Restoration, Shame, and the Future of Restorative Practice in U.S. Juvenile Justice

Abstract

AbstractRestorative justice and reintegrative shaming theory became prominent on the North American juvenile justice scene in the mid- to late 1990s. This article considers the impact of Braithwaite's macro theory of reintegrative shaming and also the larger strengths and weaknesses of the restorative justice movement on juvenile justice policy, practice, and research. To move forward in the United States, restorative justice, as an evidence-based practice, must be viewed as a mainstream, problem-oriented intervention capable of responding effectively to a range of chronic juvenile justice and community concerns. Currently, widespread implementation of restorative policies and practices in U.S. juvenile justice appears to be limited by the absence of a legislative mandate or incentives for presumptive referral to restorative programs; the political role of elected prosecutors in justice decision-making; and an unshakeable commitment to punishment and maximum use of adversarial and quasi-adversarial dispositional decision-making at the expense of informal decision-making.