically leaves the victim much more satisfied, the young person reintegrated into the community without even being charged with a crime and much less likely to reoffend, and many community members relieved and grateful. Multiply the criminal justice cost many times for adults locked away for years.But the rub is, punishment is nowhere seen in this process—unless, when you have harmed someone, you consider listening to them express their pain to be punishment, rather than a chance to develop empathy for them, see yourself in a different light, and learn and change in whatever way you now perceive is needed. Some consider that process tougher even than receiving punishment. Others think it’s being “soft on crime.”Can a justice movement not based on punishment grow fast enough to win at the ballot box, even in an über-liberal city? In September the New York Times noted that “Restorative justice has long had proponents in some corners of the criminal justice system, but it is now gaining prominence in an unlikely forum: the San Francisco district attorney’s race.” We go to press too soon to know the result.Or will restorative justice appeal more to small-government and traditional-values conservatives? Some of its elements do appeal to the Right, others to reformist liberals, others to radicals, including prison abolitionists. Of course, there are also elements that each of these players may dislike or hate. And no one will resist it more than the prison-industrial complex and the politicians in its pockets.How it is presented by the media will be critical, but perhaps not decisive: it is how well it works in practice, in those places innovative enough to fund it, that will likely be decisive.Most articles in this issue come from progressive and radical activists, scholars, lawyers, and teachers who are writing wholly from within the restorative justice movement. We are centering their voices because it is they who have both the strongest hope for the transformative power of the movement and the most practical understanding of how the vision of restorative justice can take shape on the ground.While most restorative justice practitioners initially seem to present a unified front, there are certainly differences among them if you listen more closely. Some authors in this issue raise controversial issues within the movement directly, others by inference only. If they criticize anyone, notice how gently they do so. The movement has only got where it has by its practitioners’ commitment to reach out to the humanity in the other, to listen, to suggest and not to judge. A South Asian Buddhist goes to a conservative Florida town to support white Christians in developing a groundbreaking restorative approach to plea bargaining in a murder case (page 22). A survivor of child abuse works with prisoners in San Quentin prison, most of them serving life sentences for violent crimes (page 35). These practitioners could not do their groundbreaking work if they allowed either left-wing or right-wing stereotypes of prosecutors, conservative Christians, or lifers to cloud their vision. That doesn’t mean that restorative practitioners are blind to the realities of power and white supremacy, the legacies of genocide and slavery, the depredations of profiteers, or the violence inherent in the structure of our prison system. But their whole practice is to reach across any divide and connect, empathically.I am writing this article from a slightly different place, as a kind of sympathetic cartographer of the movement. I have felt drawn to restorative justice since first writing about it in Tikkun (September/October 2009) and have started to attend trainings in the field. So with one foot planted inside the restorative justice movement as a student and the other in more journalistic territory, I am hoping to offer a different perspective: a beginner’s bird’s-eye glance at some of the controversial issues both outside and within the movement, and at factors that may be enabling it to gather traction. I am offering this analysis not in a spirit of divisiveness but with the genuine hope that it will help readers who have never heard of the restorative justice movement to grasp the diversity of worldviews within it and understand where opposition and support are likely to arise. It is important for those within the movement to understand ways in which restorative justice is seen by individuals and groups from different places on the political spectrum, from conservative to moderate, and liberal to radical.Once restorative justice becomes a well-known policy option, I assume that small-government conservatives will welcome the budget savings and tax relief, provided they can be convinced that diversions from prison are not dangerous to society. The remarkable experience of New Zealand, which for over twenty years has run its entire juvenile justice system on restorative principles, and has closed its juvenile detention centers, should reassure them. As this experience is not well known in the United States, we are delighted to share an excellent survey of it by one its leading proponents, Judge Fred McElrea, as an online-only article accompanying this print issue.Many social conservatives, especially of a traditional Christian bent, already warm to the notion of bringing offenders to a point of remorse and genuine accountability, and then to redemption, a true change of heart. Chuck Colson, one of the players in the Watergate scandal (long since reformed as a born-again Christian), is considered by many to be America’s leading prison reformer as well as one of its leading Christian conservatives. Excoriating overcrowding and inhuman conditions, Colson signs on to a faith-based strand of restorative justice.However, the centrality of religious conversion to Colson’s version of restorative justice presents a concern for the mainstream movement. Further, conservative philosophy typically blames the individual’s sinful human nature rather than environmental factors in generating crime. Mainstream restorative justice operates from a different model. It is based neither on a medical model of the pathology of the offender, nor on a Christian model of the offender’s sinful nature and dependence on a Higher Power. Instead, a model of mainstream restorative justice is more likely to include concepts such as mutuality, respect, active listening, empathy for ourselves and those we have harmed or been harmed by, a focus on self-empowerment and attendance to the deeper needs of those involved, and the questioning and unlearning of prevailing punitive belief systems. For instance, the behavioral changes noted in violent men through mainstream restorative practices typically result from their coming to understand how they developed strategies to survive child abuse, poverty, racism, police brutality, or other environmental stresses and bought into the prevailing “male role belief system”; from this understanding, as well as from the care of peers and facilitators, flows empathy for their younger selves and then for their victims. The hope of many restorative justice practitioners is that such transformed men (and women) will become participants in reforming the social conditions and inequities that so restricted their options, in addition to practicing emotional maturity in their daily relationships.Many Christians find this development of empathy and social responsibility entirely compatible with Christianity, whether it involves Christian belief or not, but this is not the typical Christian conservative view. However, to an observer like me, both Colsonesque and mainstream restorative justice seem to have much in common—both believe in the individual’s ability to change. As more violent offenders transform themselves through both paths and meet and talk, I assume there will be cross-fertilization.Still, many conservatives who do believe in redemption see it as entirely compatible with punishment. Anyone harmed by crime is likely to feel colossal anger and so traditional notions of “an eye for an eye” will always have great appeal, especially if no mechanisms exist for satisfying the victim’s needs for empathy, answers, or restoration. If restorative options start to divert large numbers from prison, conservative investors in the prison-industrial complex will surely mobilize to protect their investment. They are likely to fund emotive appeals for punishment, many of them in traditional (and selective) biblical terms, and possibly with racist overtones.The essence of mainstream restorative justice is a practice of listening and empathy that is by nature corrosive of ideology and self-righteousness. Thus, combining thorough personal accountability with an understanding of the ways one’s environment has molded one is a complex task, not easily assimilated into some conservatives’ worldview. But that may change.On balance, I assume that most hardcore conservatives will not go for mainstream restorative justice. However, many middle-of-the-road people, including many evangelical Christians, may well support it when they see how well it works for crime victims they know and for any of their own relatives and friends who are arrested for offenses. In a recent case it was remarkable how quickly some police families came around to wanting a restorative justice option when one of their own kids was caught in a possible offense. If approval grows in middle America, it will mainly be because of positive personal experiences that will contradict the media stereotypes and polemics approving punitive justice.The appeal for liberals may be obvious: take better care of victims; drastically reduce the prison system; spend the money on education and public aid instead; reject ugly emotions of revenge; and reintegrate offenders into the community where they can lead productive lives and pay taxes.But what would liberals make of Peter Gabel’s vision of an astonishingly different kind of legal system? Some might feel that’s going too far. That’s to admit that fear of the other has been central to the liberal project all along. That’s to allow that the vaunted rationality of liberalism never has been free of emotion, but has too often been put to the service of a set of fears that serve neither love nor connection. To consciously serve love might be to infect public discourse with emotionality, spirituality, and even religion, in something of a creeping revolution.Something that’s too revolutionary for many liberals should sound good to radical anti-racists and anti-capitalists. Yet, there is something highly distasteful, or suspect, about restorative justice for many radicals.The greatest difficulty for the radical Left is implicit in Fania E. Davis’s words in this issue: “I would say this movement is more subversive than any of the revolutionary movements in which I have been involved since the 1950s. All previous social justice movements have kept us trapped in discordant, binary, either-or, right-wrong, and us-versus-them ways of being present to one another and to the earth.” Binaries are as central to the Left as they are to the Right. Many people have considered Right and Left to be equally self-righteous, equally prone to demonize the other side.It’s not just that someone like Sunny Schwartz (page 37) works for the sheriff’s department and expresses a vision for how corrections can become a noble profession, which looks to many radicals like collaboration with the imperialist and racist state. It’s also that restorative justice seeks to foster a sense of personal accountability in individuals who have perpetrated crimes. Doing so requires more focus on individuals—including on convicted members of oppressed races and classes—than some radicals are comfortable with. Some fear that restorative justice’s focus on individual accountability suggests that it’s the individuals’ fault they are in prison, not the fault of the system.If you imagine that Sunny Schwartz is compromising too much with the American empire, it is worth noting that the central anti-violence teaching in her program is provided by Manalive, which was developed by Hamish Sinclair. Sinclair cut his teeth organizing coal miners and their families in eastern Kentucky and autoworkers in Detroit in the 1960s who were all losing their union jobs as capital sought higher returns elsewhere. He saw his part of the Detroit resistance movement destroyed by the violent objections of union men toward women in their lives who wanted to share in the organizing. Sinclair dedicated his life to building programs for working-class men that would enable them to opt out of the “male role belief system,” in order to organize effectively with women when the times became conducive to organizing once more. Personal accountability and political organizing are two equal sides of Sinclair’s coin; he understands that neither comes easily and neither is complete without the other. One could argue that failure to grasp this has been the bane of most revolutions by radical utopians and of most elected social democratic parties as well. Animal Farm tells the classic tale of revolutionaries who both demonize the oppressor and, because they harbor romantic notions about the ability of the oppressed to be loving and just when they gain power, fail to learn the skills of accountability, empathy, and self-restraint (which a program like Sinclair’s Manalive teaches to highly competitive men).Combining thorough personal accountability with an understanding of the ways one’s environment has molded one is a complex task, not easily assimilated into some radicals’ worldviews. But that may change.Prison abolitionists argue that our current prison system is unreformable. Critical Resistance, a national grassroots group seeking to dismantle the prison-industrial complex, writes:Groups like these that see the restorative justice movement as already too fatally implicated in the criminal justice system (and unrealistic in its idea that there was anything good to be restored in the first place) tend instead to rally around the idea of “transformative justice.”Unlike restorative justice projects, which are often related in some way to the criminal justice system, either as an intervention meant to prevent incarceration or as an effort partly within the prisons to promote healing of offenders and victims, transformative justice projects tend to focus on creating a community-based system wholly outside the prison and courts system, thereby resonating more strongly with the prison abolitionist movement.Each side in this debate can push the other’s buttons. Failure to be sufficiently adversarial toward the criminal injustice system can look unconscionable to transformative justice activists. The use of more adversarial language and practices (e.g., in transformative justice, survivors making demands on those who have harmed them) and a perceived excess of theory over empathic practice can make restorative justice people doubt how transformative these other folks really are.But as Bench Ansfield and Timothy Colman’s article on a Philadelphia-based transformative justice project makes clear (page 41), at the heart of both is the development of empathic practices that work, that increase the sense of safety for survivors of violence, and that help those who perpetrated the harm to change. People who line up on both the restorative and transformative sides of the spectrum already meet and talk, and will do this more as their movements grow. Again, the focus on empathic listening will make it more likely that they will hear each other. Insofar as restorative practices actually work, transformative justice projects will adapt and adopt them, and vice versa.To me, both look like unfinished attempts at the same kind of thing, but starting from different positions in society as well as about society. Many restorative justice proponents start as professionals already in the system (the justice system or the school system—see Rita Alfred’s piece on page 48), who try to work it so that programs can get under way. While their methods may be those of reformers, working with district attorneys, within prisons, grade schools, or law schools, they have hugely transformative dreams. To them, the criticism from prison abolitionists may seem understandable but premature. Both movements, if successful, can end with prisons abolished, or reduced to housing only a tiny number of specific cases; one restorative justice lawyer speculated to me that this number might be as small as 2,000 people in the United States but added that the debate was fruitless at this point because it will be a matter of what works and how well we manage to create alternative methods for keeping people safe and transforming violent behavior. The movements are complementary, this viewpoint holds.And it does behoove restorative justice people to think how they would do things if there were no state-violence sanctions at all in the background of their work: If the alternative to a family or community circle were not criminal charges, or if there were no literally for role would there be enough for enough violent offenders to does a community do with those who an offender is in the community and no one is going to the what sanctions of of can be to to the person to a community It certainly may get to sound a But working out how to do this is a that many restorative justice people already we think of as radical on what we think the the of human to be in human nature as for by or is it or racism, or failure to For evangelical Christians, being is the most radical For some left-wing activists, does not sound radical For others it’s the that is the it suggests traditional of victim and offender, even of and when what is is to such notions and to the radical that has the same set of human is different strategies to meet their and to and to actually result in reduced safety and violence (see article on page of this there are and people feel strongly about them. However, in with restorative and transformative justice practitioners on different places on the spectrum, I have to criticize the they all seem their own visions them, they have much to to each other. is entirely within the empathic of these movements, and them from those whether on the Left or the Right, adversarial is different in restorative justice from other organizing. of that movement have their is this growing more becomes clear as soon as you to the They are less likely to theory than they are to you of and they are it is them experiences that they to deeper and the to One central practice is the in which can be heard and no one practitioners have different ways of A may be on the with of the and A or or other words that to the of those present may be A may be each person in a set by the They may start by how they the circle to what it should what they from the others in order to feel safe enough to what kind of respect, they on the circle goes to the it has been from a person who has been on a to the how well the has been or other inherent to that find that the circle structure them to more how it People and then their own of pain and A offender is to find that in the circle to how to the harm he has he can as long as he needs the district a to see how the process it is his to do so. A has already been with the that in the circle will be as should the case go to A was by a up the free A young who two and returns two years to offer because his is and he to make a he to pay the families in for what he and by his to spend the money on for and his to help the of abuse he has this becomes part of the he to criminal practices and of are the of the movement. However, it is not growing because the are and to all but also because they are and can find in juvenile and their is in of and in like reduced These practices do not on but can be so that from within the community and does not have to come from from a the same how much to and is an issue that may become and and is and there be ways of working out who has a debate on the of the versus other terms, it’s worth at September on his is one of the movement’s and leading One of his is to a by who of those who would like to the when restorative practices are not to the criminal justice on that another in the and the difficulty of such issues in the movement, which he started if there might be a strand of in the issues of justice, accountability, are issues not in of over too find a to the Christian movements that in I has been more with belief than most but it has always had that were most with behavioral emotional or may be of concern to such has been a likely of such movements, and so has resistance among and white proponents to questioning their own But in other such movements, love with the and the we saw in has people into for including and building the to me that restorative practices are a version of these movements of personal this movement is in and to be to people of all and but it is as as its practitioners it to radical of empathic listening and makes it with or a with any kind of version of personal is also much more strongly to of social racism, and inherited If the movement to like Fania who for in the movement to themselves more in the and in the ways the criminal justice system is as a new then we will start to have the kind of of personal change with change that many of us have been for years is the only way a society can be

Similar Papers

Research Article
17
10.1215/08879982-2012-1012

Restorative Justice: Some Facts and History

Jan 1, 2012
Tikkun
Marilyn Armour

Restorative Justice: Some Facts and History

Research Article
9
10.1162/ajle_a_00040

COMMUNITY-BASED AND RESTORATIVE-JUSTICE INTERVENTIONS TO REDUCE OVER-POLICING

Aug 15, 2022
American Journal of Law and Equality
Adriaan Lanni

COMMUNITY-BASED AND RESTORATIVE-JUSTICE INTERVENTIONS TO REDUCE OVER-POLICING

Research Article
10.1215/08879982-2012-1014

What’s Love Got to Do with It?

Jan 1, 2012
Tikkun
Fania E Davis

What’s Love Got to Do with It?

Research Article
10.30659/akta.v11i1.34516

Implementation of Restorative Justice in Settlement of Criminal Actions in the Criminal System in Indonesia

Feb 15, 2024
JURNAL AKTA
Syarifuddin Syarifuddin + 2 more

Resolving several years of criminal offenses using a "restorative justice" mechanism has been hotly discussed recently. Restorative justice or restorative justice is the process of resolving criminal acts. This criminal problem resolution model involves all parties to find justice and restore the situation between the perpetrator and the victim. One of the functions of law is as "a tool of dispute settlement", various disputes can occur in society. As for the ways of resolving disputes in a society, some are resolved through formal institutions called courts. Resolving criminal acts through restorative justice is carried out from the level of investigation and investigation at the police to the prosecutor's office. These two law enforcement agencies have regulated the process and procedures for resolving criminal acts through restorative justice mechanisms. So it is hoped that this settlement model can reduce the number of cases handled by the courts, as well as reduce the burden of state costs for resolving criminal acts. Restorative justice is regulated in the Republic of Indonesia State Police Regulation Number 8 of 2021 concerning Handling of Criminal Acts Based on Restorative Justice and Article 1 number 1 of the Republic of Indonesia Prosecutor's Regulation Number 15 of 2020 concerning Termination of Prosecution Based on Restorative Justice. In these two regulations, the resolution of criminal cases by prioritizing restorative justice emphasizes restoration to its original state and a balance of protection and interests of victims and perpetrators of criminal acts that is not oriented towards retribution. This is an effort to reform the criminal justice system in order to realize the goals of just law. There are several criminal justice system models in the world, Control Criminal Model, Doe process of law Model and Family model, of course this justice system will be able to determine what resolution is appropriate to the criminal justice system, which is closer to restorative justice is the family model, a family approach resolving criminal cases by deliberation and consensus as intended by the fourth principle of Pancasila. A justice system with a family model involving all parties accommodates the interests of all parties, so that the original situation is restored after the case between the perpetrator and the victim. Basically, the model for resolving criminal cases outside of court, which carries the spirit of restorative justice, began to be implemented in the mid-1970s. One model for resolving criminal cases outside of court based on restorative justice is the Victim Offenders Mediation (VOM) program. The VOM program was first implemented in 1970 in North America and Europe such as Norway and Finland. VOM is a process that provides the victim's willingness as the subject of crime and violence to meet with the perpetrator, in a safe and orderly atmosphere with the aim of making the perpetrator directly responsible in the form of compensation to the victim.

Preprint Article
2
10.26686/wgtn.14195555.v1

Institutionalizing Restorative Justice in New Zealand's Criminal Justice System: Gains, Losses and Challenges for the Future

Mar 11, 2021
Sarah Shank

Restorative justice has played a paradoxical role in the New Zealand criminal justice system. One the one hand, over the past thirty years restorative justice has steadily gained public recognition and received institutional support through judicial endorsements and legislative provisions. In many respects New Zealand has been at the global forefront of incorporating restorative justice processes into the criminal justice system. This, in the hope that restorative justice might improve justice outcomes for victims, offenders and society at large. Yet despite such institutional support for restorative justice, the outcomes of the mainstream justice system have not substantially improved. Ironically, many of the same statutory provisions that enabled restorative justice included punitive provisions that served to tighten the reins of the carceral state. The New Zealand prison population is currently one of the highest in the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the downstream consequences of which have been devastating for those impacted, and particularly for Māori. Openly acknowledging that the existing justice system is “broken,” the government launched a criminal justice reform program in 2018 to consider a range of options that might contribute to fundamental change. Initial feedback elicited as part of the process calls for a more holistic and transformative approach to criminal justice. Notably this is what restorative justice, at its best, claims to deliver. However, the New Zealand criminal justice system appears to lack such transformative aims and the role of restorative justice in driving institutional change in the future remains to be seen. This thesis examines the institutional paradox of restorative justice in New Zealand. It explores how and why restorative justice originally became an established part of the criminal justice system and what impact it has had on the system of which it has become a part. Drawing on institutional theory, it assesses how far restorative justice institutionalization has progressed, the factors that have facilitated it and the barriers that have impeded it. Finally, it identifies ways in which restorative justice, when institutionalized through principles, policy, law and practice, can make a more lasting impact for those whom the justice system is intended to serve. Within restorative justice literature, both those who commend institutionalization and those who oppose it highlight problems caused by “isomorphic incompatibility” between the mainstream adversarial system and restorative justice. This thesis argues that while foundational tensions exist between the two approaches, such tensions are not insurmountable. Simplifications or exaggerations of incompatibility overlook important similarities and confluences between the two approaches. Confronting such institutional “myths” is necessary if isomorphic combability is to occur. These claims are illustrated through an examination of sexual violence. The pressing problem of responding well to sexual violence illustrates how isomorphic alignment, through careful integration of restorative principles and practices into the criminal justice system, can enable the state to fulfil its responsibilities of ensuring societal safety and protecting the rule of law in ways that better meet victims’ distinct justice needs and the best interests of all stakeholders.

Dissertation
1
10.26686/wgtn.14195555

Institutionalizing Restorative Justice in New Zealand's Criminal Justice System: Gains, Losses and Challenges for the Future

Mar 10, 2021
Sarah Shank

Research Article
37
10.1146/annurev-criminol-030421-040921

The Transformative Potential of Restorative Justice: What the Mainstream Can Learn from the Margins

Jul 24, 2023
Annual Review of Criminology
Meredith Rossner + 1 more

Restorative justice is an idea and a practice that has had a significant impact on criminology over the past four decades and has proliferated throughout the criminal justice system. Yet from the beginning of this movement, there have been worries that the mainstreaming of restorative justice will lead to its dilution, or even corruption, and undermine its transformative potential. Developing alongside the growing institutionalization of restorative justice has been a transformative justice movement that has arisen from larger movements for racial and gender justice, drawing on similar foundational values to restorative justice. This review interrogates the relationship between restorative and transformative justice by examining a flourishing of ideas and experiments at the margins of the restorative justice movement in three key areas—responses to racial injustice, sexual violence, and environmental harm—and finds that restorative justice has the capacity to work at multiple levels to respond to harm, transform relationships, and prevent future injustices.

Research Article
3
10.1017/lsi.2024.45

Anti-Carceral Approaches to Addressing Harms Against Animals: Considerations on Multispecies Restorative and Transformative Justice

Nov 18, 2024
Law & Social Inquiry
Kelly Struthers Montford + 2 more

The animal protection movement has developed an increasingly close working relationship with the criminal punishment system through lobbying and campaigning for harsher punishments for animal abuse, while at the same time showing an interest in restorative justice (RJ) as a response to harm against animals. In this article, we take a critical position aligned with anti-carceral feminists and prison abolitionists against the carceral systems that fail humans and animals in circumstances of violence. We consider the potential of RJ as an alternative approach to address and prevent harm against animals in abuse cases on an individual level while highlighting the limitations of RJ in achieving the necessary changes on a societal level to end structurally produced violence against animals, such as industrial animal exploitation. We propose that transformative justice (TJ), which involves some RJ processes, is the most promising approach that could achieve justice for both humans and nonhumans in the long term without reproducing traumas and violence for the individuals and communities involved in harm reduction and prevention. Drawing on examples of RJ and TJ as developed and practised in marginalized human communities, we apply their lessons to thinking through similar practices in the context of animal abuse and neglect.

Single Book
81
10.4324/9781843924791

Repositioning Restorative Justice

Dec 6, 2012

Contents Part 1 Restorative Just ice and the mainstream responses to crime 1 Punishment: what does it mean and can it be restorative?, Martin Wright 2 Restorative Justice: a discussion on punishment, Jolien Willemsens Part 2 Assessment and restorative justice 3 A Survey of Assessment Research on Mediation and restorative justice, Paul McCold 4 Evaluating the practice of restorative justice, Nathan Harris Part 3 Restorative practices in non-judicial settings 5 Researching prospects for restorative practice in schools: the life at school survey 1996-1999, Valerie Braithwaite, Eliza Ahmed, Brenda Morrisson, Monika Reinhart 6 Community Mediation, Criminal Justice and Restorative Justice, John Blad 7 Restorative Justice in Prison?, Ottmar Hagemann Part 4 Restorative Justice in different countries 8 Positioning mediation in the criminal justice system: the Italian legal framework of the 'justice of Peace, Grazia Manozzi 9 The implementation and development of restorative justice for juveniles in Flanders, Frans Spiesschaert, Catherine van Dijk, Inge Vanfraechem, Sigrid van Grunderbeeck, Mia Claes 10 Implementing Family Group Conferencing in a legalistic system. The example of Belgium, Inge Vanfraechem 11 Anthropological reflections on restoring justice in Norway, Ida Hyddle 12 Alternative conflict resolution and Restorative justice, Anne Lemonne 13 Possibilities for restorative justice in Serbia, Vesna Nikoli-Ristanovi Part 5 Restorative justice and its constituents 14 Restorative Justice for adult offenders: the New Zealand experience, Allison Morris 15 The boldest initiative for Victims? Reviewing the limits and potential of restorative justice for victims of crime, Guy Masters 16 Differences in how girls and boys respond to family group conference. Preliminary research results, Gabrielle Maxwell 17 Do juvenile offenders perceive community service as restorative?, Isabelle Ravier 18 Community Perceptions of children accused of crimes and the practice of restorative justice in South Africa: preparing the South African community for implementing the new child justice system, Buyi Mbambo and Ann Skelton Index

Research Article
19
10.21776/ub.blj.2019.006.02.03

Restorative Justice: an Alternative Process for Solving Juvenile Crimes in Indonesia

Oct 31, 2019
Brawijaya Law Journal
Mahfud Nazeri + 1 more

Restorative justice concept may refer to an alternative process for solving disputes including criminal law violation has been well known in Indonesia. The Act Number 11, 2012 on Juvenile Justice System has acknowledged restorative justice approach as a part of criminal justice system in dealing with a child in conflict with the law. It has become an essential provision in the Act as it provides option for law enforcers to avoid punishing juvenile offenders through traditional criminal approach. This research aims to examine restorative justice for juvenile offenders in Indonesia based on the Juvenile Justice System Act Number 11, 2012 as a form of alternative dispute resolution for juvenile crimes and other related laws and to provide a brief of the implementation of restorative justice in Indonesia that is integrally enforced in Indonesian criminal justice system dealing with a child in conflict with the law. It divides the discussion into two parts restorative justice in the juvenile justice system act 2012 and the implementation of restorative juvenile justice in Indonesia. In order to response to these research aims, this paper employs doctrinal legal research.

Research Article
31
10.1080/0731129x.2002.9992112

Forgiveness and public deliberation: The practice of restorative justice

Jan 1, 2002
Criminal Justice Ethics
Albert W Dzur + 1 more

It is not easy to define the way we should be angry, with whom, about what, for how long. (1) Introduction Is forgiveness a social good that communities can further through mediated public dialogue between victims of crimes and offenders? Though commonly and rightly thought of as dependent upon personal feelings, in particular dependent upon the deliberate relaxing of the feeling of resentment, forgiveness has communicative and social dimensions. (2) These dimensions of forgiveness are at the forefront of the theory and practice of the restorative justice reform movement. Originating in just a few states in the 1970s, restorative justice programs are now quite common at the state and local level in the United States, handling mostly property offenses and minor assaults committed by juveniles. (3) The goal of restorative justice is to foster, through voluntary public dialogue, interpersonal reconciliation between victims and offenders as well as social reconciliation between offenders and the community. Trained facilitators encourage victims to express their feelings and to communicate to offenders the impact of their acts; facilitators also elicit communication from offenders about their life-situations and about their feelings of remorse or shame. The social dimension in restorative justice is furthered, in some programs, by the participation of community volunteers who symbolize the community's interest in reconciling victim and offender and in reintegrating offenders. The restorative justice movement is of interest to political theorists and ethicists because it raises key questions about the link between public dialogue and positive emotional states like the relaxing of resentment experienced in forgiveness. Though we understand how public dialogue contributes to clarification of practical choices, we know much less about how it helps us transform our emotional responses toward others. (4) The movement is interesting, too, as a challenge to general normative theories of criminal justice. In the first part of the paper, we analyze the theoretical justification for restorative justice, develop the central ideal of restorative communication, and outline the public procedures required for this ideal. In this section, we describe the views held by restorative justice theorists without assessing their philosophical soundness or their empirical validity. Then we briefly turn to one case description of restorative justice, Vermont's reparative probation program. In both sections we are guided by simple questions: What is the ideal of restorative communication at the heart of theories of restorative justice? Why is such communication needed? What are its goals, exactly? What are its practical requirements? What is the function of its public, community-oriented dimensions? Our description of the goals and structure of Vermont's attempt to institute restorative communication leads, in the third section of the paper, to a more general discussion of the implications of seeing forgiveness as the central goal of criminal justice. Even if restorative justice theorists are right that forgiveness is a social good we can foster through public deliberation, just how important is this good? Is forgiveness in tension with other goods we wish to pursue through the criminal justice system? We believe that we should announce our objectives up front. Restorative justice is a multifaceted critique of mainstream criminal justice theory and practice, a critique with which we are partly sympathetic. Further, we see the ideal of restorative communication, and especially the goal of greater public participation in criminal justice administration, as rich theoretically and worthy of more empirical study. Our analysis and case description are meant to help focus such empirical assessment of restorative justice programs. Nonetheless, we are inclined to be quite skeptical as to whether the criminal justice system should seek to place forgiveness and restoration ahead of other objectives. …

Research Article
2
10.24269/ls.v7i2.7315

UNIFIKASI REGULASI KEADILAN RESTORATIF MELALUI SISTEM PERADILAN PIDANA INDONESIA

Jul 10, 2023
Legal Standing : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum
Ahmad Jamaludin + 1 more

Internationally, restorative justice resonates most in and out of the criminal justice system. The justice system's slow pace has led to a backlog of cases at law enforcement agencies and prison overcrowding in Indonesia. This study seeks to understand Indonesia's restorative justice practices at all law enforcement levels. This study used normative juridical research, which included comparative, conceptual, and statutory approaches. Based on their binding force, primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials are used in this research. The data was analyzed descriptively and qualitatively. The results showed that Indonesia's restorative justice rules are based on the Circular Letter of the Chief of the Indonesian National Police, the Regulation of the Chief, and the Decree of the Director General of the General Justice Office of the Supreme Court, which differ in the scope of criminal offenses that can be subject to restorative justice. This could lead to inconsistencies in its application. However, the mechanism for implementing a restorative justice-based criminal justice system should be unified and partially codified in legislation, such as government regulations strengthened by several provisions in the draft Criminal Procedure Code.

Research Article
2
10.30606/joja.v1i01.1156

Kebijakan Sistem Pemidanaan Dalam Upaya Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Anak Sebagai Pelaku Tindak Pidana

Jan 6, 2022
Journal Of Juridische Analyse
Rise Karmilia + 1 more

The policy of the criminal justice system based on the Diversion and Restorative Justice criminal justice system has been regulated in Law no. 11 of 2012 concerning the Juvenile Criminal Justice System (UU SPPA) prioritizes peace over the formal legal process. The essential changes include the use of a Restorative Justice approach through a diversion system. The purpose of this paper is to analyze and describe the implementation of the policy of the criminal system through restorative justice in Indonesia, especially related to the process of resolving criminal cases and to find out the legal efforts of rehabilitation through community mentors to foster children as perpetrators of criminal acts. This research is included as a normative legal research research using a study approach that examines the problems to be discussed using legal regulations in the form of secondary data (primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials). The analysis was carried out qualitatively and the discussion of the problem formulation using library research. This legal facility aims to anticipate the stigma caused when a child is in conflict with the law, as well as to restore and re-socialize the child. One solution is to divert or place the perpetrators of child crimes out of the criminal justice system and provide an alternative for settlement with a restorative justice approach with assistance carried out by community coaches.

Book Chapter
4
10.1007/978-3-319-48535-5_11

Negotiating Restorative and Retributive Justice in Access to Justice for Survivors of Sexual and Gender Based Violence in Post-conflict Northern Uganda

Jan 1, 2017
Paul Bukuluki + 4 more

This paper is based on research carried out in Northern Uganda on the negotiation between retributive and restorative justice in conflict transformation. The findings show that in the daily lives of survivors of sexual and gender based violence (SGBV) in post-conflict northern Uganda, retributive and restorative justice systems are not used as mutually exclusive mechanisms for seeking justice. Rather, they are constantly negotiated. Children and other stakeholders in post-conflict settings pragmatically choose to apply aspects of each justice system to serve their own goals. In the real life experience of these survivors and their families, the two systems are interconnected and interdependent. Their boundaries, therefore, seem to be porous; “places of meeting and exchange rather than walls of protection against each other”(Jordan J, Hartling L, New developments in relational-cultural theory. In: Ballou M, Brown L(eds) Rethinking mental health and disorder. Guilford Press, New York, 2002: 8). In the daily lives of children and their caretakers in post-conflict settings, it is a fallacy to imagine that retributive and restorative justice systems are working independent of each other. In other words, when each system operates independent of the other, it becomes incomplete as an explanatory model for justice in the context of the survivors and their families. This chapter demonstrates how people, especially survivors of SGBV and their families in Northern Uganda, negotiate between retributive and restorative justice in an effort to access justice. This chapter further explores whether an ingenious hybrid of retributive and restorative justice can creatively contribute to the achievement of justice for the survivors and their families. It also explores the extent to which the process of negotiating between the two justice systems may create space for impunity. The chapter concludes that although nurturing a hybrid justice system creates opportunities for participation and ownership of processes and outcomes by the victims/survivors and perpetrators of atrocities and their families, care must be taken to ensure that the best interests of the survivors and their rights are not compromised.

Research Article
2
10.7565/ssp.v4.5231

Restorative and Transformative Justice Responses to Sexual Violence

Jan 26, 2021
Social Science Protocols
Jelena Todic + 2 more

Background: #MeToo movement raised the profiles of restorative justice (RJ) and transformative justice (TJ) in the United States (US) as approaches to repairing harm resulting from sexual violence that center survivors’ needs and emphasize meaningful accountability for persons responsible for harm. This focus on RJ and TJ as viable approaches to sexual violence represents a departure from carceral interventions, which has dominated the US public discourse for decades. Given the shift, mapping the current state of knowledge is critical for practice, policy and research. This scoping review aims to map the available literature to provide an overview of RJ and TJ as responses to sexual violence. Methods/Design: The proposed scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Joana Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews (Peters, Godfrey-Smith, & Mcinerney, 2017). The concept of interest is the use of RJ and TJ as responses to sexual violence. This scoping review will include both peer-reviewed and grey literature. We will employ a standardized extraction form and represent the data using a descriptive summary, charts and tables that align with the stated objectives. Discussion: Since the #MeToo movement emerged in 2017, public interest in RJ and TJ as meaningful responses to sexual violence has grown. This comprehensive scoping review will systematically organize the literature in order to understand the current landscape of evidence related to these approaches. Given the transformative potential of these interventions, past controversies, and current public interest in the approaches, understanding the current state of knowledge is critical for practice, policy and research.

Save Important notes in documents

Highlight text to save as a note, or write notes directly

You can also access these Documents in Paperpal, our AI writing tool