Restorative Justice

History

The term “restorative justice” was coined by Albert Eglash in a 1977 article, “Beyond Restitution: Creative Restitution,” in which he identified three types of justice: retributive, distributive, and restorative. Ideas of restorative justice gained widespread recognition in the 1980s, and by the 1990s had been integrated into some mainstream correctional policy and practice in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Great Britain, and other countries around the world.

Support for restorative justice arose from multiple forces, including public dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system, the victims' rights movement, feminist critiques of patriarchal justice, peacemaking, and critical criminology, and the shift toward community justice endeavors such as community policing and community corrections. Rising crime rates, a fairly widespread belief that the correctional system was ineffective in reducing recidivism, and public discourse and activism by victim's rights organizations laid the groundwork for acceptance of a new model of justice.

Definition of Restorative Justice

Unlike the adversarial-retributive model upon which the U.S. criminal justice system is based, proponents of restorative justice view crime as harm that must be repaired through a holistic process involving victims, offenders, and citizens. In this endeavor, the government is charged with preserving order while the community is responsible for restoring peace. Restorative justice aims to address the natural antagonism among the rights, needs, and interests of offender and victims through programs, policies, and practices that work to restore victims, offenders, and communities harmed by crime.

Central features of the restorative justice model include the definition of crime as a harm; focus on problem solving, resolution through dialogue, negotiation, restitution, and reparation; community involvement and social action; recognition of victim rights and offender accountability; holistic understanding of the offender; reintegration rather than stigmatization, possibilities for repentance and forgiveness; and direct involvement of participants. The following table summarizes primary differences between the retributive and restorative models:

Related concepts and terms sometimes used synonymously with restorative justice include “community justice,” “relational justice,” “indigenous justice,” “balanced justice,” “responsible justice,” “transformative justice,” and “real justice.” The notions of restorative and community justice have converged in recent years, and some now refer to “restorative community justice” as a paradigm shift reflecting the trend toward increased community involvement in different stages and components of the justice process incorporating multiple theories (e.g., routine activities, restorative justice, balanced justice, reintegrative shaming) and practices (community policing, conferencing, circles, juvenile and adult intensive community aftercare) with the goal of restoration, improvement of quality of life in communities through government–community partnership, and active involvement of victims, offenders, and citizens in the justice process.

...