Restorative Justice

Restitution with input from victims and offenders

Restorative justice, in the realm of criminology and penology , is a philosophy and a set of practices designed not merely to punish but to actively repair the harm caused by crime or violence. It’s a distinct approach, not to be confused with harm reduction or transformative justice , though it shares some overlapping principles. At its core, restorative justice seeks to bring together those who have been harmed—the victims—and those who have caused the harm—the offenders—to engage in a dialogue. This process is intended to foster accountability, understanding, and ultimately, healing.

Theory

The theoretical underpinnings of restorative justice draw from various schools of thought within criminology . It’s informed by concepts such as anomie , which explores societal breakdown and its relation to deviance; biosocial criminology , which considers biological and social factors in criminal behavior; and the broken windows theory , suggesting that visible signs of crime, anti-social behavior, and disorder—like broken windows—create an urban environment that encourages further crime. The idea of collective efficacy , the ability of a community to maintain order in public spaces, is also relevant, as restorative justice aims to strengthen community bonds.

Crime analysis and the processes of criminalization are examined through a restorative lens, seeking to understand the root causes rather than just the symptoms. Differential association theory, which posits that criminal behavior is learned, and the broader concept of deviance , are considered in understanding offender motivations. The expressive function of law , which suggests laws communicate societal values, plays a role in how restorative justice frames justice. Labeling theory is particularly relevant, as restorative justice seeks to avoid the negative consequences of labeling individuals as criminals.

Psychopathy , rational choice in decision-making, and risk and actuarial criminology are all areas that restorative justice practitioners might consider when working with offenders. It also engages with social control and social learning theories to understand how individuals are influenced by social structures and interactions. Strain theory and subcultural theory offer insights into why individuals might turn to crime. Symbolic interactionism helps in understanding how meanings and identities are constructed through social interactions, which is crucial in dialogue-based justice.

Finally, victimology is central to restorative justice, focusing on the experiences of those harmed. This includes understanding secondary victimisation , where victims are further harmed by the justice system or societal reactions, and challenging the harmful practice of victim blaming .

Types of crime

Restorative justice can be applied across a wide spectrum of offenses, from those against persons to state offenses, and encompassing blue-collar and white-collar crimes. It offers a framework for addressing cold cases , while also acknowledging that a perfect crime is a theoretical construct. It can be used for corporate and safety violations, as well as for hate crimes , immigrant -related offenses, and international transgressions. Juvenile delinquency , organized crime , political crime , and public-order crime are all areas where restorative principles can be applied. It also addresses historical injustices like slavery , state crime , and state-corporate crime , as well as transnational crime . While victimless crimes are often debated, restorative approaches can still explore the societal harm caused. Even in the context of war crimes , restorative principles, though challenging, can inform processes of reconciliation.

Methods

The methods employed within restorative justice are diverse and often tailored to specific contexts. They can include comparative and qualitative approaches to understanding crime, as well as ethnography to gain deeper insights into community dynamics. Crime analysis and crime mapping can inform restorative interventions. The movement is also intertwined with calls for criminal justice reform and sentencing reform . Data from Uniform Crime Reports and the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) , managed by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) , provide statistical context for understanding crime trends that restorative justice seeks to address. The positivist school of criminology, with its emphasis on scientific methods, can be seen as a precursor to some of the empirical research conducted in restorative justice, utilizing quantitative data alongside qualitative insights.

Penology

In penology , restorative justice offers an alternative to purely punitive approaches. While traditional penology focuses on punishment , deterrence , incapacitation , and rehabilitation , restorative justice emphasizes repairing harm and reintegrating individuals. It complements concepts like denunciation by seeking to publicly affirm societal values through dialogue rather than solely through punishment. It aims to reduce recidivism not just through incapacitation or deterrence, but by addressing the underlying causes of offending and fostering genuine accountability. The ideals of crime prevention are pursued through strengthening relationships and community bonds. Practices like zero tolerance are often seen as antithetical to the relational and dialogical approach of restorative justice.

Criminal justice

Restorative justice is a significant component of criminal justice , often positioned alongside or as an alternative to retributive justice . It is a form of participatory justice, empowering victims and offenders to take an active role in the process. While transformative justice aims for more radical societal change, restorative justice focuses on repairing specific harms. It aligns with the right to an effective remedy for victims. The broader concept of justice is re-examined, moving beyond purely punitive or utilitarian frameworks. Restorative justice principles are also relevant to discussions on prison abolition and prison reform , advocating for more humane and effective approaches to dealing with harm. Ensuring prisoners’ rights and victims’ rights are paramount, and restorative justice seeks to address issues like prison violence , prisoner abuse , prison rape , prisoner suicide , and death in custody by fostering a culture of accountability and respect.

Schools

Restorative justice intersects with various schools of criminological thought. It can be seen as a critique of purely punitive systems, finding common ground with anarchist criminology in its desire to decentralize power away from the state. The Chicago school (sociology) ’s focus on urban environments and social disorganization provides context for understanding the settings where restorative justice is often applied. While the classical school (criminology) emphasized free will and deterrence, restorative justice adds the dimension of dialogue and repair. It engages with conflict criminology and critical criminology by examining power imbalances and social inequalities that contribute to crime. Environmental criminology helps understand how situational factors influence crime, which can be addressed in restorative processes. Feminist criminology and Marxist criminology highlight systemic issues of oppression and inequality, which restorative justice aims to address by centering the needs of those harmed. The Italian school of criminology focused on biological and psychological factors, while restorative justice emphasizes social and relational aspects. Neo-classical school (criminology) theories are often seen as a bridge between classical and positive approaches. Populist approaches, which often favor harsher punishments, stand in contrast to restorative ideals. The positivist school influenced the empirical study of crime, a methodology also employed in evaluating restorative justice. Postmodernist school perspectives question grand narratives and emphasize deconstruction, which can inform a nuanced understanding of harm and repair. Realism , in both its left and right forms, offers different perspectives on crime and its control, with restorative justice often aligning more with left realist concerns about community impact and right realist focus on accountability.

Subfields

Restorative justice is a subfield that draws from and contributes to others, including American Society of Criminology , anthropological criminology , biosocial criminology , conflict criminology , cultural criminology , and cybercrime . It also considers demography and development theory in understanding crime patterns and interventions. Environmental criminology and experimental criminology provide methodological frameworks. Organizational theory is relevant when implementing restorative practices within institutions. Political crime and public criminology are areas where its principles can be applied.

Definition

Restorative justice is not a monolithic entity; its definition is fluid, encompassing both a “process” and an “ethos.” Theo Gavrielides, in his work on comparative restorative justice , highlights that it’s a way of living and engaging with harm. He quotes John Braithwaite who defines it as:

…a process where all stakeholders affected by an injustice have an opportunity to discuss how they have been affected by the injustice and to decide what should be done to repair the harm. With crime, restorative justice is about the idea that because crime hurts, justice should heal. It follows that conversations with those who have been hurt and with those who have inflicted the harm must be central to the process.

This emphasizes the crucial role of dialogue and the direct involvement of those impacted. It suggests a shift from a system focused on punishment to one focused on healing. While legal professionals may play a facilitating role, the ultimate responsibility for addressing and repairing harm rests with the citizens—the victims, offenders, and the community. This fundamentally reconfigures who is responsible for justice.

Carolyn Boyes-Watson, from Suffolk University , offered a broader definition in 2014:

…a growing social movement to institutionalize peaceful approaches to harm, problem-solving and violations of legal and human rights. These range from international peacemaking tribunals such as the South Africa Truth and Reconciliation Commission to innovations within the criminal and juvenile justice systems, schools, social services and communities. Rather than privileging the law, professionals and the state, restorative resolutions engage those who are harmed, wrongdoers and their affected communities in search of solutions that promote repair, reconciliation and the rebuilding of relationships. Restorative justice seeks to build partnerships to reestablish mutual responsibility for constructive responses to wrongdoing within our communities. Restorative approaches seek a balanced approach to the needs of the victim, wrongdoer and community through processes that preserve the safety and dignity of all.

It’s important to note that while reconciliation can be a component of restorative justice, it is not a necessary outcome. The primary focus is on repairing harm and addressing needs.

Difference from other approaches

The divergence of restorative justice from traditional criminal justice systems is perhaps best illustrated by the fundamental questions each approach asks. As articulated by Howard Zehr , a leading figure in the field:

Restorative Justice asks:

• Who has been hurt?
• What are their needs?
• Whose obligations are these?
• What are the causes?
• Who has a stake in the situation?
• What is the appropriate process to involve stakeholders in an effort to address causes and put things right?

Traditional Criminal Justice, on the other hand, typically asks:

• What laws have been broken?
• Who did it?
• What do the offender(s) deserve?

This fundamental difference in inquiry highlights restorative justice’s focus on relationships, needs, and obligations, contrasting with the traditional system’s emphasis on legal infractions, guilt, and punishment. Some scholars, however, argue that certain restorative justice practices can indeed constitute a form of punishment, depending on how punishment itself is defined.

Restorative justice also stands apart from the adversarial legal process and civil litigation . As Braithwaite points out, court-annexed alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and restorative justice are philosophically distant. While ADR often focuses on legally relevant issues and protecting rights, restorative justice seeks to broaden the scope, delving into the underlying relationships and broader impacts of wrongdoing.

History

History of the term

The phrase “restorative justice” has a traceable history, with its roots appearing in written sources as early as the first half of the nineteenth century. Theo Gavrielides posits that the concept, if not the exact phrase, can be traced back to Aristotle , who discussed “restorative justice” (επανορθωτικόν δίκαιον) as a means of restoring “goods” (αγαθά) to individuals.

The modern articulation of the term is largely credited to Albert Eglash. In 1977, he described three distinct approaches to justice:

• “Retributive justice,” centered on punishment.
• “Distributive justice,” involving therapeutic interventions for offenders.
• “Restorative justice,” defined by restitution with the active participation of both victims and offenders.

Nils Christie , in his influential 1977 article “Conflict as Property,” further elaborated on the concept. Christie argued that restorative justice aims to return the ownership of conflict back to those directly affected—the victim and the offender—rather than having it appropriated by the state or legal professionals.

Precursors in indigenous groups

The principles underlying restorative justice are not entirely new and have deep roots in the practices of many Indigenous cultures worldwide. Howard Zehr has specifically highlighted the contributions of Indigenous peoples in Canada and the United States , as well as the Maori of New Zealand . He notes that restorative justice often represents a validation of values and practices that were historically marginalized or suppressed by Western colonial powers.

In New Zealand, for instance, the Maori people had a sophisticated system known as Utu predating European contact. Utu served to maintain social stability and protect individuals and the group by regulating interactions and addressing grievances. Restorative justice, often referred to as circle justice in these contexts, continues to be an integral part of many Indigenous justice systems today.

Development of theory

A pivotal moment in the development of restorative justice theory was the publication of Howard Zehr ’s book Changing Lenses–A New Focus for Crime and Justice in 1990. This work is widely regarded as groundbreaking for offering an alternative framework for understanding crime and justice. Zehr contrasted the traditional “retributive justice” model, where crime is seen as a violation of the state, with the restorative justice model, where crime is viewed as a violation of people and relationships. The book also drew upon the successes of victim–offender mediation initiatives that had emerged in the late 1970s and 1980s, pioneered by figures like Zehr himself, Ron Claassen, and Mark Umbreit.

By the mid-1990s, the term “restorative justice” had gained significant traction, becoming widely used by 2006. The restorative justice movement attracted a diverse array of participants, including law enforcement officers, judges, educators, politicians, juvenile justice professionals, victim support groups, Indigenous elders, and ordinary citizens.

The theoretical discourse has been further enriched by scholars like Don John Omale, an African expert who argues for the integration of social-psychological theories and Afrocentric principles into restorative justice. Legal philosopher Theo Gavrielides has also contributed significantly, questioning the normative justification of restorative justice and proposing the concept of “restorative justice pain” as a form of punishment. He argues for a more robust philosophical framework to underpin its practices, a sentiment echoed by Hon Sir Anthony Mason , who expressed concerns about the limited philosophical grounding of restorative justice.

Development of practice

The practical implementation of restorative justice has seen substantial growth, particularly in North America. Non-governmental organizations such as the Victim Offender Mediation Association have been instrumental in promoting this approach. Academic institutions have also played a crucial role, establishing centers dedicated to restorative justice, including the Center for Justice and Peacebuilding at Eastern Mennonite University , the Center for Restorative Justice and Peacemaking at the University of Minnesota , and others.

Early proponents, notably members of the Mennonite community and their social-action arm, the Mennonite Central Committee , were key in advocating for restorative justice. Their commitment to principled pacifism and a belief in more humane alternatives to punitive systems fueled its early development.

In continental Europe, particularly in German-speaking countries, the development of restorative justice has followed a slightly different trajectory. While victim–offender mediation is a prominent model, the broader application of restorative justice is gaining ground. Some scholars suggest that restorative justice is evolving from a theoretical concept into a more practice-oriented approach, sometimes referred to as “restorative practice.”

In a significant development, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted a recommendation in October 2018 encouraging member states to develop and utilize restorative justice within their criminal justice systems, acknowledging its potential benefits.

Application

Restorative justice is finding application both within and outside the formal criminal justice system, demonstrating its adaptability and broad appeal.

In criminal cases

Within the criminal justice system, restorative justice practices can be integrated at various stages. This includes police and prosecution interventions, sentencing recommendations, and court proceedings. It can also be employed within correctional facilities during prison stays and post-release through probation services.

When applied to criminal cases, victims are provided a platform to articulate the impact of the crime on their lives, seek answers to their questions, and actively participate in holding offenders accountable. Simultaneously, offenders are given the opportunity to explain the circumstances that led to the offense and to express how it has affected them. A key element is the possibility for offenders to make amends directly to the victim, which can take various forms, including financial restitution, community service (either general or specific to the offense), educational programs aimed at preventing future harm, and sincere expressions of remorse.

In some instances, restorative justice processes can lead to pretrial diversion programs, where charges may be dismissed upon successful completion of restitution or other restorative agreements. In more serious cases, restorative justice principles might inform sentencing recommendations, even after a conviction.

In community-based settings, restorative justice involves bringing together concerned individuals with the victim and offender to collectively assess the experience and impact of the crime. Offenders are encouraged to listen to victims’ accounts, fostering empathy and understanding. They then share their own perspectives on their actions. The group collaboratively develops a plan for preventing future harm and addressing the damage caused. Community members then play a role in holding the offender accountable for fulfilling this plan.

While direct encounters between victim and offender are common, some organizations, such as the Mennonite Central Committee Canada, emphasize the underlying values of restorative justice, which can extend to programs that support victims or offenders independently, provided they operate within a restorative framework. Indigenous communities have notably utilized restorative justice processes to enhance community support for both victims and offenders, particularly among young people. Examples of such initiatives can be found in places like Kahnawake , a Mohawk reserve in Canada, and the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation of the Oglala Lakota nation in the United States.

In prisons

Beyond serving as an alternative to formal legal proceedings, restorative justice holds potential for application within correctional facilities. The objective is to aid in the rehabilitation of incarcerated individuals and facilitate their eventual reintegration into society. By focusing on repairing the harm to relationships—between offenders and victims, and between offenders and the broader community—restorative justice seeks to address the circumstances that contributed to the crime. The underlying belief is that this process can reduce recidivism , the likelihood of an offender repeating undesirable behavior.

Research into restorative reentry planning circles in Hawai’i, for example, has shown promise in helping children cope with the trauma of having an incarcerated parent. The potential of restorative justice to lower recidivism rates is a significant argument for its use in prisons. However, theoretical and practical challenges can make its implementation within a prison environment difficult.

Despite these challenges, restorative justice has been implemented in prisons. A notable example is The Sycamore Tree Project (STP), which began in Texas in 1998. This program brought surrogate victims and offenders together to discuss the impact of crime. Since its inception, STP has been replicated internationally through Prison Fellowship International, with projects established in New Zealand, the UK, and Australia.

Obstacles to implementing restorative justice in prisons include difficulties in engaging both offenders and victims in mediation, the complex influence of external support networks like family and community, and the prevalence of mental health issues among prisoners.

In social work

Restorative justice principles can also be applied within social work contexts. For instance, in cases involving foster children or other vulnerable individuals in state care, restorative processes can empower them to articulate their aspirations and collaboratively develop plans for transitioning out of state custody, involving their support systems. In broader social justice initiatives, restorative justice serves as a problem-solving methodology.

In schools

Restorative justice has been adopted by numerous schools as an alternative to traditional disciplinary measures. This approach often mirrors the principles used in the criminal justice system, but adapted for an educational environment. Restorative practices can encompass preventive measures aimed at building positive skills and capacities in both students and staff. Examples include teachers and students collaboratively developing classroom expectations or engaging in community-building activities.

Restorative justice in schools redefines justice as meeting needs and fulfilling obligations. It emphasizes dialogue between offenders, victims, and the school community, and frames accountability as understanding the impact of actions and actively repairing harm. Through this approach, agreements can be reached to address the needs of all stakeholders. The emphasis on collectivity means the group works together to create an action plan for healing and for reintegrating the offender into the community.

While restorative justice programs prioritize making the victim(s) whole, they also offer the benefit of reducing disciplinary actions such as suspensions and expulsions. This leads to fewer reported disciplinary incidents and more effective rehabilitative or reconciliatory outcomes, such as writing apology letters, performing community service, or, in cases of bullying, researching and presenting on the negative effects of such behavior.

Methods

Restorative justice recommends methods that hold perpetrators accountable while ensuring victims have a voice. A central practice is the voluntary meeting between the offender and the victim, often facilitated by trained professionals. A 2013 Cochrane review noted that in these conferences, the victim is encouraged to attend but is not obligated, and may even be represented by another party. Alternatives to direct victim-offender meetings exist, such as reading victim impact statements, which still hold the perpetrator accountable and aim to reduce the risk of further harm or revictimization. These meetings can also include representatives from the wider community.

Several reasons are suggested for the effectiveness of these methods:

• The offender directly learns about the harm caused to the victim, making it difficult to rationalize their behavior.
• It provides an opportunity for offenders to discuss moral development, particularly if they have had limited exposure to such discussions.
• Offenders are more likely to perceive their imposed consequences as legitimate.
• These programs generally aim to avoid shaming and stigmatizing the offender.

Many restorative justice systems, particularly those involving victim–offender mediation and family group conferencing, require participants to sign a confidentiality agreement . This agreement typically stipulates that discussions within the conference will not be shared with non-participants, with the rationale that confidentiality fosters open and honest communication.

Victim–offender dialogue

Victim–offender dialogue (VOD), also known as victim–offender mediation , victim–offender conferencing, victim–offender reconciliation, or restorative justice dialogue, typically involves a meeting between the victim and the offender, facilitated by one or two trained facilitators. This process generally involves a limited number of participants and is often the only restorative option available to incarcerated offenders. VOD has its origins in Canada, stemming from an alternative court sanction in a 1974 case in Kitchener, Ontario , where two individuals accused of vandalism met face-to-face with their numerous victims. One of the earliest victim–offender mediation projects in the United Kingdom was initiated by the South Yorkshire Probation Service between 1983 and 1986.

A notable case in Manhattan in May 2018 involved an 87-year-old man who died after being assaulted while using an ATM. The initial proposal was to charge the attacker with felony murder , a charge carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. However, an Assistant Manhattan District Attorney suggested using restorative justice principles to reduce the charge to manslaughter , which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years. This reduction was contingent on two conditions: the suspect agreeing to participate in a 90-minute conversation with the victim’s family, and the family agreeing to the reduced charge. Both conditions were met, and the suspect was subsequently charged with manslaughter.

Family group conferencing

Family group conferencing (FGC) involves a broader circle of participants than VOD, extending to individuals connected to the primary parties, such as family members, friends, and professionals involved in their lives. FGC is most frequently employed in juvenile cases, recognizing the significant role of family in a young offender’s development and rehabilitation. Examples of FGC implementation can be found in New South Wales , Australia , under the 1997 Young Offenders Act, and in New Zealand under the 1989 Children, Young Persons, and their Families Act. The FGC scheme in New South Wales has received positive evaluations from the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.

Fiji utilizes this form of mediation in cases of child sexual assault. While involving the victim’s family can be beneficial, it presents unique challenges. A significant proportion of offenders are known to the victims in these cases. In the Fijian cultural context, the concept of family extends far beyond the typical Western understanding, potentially complicating the process. Families may not always align with the victim’s perspective, and the process itself could create internal rifts within the clan. Furthermore, the current approach places considerable emphasis on the victim forgiving the offender, rather than solely on the offender making amends. Consequently, the process carries the risk of causing significant trauma and revictimizing the victim.

Restorative conferences

Restorative conferences (RC) involve an even wider array of participants than VOD and FGC. These community-based meetings can go by various names and operate under different procedures, including Restorative Circles, Restorative Justice Conferences, Community Restorative Boards, or Community Accountability Conferences. Specific programs may have unique designations, such as Community Justice Committees in Canada or Referral Order Panels in England & Wales. The term Restorative Circles is used for restorative justice conferences in Brazil and Hawaii , though it can carry a broader meaning within the field of restorative practices .

A typical conference includes the victim, the offender, and members of the local community, who have usually undergone some form of training. Family members and friends of both the victim and offender are frequently invited. RC is explicitly designed to be victim-sensitive. Community members engage in discussions about the nature and impact of the offense with the offender. These discussions continue until a consensus is reached on restitution, and sometimes include mechanisms for ensuring the agreement is fulfilled.

The largest restorative justice conference on record occurred during the 1990 reconciliation campaign aimed at ending blood feuds among ethnic Albanians in Kosovo . This event was attended by an estimated 100,000 to 500,000 participants. The campaign, led by Anton Çetta , involved approximately one-third of Kosovo’s entire population over a three-year period (1990–1992) in restorative justice conferences to resolve long-standing feuds.

Circles of Support and Accountability

Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA) originated as a project of “Welcome In,” a Mennonite church in Hamilton, Ontario . This approach has demonstrated significant success in facilitating the safe reintegration of high-risk sex offenders into their communities. In Canada, some sex offenders are deemed too dangerous for any form of conditional release and are held in detention until their sentences are served. Subsequent convictions can lead to designation as a “Dangerous Offender.”

Before 1994, many such offenders were released with minimal support or oversight beyond police surveillance. Between 1994 and 2007, CoSA assisted in the integration of over 120 high-risk offenders. Research indicated that surrounding a “core member” with a team of 5–7 trained volunteer circle members reduced recidivism by nearly 80%. Furthermore, when reoffending did occur, the offenses were less invasive and less severe than in cases without the program. CoSA projects are now established in every Canadian province and major urban center, as well as in several U.S. states and various regions of the United Kingdom.

Sentencing circles

Sentencing circles utilize traditional circle rituals and structures to involve all interested parties in the justice process. The procedure typically involves the offender applying for the intervention, followed by a healing circle for the victim, a healing circle for the offender, a sentencing circle, and finally, follow-up circles to monitor progress.

Other social movements

Positive criminology and positive victimology

Positive criminology and positive victimology, developed by Israeli criminologist Natti Ronel and his research team, are closely aligned with restorative justice theories and practices. These approaches emphasize social inclusion and the unification of constructive forces at individual, group, social, and spiritual levels to mitigate crime and aid in recovery from victimization. In contrast to traditional approaches that often focus on the negative aspects of crime and deviance, positive criminology and victimology propose a viable alternative based on social integration, emotional healing, and spirituality as indicators of positive development.

Prison abolition

Prison abolition calls not only for the dismantling of prisons but also for the development of new perspectives and methodologies for conceptualizing crime, a goal shared with restorative justice. In an abolitionist model of restorative justice, participation is voluntary and not dictated by organizational or professional mandates. The process includes all relevant stakeholders and is facilitated by an independent third party, with a strong emphasis on meeting community needs and strengthening community bonds.

Research

Studies on restorative justice generally report positive outcomes, though the self-selecting nature of participants in many restorative justice projects can temper the generalizability of these findings.

A 2007 meta-study analyzing restorative justice conferencing research published in English between 1986 and 2005 indicated positive results, particularly for victims. These included:

• Enhanced ability to return to work, resume daily activities, and sleep better.
• Absence of cases where offenders verbally or violently abused victims.
• Reduced fear of the offender (especially for victims of violence), a lower perceived likelihood of reoffending, increased sense of security, diminished anger towards the offender, greater sympathy for the offender and their supporters, increased trust in others, enhanced self-confidence, and reduced anxiety.

However, a 2002 meta-review focusing on victim experiences concluded that there was no conclusive evidence that victims were more satisfied with restorative justice compared to traditional justice systems.

While the principle of restorative justice places victims at the center, research suggests that in practice, these programs can sometimes become offender-focused, potentially minimizing the needs and experiences of victims. Some victims have reported that offenders’ apologies felt disingenuous or that their experiences and emotions were invalidated. A minority of victims in other studies reported feeling pressured to forgive the offender, downplay their emotions, or expedite the restorative justice process.

In July 2011, the International Center for Transitional Justice released a report detailing the demands of Kenyan victims of human rights violations following the country’s 2007 post-election violence. The report, based on interviews with victims, highlighted the paramount importance of a victim-centered approach to reparations, emphasizing the need for tangible benefits lost due to violence, such as food and shelter, alongside symbolic reparations like formal apologies. The provision of reparations is seen as a means of restoring normalcy and signaling societal progress through institutional change.

The COREPOL Project (Conflict Resolution, Mediation and Restorative Justice and the Policing of Ethnic Minorities in Germany, Austria and Hungary) is researching the impact of restorative justice programs in these countries, aiming to determine if they can foster improved relations between the police and minority groups. The project involves analyzing the extent and role of existing restorative justice programs and examining the position of specific minority populations within these societies. It also investigates the involvement of the police in restorative justice programs for minority communities, with the goal of identifying ways restorative justice can enhance communication and interaction. The study focuses on countries with civil law systems, contrasting with the common law systems prevalent in English-speaking nations. COREPOL is coordinated by the German Police University and funded by the European Commission’s Seventh Framework Program (FP7).

Recidivism

The reduction of recidivism is a stated goal of restorative justice, though proponents often prioritize the restoration of offenders and victims. Advocates argue that restorative justice can prevent reoffending and deter others, while critics contend that its impact on overall crime rates is not significant.

While some earlier studies yielded mixed results, by 2013, comparative studies on recidivism rates had become more definitive, generally favoring restorative justice approaches. Some studies reported modest, relative reductions in reoffending, while more recent research has indicated significant and meaningful decreases.

A 1998 meta-analysis by Bonta et al. found that restorative justice programs were associated with mild reductions in reoffending rates. A subsequent meta-analysis by Latimer, Dowden, and Muise provided a more precise definition and addressed potential publication bias by including studies that might otherwise have been excluded. This analysis offered empirical support for the effectiveness of restorative justice in lowering recidivism and increasing compliance and satisfaction rates. However, the authors cautioned about the prevalence of self-selection bias in most studies, noting that some research found no evidence of a treatment effect beyond this bias.

A third meta-analysis, conducted by Bradshaw, Roseborough, and Umbreit in 2006, added further empirical support for the effectiveness of restorative justice in reducing juvenile recidivism. Subsequent studies by Baffour (2006) and Rodriguez (2007) also concluded that restorative justice leads to reduced recidivism compared to traditional justice systems. Bergseth (2007) and Bouffard (2012) corroborated these findings, suggesting potential long-term effects and noting that restorative justice may be more effective with serious crimes, with participants less likely to commit serious offenses if they re-offend, and with longer intervals between offenses. These studies consistently found that restorative justice’s effectiveness was not influenced by race.

In 2007, Lawrence W. Sherman and Heather Strang reviewed existing literature and concluded that restorative justice is at least as effective as the traditional justice system in all cases and, particularly for more serious offenses and adult offenders, significantly more effective in lowering recidivism. They also found that it reduced crime victims’ post-traumatic stress symptoms, associated costs, and desires for revenge. Furthermore, both victims and offenders reported higher satisfaction with justice outcomes, and the overall process proved to be cost-effective.

However, a 2013 meta-analysis by the Cochrane Collaboration examining the effect of youth justice conferencing on recidivism in young offenders found no significant difference compared to standard court procedures in terms of re-arrest rates or monthly reoffending rates. The review also highlighted a lack of high-quality evidence regarding the effectiveness of restorative justice conferencing for young offenders.

A 2023 meta-analysis indicated that restorative justice programs were associated with small but significant reductions in general recidivism, though not specifically violent recidivism. The analysis also found greater victim and client satisfaction, improved perceptions of procedural justice among victims, and increased client accountability compared to traditional legal approaches. The study identified significant moderators—including sample characteristics, study design, and program specifics—that influenced the outcomes of restorative justice in reducing recidivism.

Criticism

Restorative justice has faced criticism, particularly regarding its effectiveness in reducing recidivism rates for violent crimes. Allison Morris outlines common criticisms, including:

• Restorative justice erodes legal rights.
• It results in net-widening, bringing more individuals into the justice system.
• It trivializes crime, especially men’s violence against women .
• It fails to truly “restore” victims and offenders.
• It is ineffective in achieving real change and preventing recidivism.
• It can lead to discriminatory outcomes.
• It extends police powers.
• It leaves existing power imbalances untouched.
• It may lead to vigilantism .
• It lacks legitimacy.
• Ultimately, it fails to provide “justice.”

Another critique suggests that professionals are often excluded from restorative justice discussions. Albert W. Dzur and Susan M. Olson argue that the success of restorative justice is dependent on professional involvement, proposing a model of “democratic professionalism” where professionals act as facilitators and protectors of individual rights while promoting community engagement.

Critics like Gregory Shank and Paul Takagi view restorative justice as an incomplete model because it fails to address fundamental, structural inequalities that contribute to crime. They advocate for addressing the root causes of offenses and creating a socio-economic system that promotes healthier living.

Research into the validity of restorative justice in schools also points to a need for more investigation into implementation methods. Inconsistent or underfunded restorative justice practices tend to yield poorer results. While many studies support positive findings, ongoing research is essential.

Some judicial systems only recognize monetary restitution. For example, if an offender agrees to pay a sum of money and perform community service, only the monetary component might be legally recognized. Some agreements specify a higher monetary amount if non-monetary restitution is not completed. Many jurisdictions cap the amount a juvenile offender can be required to pay, and labor regulations may limit the personal service tasks minors can perform. Parental approval is often required for such services. According to the Victim Offender Mediation Association, victims are generally not permitted to profit from restitution or punitive damages ; only out-of-pocket losses or actual damages can be recovered. Courts can also disallow unreasonable compensation arrangements.

Both victims and offenders may be hesitant to engage in victim–offender dialogue later in the criminal justice process. An offender serving a sentence might feel that the sentence itself is their form of accountability, diminishing the perceived need for dialogue. For victims, the trial and sentencing process may also bring a sense of finality, limiting opportunities for further discussion. A fundamental limitation for both parties in victim–offender dialogue is the inherent lack of trust that often exists.

In the media

Studies by Kelly M. Richards suggest that the general public is open to alternative forms of justice, provided the concepts are clearly explained. Vicky De Mesmaecker’s research indicates that for restorative justice to gain public acceptance, effective collaboration between the media and criminologists is crucial.

The use of forgiveness as a tool in restorative justice programs for victims and perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide , the Israeli–Palestinian conflict , and the Northern Ireland conflict has been documented in film, such as Beyond Right and Wrong: Stories of Justice and Forgiveness (2012). A tribal form of restorative justice is depicted in Ben Mikaelsen’s book Touching Spirit Bear.

The 2004 British film Red Dust , based on a novel of the same name, offers a fictional illustration of the restorative justice methodology employed by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (South Africa) .

The 2017 Canadian documentary A Better Man follows a meeting between a woman who is a survivor of domestic violence and her former partner.

Season 2, episode 5 of the NPR podcast Mindshift compares two schools that have adopted restorative discipline practices, one that has completed the transition and another that is in the process of implementing it. The Peace Alliance hosts a regular discussion forum on restorative justice called “Restorative Justice on the Rise,” which has archives of past discussions dating back to January 27, 2019.

In July 2020, the BBC Radio 4 series The Punch examined the case of Jacob Dunne, who was convicted of manslaughter after a single blow during a fight outside a pub resulted in the death of James Hodgkinson. The program detailed the meeting between Dunne and Hodgkinson’s parents, exploring the impact of the encounter on all parties involved.