Crime is about much more than a law being broken and there are generally multiple parties affected by a crime, including a victim or victims, so justice must involve both the criminal as well as parties to most effectively ensure that justice is obtained. This belief is at the core of the restorative justice approach.
Proponents of the restorative justice approach find flaws in conventional mainstream criminal justice practices and advocate a more comprehensive approach. Conventional criminal justice can make citizens or victims feel powerless and apathetic and there is, according to Umbreit and Peterson Armour (2010, p.1), “an overreliance on punishment to deter crime, physical separation to ensure safety, and surveillance to monitor danger” but these seem to do little or nothing to reduce violence and criminal activity. In reparative justice systems, victims and their families have less input or involvement than in restorative justice and are more likely to feel left out or as they have no say in the punishment of an offender (Umbreit & Peterson Armour, 2010, p.4).
Restorative justice places an emphasis on repairing the harm of a crime rather than simply punishing the offender. This relatively new movement in modern criminology and victimology involves all parties affected by a crime including the offender, any victims, and the community, where pertinent, working together in an attempt to repair the harm caused or made apparent by criminal activity.
One primary focus of restorative justice is involving all parties affected by the criminal behavior through programs such as mediation, encounters or conferences or other types of meetings involving victims, offenders and community members. Other aspects of restorative justice programs include emphasizing community-based treatment, strengthening families of offenders, better preparing offenders for reentry into communities and community service or restitution. Ideally, this approach can heal victim pain, to some extent, reduce offender recidivism, increase a community’s feeling of involvement in neighborhood well-being, and even help to restore hope and reduce cynicism (Umbreit & Peterson Armour, 2010, p.2).
While restorative justice ideally holds central goals like “restoring the emotional and material losses of victims, providing forums for dialogue among stakeholders, and sponsoring negotiation and problem solving in the community (Strickland, 2004, p.2),” this may not always be possible and in some cases restorative justice or certain techniques may actually not function as intended, causing further harm rather than repairing harms.
Some possible problems are located at the core of this approach and involve basic assumptions or fundamental beliefs in restorative justice philosophy. Restorative justice makes assumptions that victims and communities are, in general, generous and capable of forgiving and offenders are apologetic. Critics of restorative justice, or perhaps more accurately, critics of its advocates or untested implementation without limits or incorporation into the existing justice system, have many questions about or criticisms of restorative justice that shed light on potential ethical and other problems. Many of the following are highlighted by Zernova (2007, p.3). One criticism Zernova exists is that there may not be as sharp a contrast between retributive justice and restorative justice as advocates for restorative justice may paint. Proponents of restorative justice may exaggerate claims of program successes. Restorative processes or values may not fit well with the traditional system, potentially creating problems or undermining punishment for certain harms.
Restorative justice processes may, in some situations, bring certain unwelcome disadvantages to victims. Some victims may be more comfortable with the current court process or having little or no say in offender punishment or sentencing. Forcing victims to be involved or even make decisions about their involvement may further victimize them or challenge their moral or spiritual beliefs. Victims may also fear an offender or offender’s supporters, making meetings or conferences unpleasant or even forcing a victim to fear for his or her safety. The restorative process can also be drawn out or time-consuming. Material published by the New Zealand Ministry of Justice (1996) cites a New Zealand study that found that in family group conferences, 25 percent of victims felt worse following the conference because of dissatisfaction with conference outcomes.
In addition to potential problems or dilemmas for victims, offenders may also experience disadvantages. An offender may be more likely to plead guilty or fail to put up a strong legal defense because of a belief that they will be treated more gently through restorative processes. Just as victims may fear for their safety during conferences, so might offenders meeting with vengeful victims or supporters of victims. Of course, in certain situations, an offender may be punished or suffer more severely or intrusively as a result of restorative justice than they would be in a traditional justice system.
Certainly, where crime or violence rates are failing to drop through retributive justice or other means, lawmakers, communities and the judicial and correctional systems may benefit from incorporating some restorative processes into the justice or corrections system. However, these processes should be carefully examined before and once they are initiated and concerns of victims, offenders and communities must play a role in shaping these processes and determining whether or not they are comfortable participating on a case-by-case basis. Only when ethical concerns are taken into consideration on this very small scale is it feasible to ensure that there is little likelihood for further damage to result from the already-harmful criminal activity.
References
New Zealand Ministry of Justice. (1996). Chapter 5: The benefits and risks of restorative justice. Restorative Justice: A Discussion Paper. Retrieved from http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/publications-archived/1996/restorative-justice-a-discussion-paper-1996/chapter-5-the-benefits-and-risks-of-restorative-justice
Strickland, R.A. (2004). Restorative justice. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Umbreit, M. & Peterson Armour, M. (2010). Restorative justice dialogue: An essential guide for research and practice. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Zernova, M. (2007). Restorative justice. Ideals and realities. Burlington, Vermont: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
