Retribution vs Restoration: How collaborating offers outcomes other justice systems can’t 

Shayna Finkelstein, Advoz summer communications intern

You may wonder what the big deal is about restorative justice. You may think it’s a valuable tool but doesn’t have a place within the existing judicial system. If you’re in the latter camp, you’re right: legislation is not built to work with restorative justice. But it should be.

If you’ve been following Advoz for a while, you probably know that restorative justice practices are systems meant to ensure everyone in a situation—both the offender and the person hurt by their actions—receive care and have their interests considered. The foundation of these processes, like most of what Advoz does, is trying to make everyone feel heard.  

One study (Latimer) reviewed 22 previous papers in the outcomes of restorative justice and identified four main goals of the practice: lower recidivism, victim satisfaction, offender satisfaction, and compliance with restitution measures. Of these, all four were generally achieved. And although evidence was least conclusive in the recidivism, there was evidence that progress was made. The biggest suggestion from this paper is that practitioners could be doing more to seek feedback from participants in order to further improve their methods and ensure everyone is given a voice. 

Restorative justice has, historically and recently, led to positive outcomes for everyone involved in the majority of cases. Of the thirteen programs examined in one study, only one did not have higher victim satisfaction than court systems.(Latimer 136) No one is really doubting that restorative justice works, least of all the very people pursuing it. But one gap society has yet to bridge is that restorative justice principles haven’t been effectively harnessed to create a more generally fair justice system. 

For one thing, restorative justice has measurably positive outcomes. Recidivism rates, or the likelihood that people offend again after intervention, go down. (Latimer 137) And there are consistent high rates of everyone following through on the action steps and solutions decided during the restorative justice process (although this finding was tempered by a relatively low number of studies considering compliance). (Latimer 137) 

There are less concrete benefits too. For one thing, apologies are an established part of restorative justice and other mediation processes. While apologies in court are often seen as admission of guilt and can lead to harsher sentences, they’re something restorative justice actively encourages. But at the same time, while forgiveness is generally expected in a lot of situations, restorative justice rarely if ever has that expectation. (Shapland) Apologies are encouraged or even expected, while there is far less pressure to forgive. It’s a system that works well for allowing the offender to grapple with what they’ve done without imposing more of a burden on the victim. 

Restorative justice doesn’t have the same outcomes as legislative justice. It’s less official than a court ruling, and in the vast majority of cases less funded.  But being a smaller initiative doesn’t make it any less valid or useful. If anything, given the results detailed above, part of the value of restorative justice is that it is less formal. I am not advocating that it should replace the forms of justice which are more centrally built into society. I am not necessarily even claiming those forms should have less impact. The main goal of restorative practice is understanding, and the intention is to give everyone involved a chance to recognize their role in the situation. This allows for accountability and remorse for what offender, while creating space for honesty and eventual healing for the victim. 

But it seems that the positive outcomes are significant enough to warrant further efforts and campaigning towards a greater integration of restorative justice. 

Sources:  

Latimer, Jeff, Craig Dowden, and Danielle Muise. “The Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Practices: A Meta-Analysis.” The Prison Journal, vol. 85, no. 2, 2005, pp. 127–144. SAGE Journals, https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885505276969. 

Shapland, Joanna, et al. “Situating Restorative Justice within Criminal Justice.” Theoretical Criminology, vol. 10, no. 4, 2006, pp. 505–532. SAGE Journals, https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480606068876.