Restorative justice around the world and in cases of mass victimisation (original) (raw)
Dimensions of Restorative Justice
Journal of Social Issues, 2006
Restorative justice proponents tend to focus their attention on criminal justice initiatives in a small number of developed countries, but restorative processes (which encourage citizens to negotiate among themselves, rather than rely on professionals to adjudicate), and restorative values (which emphasize the importance of repairing and preventing harm), can be found across a wide range of regulatory fields. Teachers, social workers, corporate regulators, civil mediators, members of truth commissions, diplomats, and peacekeepers all—at least some of the time—practice a variety of restorative justice. Consideration of these often‐neglected examples can help refine current restorative justice theory and practice, which in turn has insights to offer practitioners and researchers in these fields.
the fundamentals of restorative justice
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE is conceived of in this essay as a process in which all the stakeholders affected by an injustice have the opportunity to discuss the consequences of the injustice and what might be done to put them right. This is a process conception of restorative justice by which what is to be restored is left open. Rather, the form of restoration of victims, of offenders and of communities that count are those found to be important in such a restorative justice process. Beyond the process conception, there is also a values conception of restorative justice. The key value is that because injustice hurts, justice should heal. Responding to pain with 'another spoonful of pain' 1 is seen as a less satisfactory response than responding with healing or repair. A reason is that hurt tends to beget hurt, creating a vicious spiral of retribution and feuding. Alternatively, it is possible to flip this dynamic into one of healing begetting healing — a virtuous circle. I have argued that the key value of restorative justice is non-domination. 2 The active part of this value is empowerment. Empowerment means preventing the state from 'stealing conflicts' 3 from people who want to hang on to those conflicts and learn from working them through in their own way. Empowerment should trump other restorative justice values like forgiveness, healing and apology, important as they are. This means that if stakeholders in
Internet Journal of Restorative Justice, 2018
The editor of The Internet Journal of Restorative Justice, Professor Theo Gavrielides, is pleased to announce the publication of a Special Issue in 2018 of the Internet Journal of Restorative Justice on “Restorative Justice and Complex Cases”. Despite lack of formal national and international strategies for the use of restorative justice in many jurisdictions worldwide, we have witnessed a global push for further integration of restorative practices with complex crimes. For example, remarkably, the Province of Nova Scotia in Canada has developed a restorative justice programme for adults and young offenders and advocated for the use of the process in the context of serious crimes when appropriate. In Australia, the ACT’s restorative justice programme has been extended to provide support for victims of family violence and sexual assault. The readiness and suitability of restorative justice in cases of complex and serious crimes remain largely unexplored and in-depth research is required. The identification and involvement of stakeholders is imperative. Particularly, research on the identification and involvement of stakeholders; the entitlement of stakeholders of complex and serious offences; the stage of the criminal justice system at which restorative justice processes and how sentences are distributed; the conditions at which restorative justice would be advantageous to all parties; and clarity on the consistent application of theoretical frameworks of restorative justice, among other issues, are key for further integration of restorative justice for complex and serious crimes.
Restorative Justice: What Is It and Does It Work?
Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 2007
This article reviews the now extensive literature on the varied arenas in which restorative justice is theorized and practiced-criminal violations, community ruptures and disputes, civil wars, regime change, human rights violations, and international law. It also reviews-by examining empirical studies of the processes in different settingshow restorative justice has been criticized, what its limitations and achievements might be, and how it might be understood. I explore the foundational concepts of reintegrative shaming, acknowledgment and responsibility, restitution, truth and reconciliation, and sentencing or healing circles for their transformative and theoretical potentials and for their actual practices in a variety of locationsfamily abuse, juvenile delinquency, criminal violations, problemsolving courts, indigenous-colonial-national disputes, ethnic and religious conflicts, civil wars, and liberation struggles. Restorative justice, which began as an alternative model of criminal justice, seeking healing and reconciliation for offenders, victims, and the communities in which they are embedded, has moved into larger national and international arenas of reintegration in political and ethnic conflicts. This review suggests that there are important and serious questions about whether restorative justice should be supplemental or substitutional of more conventional legal processes and about how its innovations suggest potentially transformative and challenging ideas and "moves" for dealing with both individual and group transgressive conduct, seeking peace as well as justice.
Theo Gavrielides (ed.), Comparative restorative justice
The international journal of restorative justice, 2023
Comparative restorative justice is a wide-ranging collection of contributions from a global cast of 26 restorative justice practitioners and theorists. These entries are preceded by extensive introductory material from several authors, including the editor, which provides background material and suggests how the book should be approached. Nelken proffers that any comparative research clarifies by classification, description, explanation, interpretation and evaluation, and Comparative restorative justice accomplishes all of this and more. Through 14 chapters which cover 32 countries and examine forms of restorative justice from the pre-colonial era through the age of COVID-19, the book considers how restorative justice and restorative practices have attempted to find new ways of addressing the problem of crime and, more broadly, human conflict, throughout the world. The chapters provide a good balance between countries in the global north and global south, without excessive focus on restorative justice's usual suspects, such as Australia, Great Britain, and Canada. Pakes aptly comments that the book 'makes a terrific contribution' to the 'project to de-Westernise and de-colonise practices, cultures and minds', and this is, in fact, a recurrent theme throughout the book (vi). Gavrielides' excellent preface provides significant guidance, suggesting that comparative restorative justice should consider how 'structured and unstructured justice systems' should address violations 'of the social liaison that binds communities together' (10). In evaluating restorative justice, he argues, we must view Nelken's three pillars of comparative criminal justice-crime problems, institutions and people-through the lens of restorative justice and its 'historical and philosophical frameworks' (3). He identifies six fault lines in the theory and practice of restorative justice: restorative justice's relationship with the criminal justice system, the position of restorative justice within the criminal justice system, whether restorative justice should be viewed as a process or as an outcome, the identity of the stakeholders, whether restorative justice is an alternative to punishment or an alternative punishment, and which restorative justice principles are essential. Gavrielides concludes that these fault lines are 'merely variations of the rich and diverse restorative justice practice and concept', and the book supports this thesis (10). The main body of the book is divided into three sections. Comparing restorative justice in its implementing environments seeks to view restorative justice comparatively in relation to its cultural, political, philosophical, historical or societal environment. The section contains six chapters, two addressing more theoretical and philosophical aspects of restorative justice, three examining the development of restorative justice in Tanzania, Albania, Scotland and Canada during times of political and social change, and the last addressing the challenge of implementing restorative justice in a virtual environment during COVID-19. Pavlich's chapter on Rethinking accusation stands out, suggesting that restorative * MaryJean Glick is a Master student at IIRP and has been an appellate public defender in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, USA for over 25 years.