The Past, Present, and Future of Restorative Justice: Some Critical Reflections

8/13/2019 The Past, Present, and Future of Restorative Justice: Some Critical Reflections

1/43

The Past, Present, and Future of Restorative Justice:

Some Critical Reflections

by Kat hl een Dal y and Russ I mmar i geon

Abstract

Rest or at i ve j ust i ce has bur st on t he i nt er nat i onal scene as an

umbrel l a concept and soci al movement . We r evi ew t he maj or

st r eams of act i vi sm and soci al t hought t hat have made r est or at i ve

j ust i ce a popul ar i dea, consi der t he i mpl i cat i ons of i t s

popul ar i t y as a soci al movement , and i dent i f y ways t o move t he

i dea f or war d. We pr opose t hat i n or der f or t he f i el d t o advance

schol ar s and act i vi st s must ( 1) get beyond opposi t i onal

r et r i but i ve- r est or at i ve j ust i ce model car i cat ur es,

( 2) addr ess t he r el at i onshi p of r et r i but i vi sm and

consequent i al i sm t o r est or at i ve j ust i ce, and ( 3) use mor e pr eci se

t er ms and pr omi se l ess.

NOTE THAT THIS IS A COPY OF THE MANUSCRIPT SUBMITTED FOR

PUBLICATION. PLEASE REFER TO THE PUBLISHED VERSION:

Dal y K. and R. I mmari geon ( 1998) The past , pr esent , and f ut ur e ofr estorat i ve j usti ce: some cr i t i cal r ef l ect i ons. The ContemporaryJustice Review 1 ( 1) : 21- 45.


2/43

2

Introduction

This area is complicated and confused enough as it is.( Wal grave and Aer t sen 1996: 83)

Over t he l ast t wo decades, r est or at i ve j ust i ce has emer ged

i n var i ed gui ses, wi t h di f f er ent names, and i n many count r i es; i t

has spr ung f r om si t es of act i vi sm, academi a, and j ust i ce syst em

wor kpl aces. The concept may r ef er t o an al t er nat i ve pr ocess f or

r esol vi ng di sput es, t o al t er nat i ve sanct i oni ng opt i ons, or t o a

di st i nct i vel y di f f er ent , new mode of cri mi nal j ust i ce or gani zed

ar ound pr i nci pl es of r est or at i on t o vi ct i ms, of f ender s, and t he

communi t i es i n whi ch t hey l i ve. I t may r ef er t o di ver si on f r om

f or mal cour t pr ocess, t o act i ons t aken i n par al l el wi t h cour t

deci si ons, and t o meet i ngs bet ween of f enders and vi ct i ms at any

st age of t he cr i mi nal pr ocess ( f r om ar r est , pr e- sent enci ng, and

pr i son r el ease) . I t i s a pr ocess used i n j uveni l e j ust i ce,

cri mi nal j ust i ce, and f ami l y wel f ar e/ chi l d pr ot ect i on cases. The

concept has many al i ases: r epar at i ve j ust i ce, t r ansf or mat i ve

j ust i ce, i nf or mal j ust i ce, among t hem. 1 Gl obal net wor ks of

academi cs, syst em wor ker s, and act i vi st s have f ost er ed a

mul t i nat i onal st ew of i deas; as a consequence, key t er ms can

shi f t i n usage and meani ng. 2

Al t hough r est or at i ve j ust i ce i s a capaci ous concept wi t h

mul t i pl e r ef er ent s, t her e i s a gener al sense of what i t st ands

f or . I t emphasi zes t he r epai r of har ms and of r upt ur ed soci al

bonds r esul t i ng f r om cri me; i t f ocuses on t he r el at i onshi ps

bet ween cr i me vi ct i ms, of f ender s, and soci ety. Advocates assume


3/43

3

t hat r est or at i ve j ust i ce pr act i ces wi l l necessi t at e changes i n

how st at e of f i ci al s wor k, bot h what t hey do and how t hey do i t .

Thi s essay of f er s a hi ghl y sel ect i ve, cr i t i cal exami nat i on

of t he past , pr esent , and f ut ur e of r est or at i ve j ust i ce. The

hi st or y of r est or at i ve j ust i ce cannot , of cour se, be encapsul at ed

i n di scret e t empor al cat egor i es. Rat her , i t cont ai ns over l appi ng

l ayer s of t hought and act i vi sm, some i nt er r el at ed and ot her s

di sconnected, as t he i dea has devel oped. 3 I n Par t I , t he past,

we chr oni cl e t he act i vi t i es and pr act i ces i nsi de and out si de of

academi a t hat have wor ked t o make rest or at i ve j ust i ce a popul ar

i dea. 4 I n Par t I I , t he pr esent , we consi der t he i mpl i cat i ons

of t hi s popul ar i dea as a soci al movement . 5 I n Par t I I I , t he

f ut ur e, we i dent i f y ways t o move t he i dea f or war d.

Rest or at i ve j ust i ce i s a commodi t y i n a gl obal j ust i ce

mar ket . Some pr oponent s have been mor e i nt er est ed t o sel l i t

and i t s col l at er al ser vi ces t han t o consi der i t s phi l osophi cal or

pol i t i cal under pi nni ngs or how i t woul d r el at e t o cur r ent systems

of l aw and di sput e r esol ut i on. Our ai m her e i s not t o sel l

r est or at i ve j ust i ce, al t hough we t hi nk i t hol ds some pr omi se f or

doi ng j ust i ce bet t er . Nor do we want t o subj ect i t t o sust ai ned

cr i t i que, al t hough t her e i s much t o be skept i cal about . I n

r eal i t y, t her e i s not a wor ked out i t avai l abl e f or cri t i que.

Thar e ar e i nst ead many si mpl e t echni ques, as Wal grave ( 1995:

240) suggest s, t hat wor ker s may i nser t i nt o the cr i mi nal or

j uveni l e j ust i ce syst em process. Most pract i ces t oday t hat mi ght

be t er med r est or at i ve ar e of a si mpl e t echni ques var i et y. 6

We are st r uck by t he ent husi asm of some pr oponent s who see

i n r est or at i ve j ust i ce a si mpl e t hi ng. To t he cont r ar y, i t i s a


4/43

4

compl ex ent er pr i se, r eachi ng i nt o l ongst andi ng debat es about t he

pur poses of puni shment , pr ompt i ng a re- appr ai sal of t he st r engt hs

and l i mi t s of var i ed f or ms of di sput e r esol ut i on, and pr ovoki ng a

r econsi der at i on of t he r el at i onshi ps bet ween ci t i zens, t he st at e,

and t he communi t y i n cr eat i ng j ust i ce system pol i ci es and

i nst i t ut i ons. We agr ee wi t h Wal gr ave ( 1995: 240) of t he need f or

ref l ect i on on soci o- et hi cal , phi l osophi cal , and l egal t heor y . . .

t o const r uct a coher ent par adi gm . . . whi ch can serve as a f r ame

of r ef er ence . . . . To const r uct such a par adi gm, we pr opose i n

Par t I I I t hat schol ar s and act i vi st s must ( 1) get beyond

opposi t i onal r et r i but i ve- r estor at i ve car i cat ur es of j ust i ce

model s, ( 2) addr ess t he r el at i onshi p of r et r i but i vi sm and

consequent i al i sm t o r est or at i ve j ust i ce, and ( 3) use mor e pr eci se

t er ms and pr omi se l ess.

Part I: The Past

Our sket ch of t he r ecent past of r est or at i ve j ust i ce i s

sel ect i ve and et hnocent r i c i n t hat we f ocus mai nl y, t hough not

excl usi vel y on devel opment s i n Nort h Ameri ca. 7 I n t he ear l y t o

mi d 1970s, when t he f i r st vi ct i m- of f ender r econci l i at i on pr ogr ams

were set up i n Canada and t he mi dwest ern U. S. , and when f ew

cr i mi nol ogi st s or pr act i t i oner s wer e awar e of i ndi genous j ust i ce

t radi t i ons, t he t er m restorative justice di d not exi s t . I t

subsequent l y emerged i n the wr i t i ngs of Col son and Van Ness

( 1990) , Mackey ( 1981, 1992) , Van Ness and St r ong ( 1997) , Wr i ght

( 1991) , and Zehr ( 1985, 1990) . 8 Vi ct i m- of f ender medi at i on,

f ami l y gr oup conf er ences, sent enci ng ci r cl es, vi ct i m i mpact


5/43

5

panel s, and ot her pr ocesses t hat ar e now cal l ed restorative

evol ved f r om di f f er ent gr oups of peopl e ( of t en unknown t o each

ot her ) , who wer e exper i ment i ng wi t h al t er nat i ve pr act i ces. What

pr ompt ed t hi s i nt er est , and how di d i t unf ol d? We r evi ew t hese

st r eams of act i vi sm and t hought : soci al movement s of t he 1960s,

par t i cul ar pr act i ces and pr ogr ams, and academi c r esear ch and

t heor i es.

A. Social Movements

Al t hough many cont empor ar y hi st or i es of r est or at i ve j ust i ce

i n Nor t h Amer i ca begi n i n 1974 wi t h a vi ct i m- of f ender

r econci l i at i on pr ogr am i n Ki t chner , Ont ar i o, our hi st or y does

not . Rather , we vi ew t he ci vi l r i ght s and women s movement s of

t he 1960s as cr uci al st ar t i ng poi nt s. The U. S. ci vi l r i ght s

movement was based, i n par t , on cr i t i ques of r aci sm i n pol i ce

pr act i ces, i n cour t s, and i n pr i sons. Raci al domi nat i on by

whi t es was mai nt ai ned, many cl ai med, by t he overcr i mi nal i zat i on

and i mpr i sonment of Af r i can- Amer i cans and ot her r aci al et hni c

mi nor i t y gr oups. Thi s anal ysi s was cent r al t o decar cer at i on

acti ons, i ncl udi ng pr i soner s r i ght s and al t er nat i ves t o

conf i nement . I n t he U. S. , Nat i ve Amer i can chal l enges t o whi t e

col oni al i sm al so cont ai ned a cri t i que of t he pr i son syst em;

i ndi genous chal l enges t o i ncar cer at i on occur r ed i n ot her nat i ons,

i ncl udi ng Aust r al i a, Canada, New Zeal and, and Sout h Af r i ca. The

women s movement al so f i gured promi nent l y. Dur i ng t he 1970s,

campai gns around vi ol ence agai nst women were a cent r al el ement of

f emi ni st or gani zi ng, and f emi ni st gr oups wer e among t he f i r st t o

cal l at t ent i on t o t he mi st r eat ment of vi ct i ms i n t he cr i mi nal

j ust i ce process. Femi ni st act i vi st s wer e al so i nvol ved i n


6/43

6

pr i soner s r i ght s campai gns. Soci al movement act i vi st s t hus

i dent i f i ed over i ncar cer at i on of of f ender s and an under -

appr eci at i on of vi ct i ms' exper i ences. Al t hough of f ender s and

vi ct i ms ar e of t en vi ewed as pr ot agoni st s i n t he j ust i ce system,

t hey i ncr easi ngl y came t o see t hemsel ves as havi ng common

exper i ences of unf ai r and unr esponsi ve t r eat ment . 9

B. Programs and Practices

Si nce the 1970s, many pr ogr ams and pract i ces have been

i mpl ement ed t hat coul d now f al l under t he r est or at i ve j ust i ce

r ubr i c. Ear l y ef f or t s f ocused on moderated meet i ngs bet ween

vi ct i ms and of f ender s, adapt i ng or dr awi ng f r om t r adi t i onal

medi at i on model s. Lat er , t hese meet i ngs expanded t o i ncl ude

f ami l y member s and f r i ends of bot h par t i es, as wel l as

pr of essi onal s and others wi t h access t o communi t y r esour ces. We

descr i be t he maj or ki nds of pr act i ces and pol i t i cal chal l enges

t hat have gi ven shape and subst ance t o rest or at i ve j ust i ce.

1. Prisoner Rights and Alternatives to Prisons. Dur i ng t he

1970s, some schol ar s and pr act i t i oner s f el t of f ender s wer e

vi ct i ms of soci et al negl ect , i mpover i shed communi t i es, and r aci al

and gender di scr i mi nat i on. Accor di ngl y, advocat es hoped t o

change pr i son condi t i ons, mi ni mi ze t he use of i ncar cer at i on, and

even abol i sh j ai l s and pr i sons. I n t hi s cont ext , Fay Honey Knopp

( 1976) and ot hers ( Hul l and Knopp 1978) hoped to bui l d a car i ng

communi t y t hat addr essed vi ct i ms and vi ct i mi zers. Dur i ng t he

1980s, as U. S. pr i son popul at i ons became i ncr easi ngl y bl oat ed,

i nt er medi at e sanct i ons gai ned i n popul ar i t y and use ( Mor r i s and

Tonr y 1990; mor e r ecent l y, Di Masci o 1997) . Then and now, nei t her


7/43

7

vi ct i m- of f ender medi at i on nor r est or at i ve j ust i ce has f eat ur ed i n

t he i nt er medi at e sanct i ons l i t er at ur e.

2. Conflict Resolution. Dur i ng t he mi d- and l at e 1970s,

t he devel opment of communi t y j ust i ce boar ds and nei ghbor hood

j ust i ce cent er s r ef l ect ed a desi r e f or great er access t o

j ust i ce char act er i zed by mor e i nf or mal processes and great er

ci t i zen par t i ci pat i on. These met hods of conf l i ct resol ut i on

( r ef er r ed al so as al t er nat i ve di sput e r esol ut i on) r ef l ect ed a

gr owi ng di si l l usi onment wi t h adver sar i al f act - f i ndi ng and

adj udi cat i on accor di ng t o l egal pr i nci pl es. Emphasi s was gi ven

t o negot i at i on, exchange bet ween di sput ant s, and a l ess cent r al

r ol e f or l egal pr of essi onal s ( see Pavl i ch 1996: 161, not es 4- 6,

f or r ef er ences t o devel opment s i n Br i t ai n, t he U. S. and Canada

dur i ng t hi s per i od) .

3. Victim-Offender Reconciliation Programs (VORPs). VORPs,

whi ch wer e f i r st i nt r oduced i n Canada i n 1974 and i n t he U. S. i n

1977, were f ounded on Mennoni t e pr i nci pl es of exchange and

di al ogue. They i nvol ved meet i ngs between cr i me vi ct i ms and

of f ender s, usual l y af t er sent enci ng, i n t he pr esence of a neut r al

t hi r d- par t y. VORPs f ocused pr i mar i l y on r est or i ng t he r i ght

r el at i onshi ps t hat shoul d exi st bet ween t wo par t i es ( Zehr 1990) .

VORP pr oponent s envi saged a cl ose worki ng r el at i onshi p wi t h

r el i gi ous pr i nci pl es and i nst i t ut i ons ( I mmar i geon 1984) .

4. Victim-Offender Mediation (VOMs). Dur i ng t he l ast par t

of t he 1970s, vi ct i ms ( and t hei r advocat es) i ncreasi ngl y

pr ef er r ed t he t er mmediation r at her t han r econci l i at i on i n

devel opi ng pr ogr ams f or vi ct i m- of f ender meet i ngs. The pr ogr am

model f or VOMs was si mi l ar t o t hat f or VORPs, al t hough other


8/43

8

peopl e af f ect ed by an of f ense coul d be br ought t o meet i ngs,

par t i cul ar l y when more ser i ous cr i mes were bei ng addr essed. 10

VOMs were i nt r oduced t o Engl and, Scandi navi a, and West ern

Eur opean count r i es i n t he l at e 1970s and 1980s, pr i mar i l y i n t he

handl i ng of yout h j ust i ce cases.

5. Victim Advocacy. Conservat i ve and pr ogr essi ve voi ces

al i ke shar e t he vi ew t hat cr i me vi ct i ms have i nsuf f i ci ent voi ce

i n t he cr i mi nal pr ocess. I n t he 1970s and 1980s, f emi ni st

act i vi st s and soci o- l egal schol ar s f ocused at t ent i on on maki ng

t he pol i ce and cour t s more account abl e t o women and chi l dren who

had been sexual l y or physi cal l y abused. Vi ct i m s r i ght s gr oups

f ocused ef f or t s on r est i t ut i on f or cr i me, on vi ct i ms havi ng a

f or mal voi ce i n t he cour t pr ocess, and on communi t y saf et y. I n

1982, t he Reagan admi ni st r at i on i ssued a t ask f or ce repor t on

cr i me vi ct i ms t hat st i mul at ed t he gr owt h of vi ct i m s r i ght s

gr oups. Al l i ances bet ween vi ct i m advocacy gr oups and cr i mi nal

j ust i ce r ef or m groups began t o grow i n t he 1990s, as members

r ecogni zed some common i nt er est s. The U. S. Of f i ce f or Vi ct i ms of

Cr i me has si nce shown keen i nt er est i n vi ct i m- of f ender medi at i on;

a chapt er on r est or at i ve j ust i ce i s t o be i ncl uded i n a

f or t hcomi ng r evi si on of t he 1982 t ask f or ce r epor t on cr i me

vi ct i ms.

6. Family Group Conferences (FGCs). Dur i ng t he decade of

t he 1980s, New Zeal anders began r eassessi ng t he Tr eat y of

Wai t angi , a const i t ut i onal document , and i t s i mpl i cat i ons f or

Pakeha ( whi t e) and Maor i ( i ndi genous) r el at i ons. A r epor t

submi t t ed i n 1986 by t he Mi ni st er i al Advi sory Commi t t ee on a

Maor i Per spect i ve f or t he Depar t ment of Soci al Wel f ar e ( publ i shed


9/43


10/43

10

7. Sentencing Circles. Sent enci ng ci r cl es emer ged i n

Canada dur i ng t he 1980s as part of Fi r st Nat i on gr oups ways of

r espondi ng t o of f ender s. Ross ( 1992) observes that t he

obj ecti ves ar e conf l i ct r esol ut i on, r est or at i on of or der and

har mony, and of f ender, vi ct i m, and communi t y heal i ng. Sent enci ng

ci r cl es are a consensus pr ocess ( St uar t 1997) , whi ch i nvol ves a

br oad hol i st i c f r amewor k [ t hat i ncl udes] cr i me vi ct i ms and t hei r

f ami l i es, an of f ender s f ami l y members and ki n, and communi t y

r esi dent s i n t he r esponse t o t he behavi or and t he f or mul at i on of

a sanct i on whi ch wi l l addr ess t he needs of al l par t i es

( Gr i f f i t hs 1996: 201) . 11 Sent enci ng ci r cl es ar e now bei ng t r i ed

by non- Abor i gi nal gr oups i n Canada and t he U. S. , i ncl udi ng

Af r i can- Amer i cans i n Mi nnesot a.

8. Other Practices. Ot her pr act i ces emergi ng i n t he 1980s

and 1990s f al l under t he r est or at i ve j ust i ce umbr el l a. I n

Ver mont , Reparat i on Boar ds ar e composed of communi t y members who

f ashi on penal t i es f or j uveni l e of f ender s; t he penal t i es ar e

t ypi cal l y communi t y ser vi ce and occasi onal l y vi ct i m- of f ender

medi at i on. Vi ct i ms ar e not nor mal l y pr esent at t hese meet i ngs.

Anot her pr act i ce i s vi cti m i mpact panel s, or i gi nal l y est abl i shed

by Mot hers Agai nst Dr unk Dr i vi ng. These panel s al l ow vi ct i ms and

t hei r f ami l i es t o expr ess t hei r f eel i ngs about t he consequences

of dr unk dr i vi ng t o those of f enders who have been cour t - order ed

t o at t end. Unl i ke many r est or at i ve j ust i ce pr act i ces, vi ct i m

i mpact panel s ar e not vol unt ary. These panel s may br i ng an

i mpor t ant el ement of vi ct i m- of f ender cont act i nt o t he pr ocess,

one t hat i s mi ssi ng i n t r adi t i onal pr oceedi ngs. Some ar gue,

however , f or t he i mpor t ance of di st i ngui shi ng bet ween a vi ct i m s


11/43

11

r i ght s to services and a vi ct i m sprocedural rights in the

criminal process. Whereas t he f ormer shoul d be pr ovi ded, t he

l at t er may be i nappr opr i at e (Ashwor t h 1994: 34- 37) .

C. Academic Research and Theories

Par al l el i ng soci al movement act i vi sm and t he emer gence of

al t er nat i ves t o t r adi t i onal j ust i ce syst em pr act i ces was academi c

r esear ch and t heor i es. Some comment ators suggest t hat t he

pr acti ce of r est or at i ve j ust i ce came f i r st , bor n of t he

exi genci es of needi ng t o do j ust i ce di f f er ent l y, and t hat t he

t heor y came l at er ( Mar shal l 1996) . I n f act t her e was a good deal

of t heor et i cal wor k under t aken by soci o- l egal and cri t i cal l egal

schol ar s i n t he 1970s and 1980s; t hi s f el l under t he r ubr i c of

i nf or mal j ust i ce.

1. Informal Justice. Soci o- l egal schol ar s ( e. g. , Abel 1982

and cont r i but ors; Harr i ngt on 1985; Henr y 1983; Mat t hews 1988)

have conduct ed empi r i cal r esear ch on i nf or mal and f or mal j ust i ce

i n West er n i ndust r i al i zed soci et i es and i n t r i bal , agr i cul t ur al -

based soci et i es. Mat t hews (1988: 1) not es that l ess t han a

decade af t er t he emer gence of t he f i r st wave of opt i mi sm i t was

overshadowed by an equal l y f orcef ul wave of pessi mi sm. There

appear s t o be r enewed i nt erest i n i nf ormal and communi t y j ust i ce

as cr i t i cal l egal and soci o- l egal schol ar s acknowl edge t he

t ensi ons bet ween t he t r ansf or mat i ve pot ent i al of l egal pl ur al i sm

and t he i mpossi bl e goal of at t ai ni ng j ust i ce t hr ough l aw ( Lacey

1996: 135) . Works by Merr y and Mi l ner ( 1993) , Pavl i ch ( 1996) ,

and t he cont r i but or s t o t he speci al i ssue of Social and Legal

Studies ( Sant os 1992) ar e i ndi cat i ve of t hi s t r end.


12/43

12

2. Abolitionism. Dur i ng t he 1970s and 1980s cr i mi nol ogi st s

i n Nor way, The Nether l ands, and el sewher e (e. g. , Mat hi eson 1974;

Bi anchi and Van Swaani ngen 1986) cal l ed f or t he abol i t i on of

pr i sons. Thei r wor k dovet ai l ed wi t h t he al t er nat i ves t o pr i son

and decar cer at i on act i vi t i es dur i ng t hi s t i me per i od. Few peopl e

t oday woul d argue f or a compl et e ban on pr i sons, al t hough many

t ake a st r ong st ance of a mi ni mal use of pr i sons ( Car l en 1990; de

Haan 1990) . Some r est or at i ve j ust i ce i ni t i at i ves, e. g. ,

di ver si on f r om cour t and pr e- sent enci ng conf er ences, can be used

as al t er nat i ves t o conf i nement .

3. Reintegrative Shaming. J ohn Br ai t hwai t e ( 1989)

i nt r oduced t he t er m reintegrative shaming t o ar gue f or an

i nt egr at i ve r at her t han st i gmat i zi ng r esponse t o cr i me. Hi s

anal ysi s f ocused on t he posi t i ve benef i t s of i nf or mal met hods of

soci al cont r ol ( e. g. , soci al di sappr oval t hat i ncul cat es f eel i ngs

of shame) i n r egul at i ng soci al or der . Br ai t hwai t e s i deas wer e

put i nt o pr act i ce as t he t heor y behi nd t he model of

conf erenci ng i n Wagga Wagga, New Sout h Wal es ( Aust r al i a) . I n t he

Ant i podes, i t was onl y i n Wagga ( and a handf ul of ot her pol i ce

depar t ment s) , and now i n t he Aust r al i an Capi t al Ter r i t or y, t hat

shame has f eat ured as an el ement i n t he FGC. I t has not been

par t of FGCs i n New Zeal and, nor i n t he Aust r al i an st at es of

Sout h Aust r al i a, West er n Aust r al i a, and Vi ct or i a. To dat e, i t

has pr i mar i l y been the Wagga model t hat has been expor t ed t o t he

U. S. and Engl and. I n t he Ant i podes, t her e i s consi der abl e debat e

over whet her shame shoul d be made a cent r al f eat ur e of t he

conf er enci ng pr ocess, especi al l y i n cases i nvol vi ng Abor i gi nal

of f ender s ( Bl agg 1997) . 12


13/43

13

4. Psychological Theories. I n f ur t her r ef i nement s of t he

Wagga model and appl i cat i ons of shami ng t heory, some advocates

have added af f ect and scr i pt t heor i es t o descr i be t he mi cr o-

dynami cs and sequences of exper i enced emot i ons ( Moor e 1993) .

At t ent i on has al so been gi ven t o di sput ant s senses of pr ocedur al

j ust i ce i n t he l egal process ( Tyl er 1990) .

5. Feminist Theories of Justice. A subst ant i al body of

f emi ni st wor k has emer ged i n mor al t heor i es, bui l di ng i n par t

f r om Car ol Gi l l i gan s (1982) const r uct of car e and j ust i ce i n

mor al r easoni ng and deci si on- maki ng. I n cr i mi nol ogy, some have

f ound t he et hi c of car e usef ul ( e. g. , Har r i s 1987; Hei densohn

1986) wher eas other s ar e more skept i cal ( Dal y 1989) . An et hi c of

car e appr oach i s bei ng appl i ed t o f ami l y gr oup conf er enci ng of

domest i c vi ol ence cases i n Canada ( Pennel l and Bur f ord 1994) .

6. Peacemaking Criminology. The cr i mi nol ogy of

peacemaki ng, accordi ng t o Pepi nsky and Qui nney ( 1991: i x) , i s a

cr i mi nol ogy t hat seeks to al l evi at e suf f er i ng and t her eby r educe

cr i me. Peacemaki ng cr i mi nol ogy dr aws on di f f er ent t r adi t i ons,

i ncl udi ng spi r i t ual i sm and f emi ni sm. For peacemaki ng

cr i mi nol ogi st s, cr i me and cr i mi nal j ust i ce ar e vi ol ence. Cr i me

i s suf f er i ng, Qui nney not es. The endi ng of bot h suf f er i ng and

cr i me, whi ch i s t he est abl i shi ng of j ust i ce, can onl y come out of

peace, peace t hat i s spi r i t ual l y gr ounded i n our ver y bei ng"

( Qui nney 1991: 11) .

7. Philosophical Theories. Phi l osophi cal ar gument s f or

al t er nat i ves t o t r adi t i onal j ust i ce syst em r esponses have been

made by Br ai t hwai t e and Pet t i t ( 1990) , Cr agg ( 1992) , and Fat i c

( 1995) . I n di f f er ent ways t hese aut hor s cal l f or r est r i ct i ng t he


14/43

14

use of penal sanct i ons and f or non- r et r i but i vi st modes of

r esponse. Ret r i but i vi st or i ent ed ( or deser t - based) phi l osopher s

and l egal t heor i st s have been cr i t i cal of Br ai t hwai t e and

Pet t i t s ( 1990) r epubl i can t heor y of cri mi nal j ust i ce ( see

exchanges, di scussed bel ow, bet ween Ashwor t h and von Hi r sch, and

Pet t i t and Br ai t hwai t e) .

8. Religious and Spiritual Theories. Al t hough r est or at i ve

j ust i ce r equi r es manager i al , medi at i ng, and or gani zat i onal

ski l l s, i t s pr act i ces have al so been ani mat ed - - i n Canada and

t he U. S. at l east - - by r el i gi ous and spi r i t ual t heor i es. The

f i r st VORPs came f r om Mennoni t e t r adi t i ons; and Abor i gi nal , Fi r st

Nat i on, and Nat i ve Amer i can peacemaki ng pr ocesses merge spi r i t ual

and cul t ur al el ement s. I n addi t i on t o Mackey, Van Ness and

St r ong, and Zehr , ot her r el i gi on- based wr i t er s (pr i mar i l y

Chr i st i an) i ncl ude Boer s ( 1992) , Bur nsi de and Baker ( 1994) , and

Consedi ne ( 1995) .

II. The Present

Wi t h t hese st r ands of t hought and act i vi sm comi ng f r om

wi t hi n and out si de academi a, i t i s not sur pr i si ng t hat

comment at or s wi l l r ef er t o r est or at i ve j ust i ce as a movement .

For exampl e, Br ai t hwai t e ( 1996: 8, 23- 24) suggest s t hat

r est or at i ve j ust i ce "has become the sl ogan of a gl obal soci al

movement and t hat i t wi l l become a "pr of oundl y i nf l uent i al

soci al movement t hr oughout t he wor l d" i n t he t went y- f i r st

cent ur y.

Li ke r estor at i ve j usti ce, t he t er msocial movement r esi st s

easy def i ni t i on. The t er m i s used l oosel y, per haps t oo l oosel y,


15/43

15

i n descr i bi ng human endeavor s. However, i t can be hel pf ul t o

anal yze restor at i ve j ust i ce as a soci al movement , i n addi t i on t o

r ef l ect i ng on what i t s pr i nci pl es and pr act i ces mi ght be as a

coher ent par adi gm. I n so doi ng, we can become more aware of

t he r easons f or i t s popul ar i t y, and we can anal yze i t s pol i t i cs,

i ncl udi ng an abi l i t y t o ant i c i pat e sour ces of conf l i ct .

We dr aw f r om J an Pakul ski s ( 1988) di scussi on of new soci al

movement s. 13 Rest or at i ve j ust i ce has el ement s associ at ed wi t h

new soci al movement s, i ncl udi ng t hese:

A val ue or i ent at i on ( r at her t han j ust an i nst r ument alor i ent at i on) t hat i s i deal i st i c. Al t hough t he goal s and

val ues are secul ar , t he new soci al movement s " engender a

spi r i t of mor al crusade t hat r esembl es r el i gi ous causes" ( p.

249) .

A di f f use, non- pr ogr ammat i c char act er and an ant i -

or gani zat i onal or i ent at i on. New soci al movement s do not

"commi t suppor t er s t o any si ngl e pr ogr am, t act i c, or st r at egy;

t hey have no si ngl e i deol ogi cal or i ent at i on . . . no obl i gat or y

pl at f or m" ( p. 250) .

An i ncl usi ve, amorphous st r uct ur e. New soci al movement s have"an open, publ i c char act er ; t hey rej ect t he not i on of

member shi p, or gani zat i onal di vi si on of r ol es, and f unct i onal

hi er ar chy. The emphasi s i s on br oad egal i t ar i an par t i ci pat i on

and unsel f i sh dedi cat i on . . . " ( p. 250)

I f new soci al movement s do not have "wel l - ar t i cul at ed goal s,

i deol ogi es, st r at egi es, or const i t uenci es" ( p. 251) , what uni t es

t hem? The uni f yi ng t hr ead i s a st ance against, r at her t han for:

"an opposi t i on and host i l i t y to some cr uci al el ement s of t he


16/43

16

domi nant pol i t i cal - admi ni st r at i ve system and t he nor mat i ve or der

t hi s syst em engender s ( p. 251) . The "absence . . of i deol ogi cal -

pr ogr ammat i c uni t y" i s a st r engt h and a weakness. The st r engt h

l i es i n i ncr eased number s of peopl e associ ated wi t h a movement ;

at t he same t i me, a movement wi l l l ack pol i t i cal ef f ect i veness

unless i t shi f t s f r om an ant i - syst emi c t o a pr o- syst emi c

or i ent at i on, t hat i s, unl ess i t adopt s a goal and st r at egy. Once

a mass movement begi ns t o t ur n i n t hi s di r ect i on, however , i t i s

l i kel y to "al i enat e l ar ge secti ons of suppor t er s, f ol l ower s, and

sympat hi zer s" ( p. 252) .

Wi t h t hi s br i ef sket ch of soci al movement s, we can begi n t o

see why r est or at i ve j ust i ce has caught on, why i t r esonat es. 14

I t i s based on a new, i deal i st i c concept i on of j ust i ce, 15 one

t hat set s i t sel f agai nst t r adi t i onal j ust i ce pr act i ces; i t s

pr oponent s have var i ed i deol ogi cal st ances, i ncl udi ng l i ber al ,

radi cal - cr i t i cal , f emi ni st , and abol i t i oni s t ; i t s s t r at egi es are

var i ed; i t s membershi p i s open and per meabl e; and ther e i s not

one (or sever al ) or gani zat i ons uni t i ng i t s member s, al t hough

t here may be conf er ences t hat br i ng together r esearchers and

act i vi st s. By seei ng r est or at i ve j ust i ce as a soci al movement ,

we may ant i ci pat e sever al conf l i ct s and devel opment s.

1. Conflict over Goals. As a soci al movement , r est or at i ve

j ust i ce has a heter ogenous set of pl ayer s, i ncl udi ng peopl e

l i vi ng i n di f f er ent count r i es, member s of maj or i t y and mi nor i t y

gr oups, and t hose wi t h secul ar and r el i gi ous or i ent at i ons.

Al t hough di ver si t y may be vi ewed as a st r engt h, we shoul d expect

conf l i ct s t o emer ge over pr i nci pl es and goal s. Thi s wi l l

i nt ensi f y when t her e i s a shi f t f r om a st ance against t o a st ance


17/43

17

for, t hat i s, when t her e i s a shi f t t o a mor e f ocused set of

pol i ci es and st r at egi es, or when, as Al an Har l and ( 1996)

suggest s, par t i ci pant s begi n t o "sel l " r est or at i ve j ust i ce t o

pol i cy maker s. 16 I n addi t i on t o conf l i ct s ar i si ng over what

r est or at i ve j ust i ce i s and coul d be, t he char act er of t he

di ver si t y i t sel f may i mpar t a di shevel ed appear ance t o those i n

t he mai nst r eam.

2. State Devolution and the Rise of Justice Entrepreneurs.

Wi t h t he di smant l i ng of t he st at e' s soci al wel f ar e f unct i ons,

mi ddl e- cl ass pr of essi onal s ar e now i dent i f yi ng new r ol es f or

t hemsel ves. Rest or at i ve j ust i ce pr act i ces and pr ogr ams of f er

oppor t uni t i es f or member s of t hi s pr of essi onal cl ass t o wor k as

br oker s bet ween " t he st at e" and "ci vi l soci et y. " Rest or at i ve

j ust i ce as a soci al movement of t en set s i t sel f agai nst cur r ent

st at e pr acti ces i n t he admi ni st r at i on of cri mi nal j ust i ce.

However , i t i s sur el y not "ant i - st at i st " : many advocat es ar e

empl oyed by gover nments. Thus, movement members ar e act i ng both

i nsi de and out si de of st at e ent i t i es. We shoul d expect t o see

conf l i ct s among l egal and non- l egal pr of essi onal s over who owns

t he emergent br oker r ol es. And we shoul d expect t o see a

prol i f er at i on of pr i vat e j ust i ce out l et s , as j ust i ce

ent r epr eneur s seek to sel l t hei r ser vi ces.

3. The Mixed Ideological Bag. Rest or at i ve j ust i ce as a

soci al movement can embr ace bot h "neo- l i ber al i sm, " wi t h i t s f ocus

on economi c rat i onal i t y, ent r epr eneur i al act i vi t y, and concer n t o

"empower t he consumer" ( Gar l and 1997: 182- 4) , and gr ass- r oot s

f or ms of democrat i c soci al i sm ( Sul l i van and Ti f f t 1997) .


18/43

18

Rest orat i ve j ust i ce can accommodat e both " l aw and or der" and

"pr ogr essi ve" r esponses t o cri me. I t i s sober i ng t o r eal i ze

t hat , as Br ai t hwai t e ( 1996: 24) not es, "some of t he most savvy

conservat i ve government s i n t he wor l d, [ t hose] most i mbued wi t h

t he i mper at i ves f or f i scal f r ugal i t y - - New Zeal and and Si ngapor e

- - [ wer e] ear l y mover s i n embr aci ng r est or at i ve j ust i ce. " I t may

sur pr i se some peopl e t o know t hat f i scal conservat i sm was a key

r eason f or t he New Zeal and government s support of f ami l y gr oup

conf er ences ( Cody 1991) .

Li ke t he ear l i er cri t i cs of i nf or mal j ust i ce i n t he 1980s

( e. g. , cont r i but or s t o Abel 1982) , cr i t i cs of r est or at i ve j usti ce

t oday ar e suspi ci ous of how el ement s of t he new wi l l be gr af t ed

ont o t he cl unky, of t en r epr essi ve machi ner y of t he cr i mi nal

pr ocess. Such gr af t i ng and absorpt i on has occur r ed l ar gel y

t hr ough t he ef f or t s of r est or at i ve j ust i ce ent r epr eneur s.

Wal gr ave ( 1995: 138) suggest s t hat such ef f or t s have pr oduced a

mi scel l aneous pr of usi on, an odd assor t ment of good i nt ent i ons,

oppor t uni sm, and cl ear vi si ons, and t hat such ef f or t s

t hr eat en[ ] t he r epl acement val ue of t he r est or at i ve appr oach

bef or e i t has t r ul y devel oped. The i r ony i s, t hen, t hat as bi t s

of r est or at i ve j ust i ce ar e successf ul l y mar ket ed and sol d, i t s

t r ansf or mat i ve pot ent i al may be di ssi pat ed and di spl aced.

Part III: The Future

The cur r ent pl ay of r est or at i ve j ust i ce cont ai ns a mul t i t ude

of pr act i ces and pr ogr ams, coupl ed wi t h a popul ar i t y t hat comes

wi t h t he new. I t does not yet have a coher ent par adi gm, but at

t hi s ear l y st age, we shoul d not expect t o see one. Nor shoul d we


19/43

19

expect t o see a coher ent par adi gm t hat coul d suppl ant t r adi t i onal

j ust i ce pract i ces. J ust i ce has been f r agmented, as Pavl i ch

( 1996: 41) suggest s. Ther e ar e di f f er ent cal cul at i ons of

j ust i ce coexi st i ng t oday, and t hese r ef l ect var i ed i di oms

[ wi t hi n] whi ch di f f er ent r at i onal i t i es of si l enced di sput ant s can

be ar t i cul at ed ( p. 39) . These di f f er ent cal cul at i ons al so

f eat ur e i n t he wor k of r est or at i ve j ust i ce advocat es [ compar e,

e. g. , Wal gr ave ( 1995) wi t h Bazemore and Umbr ei t ( 1995) on t he

goal of rehabi l i t at i on i n j ust i ce system pr acti ces]. I n

addi t i on, when debat i ng t he mer i t s of r est or at i ve j ust i ce and t he

t r adeof f s bet ween r et r i but i vi sm and consequent i al i sm, t heor i st s

appear t o tal k past each ot her ( e. g. , t he debat es bet ween Pet t i t

and Br ai t hwai t e, and Ashwor t h and von Hi r sch) . We consi der t hese

and ot her ar eas t hat need t o be addr essed i f r esearch and

di scussi on on r est or at i ve j ust i ce i s t o advance.

1. Move Beyond Oppositional Caricatures of Justice Models.

A common anal yt i cal devi ce, used by r est or at i ve j ust i ce

advocat es, i s t o dr aw cont r ast s bet ween r et r i but i ve,

r ehabi l i t at i ve, and r est or at i ve j ust i ce model s ( see Bazemor e

1996; Wal grave 1995; Zehr 1990) . 17 These model s are r espect i vel y

associ at ed wi t h puni shi ng t he cr i me, t r eat i ng t he of f ender , and

r epai r i ng t he har m. I n depl oyi ng t hese cont r ast s, r est or at i ve

j ust i ce advocat es demonst r at e t he super i or i t y of t hei r model over

t he ot her t wo, and especi al l y over t he r et r i but i ve model . 18 Such

cont r ast s ar e not onl y sel f - ser vi ng ( i . e. , ever yt hi ng i n t he

r et r i but i ve col umn seems nast y and br ut i sh, whereas ever yt hi ng

i n t he r est or at i ve col umn seems ni ce and pr ogr essi ve) , t hey

al so f or ecl ose a di scussi on of t he mer i t s of each, of how t he


20/43

20

pr i nci pl es of each mi ght be r anked i n a hybr i d model , or of how

each coul d oper at e al ong si de each ot her i n a cr i mi nal j ust i ce

syst em. 19

Par t of t he pr obl em l i es i n t he di f f er ent under st andi ngs of

the term retribution. Thi s t er m i s used by phi l osopher s t o

compar e ret r i but i vi st ( backwar d- l ooki ng) and consequent i al i st ( or

ut i l i t ar i an, f or war d- l ooki ng) j ust i f i cat i ons f or puni shment .

Fur t her mor e, t her e ar e sever al t ypes of r et r i but i vi st ar gument s

( Duf f and Gar l and 1994: 7) : posi t i ve r et r i but i vi sm, whi ch hol ds

t hat t he gui l t y must al ways be puni shed, t o t he f ul l extent of

t hei r deser t , and negat i ve r et r i but i vi sm, whi ch hol ds t hat onl y

t he gui l t y may be puni shed, and t hen onl y t o t he extent of t hei r

deser t . Consequent i al i st argument s, on t he ot her hand, j ust i f y

puni shment by i t s cont i ngent , i nst r ument al cont r i but i on t o some

i ndependent l y i dent i f i abl e good ( Duf f and Gar l and 1994: 6) , most

of t en t o pr event cr i me and t o change someone s behavi or . There

ar e al so hybr i d j ust i f i cat i ons f or puni shment t hat combi ne

el ement s of r et r i but i vi sm and consequent i al i sm.

Associ at ed wi t h a r et r i but i vi st j ust i f i cat i on f or puni shment

i s t he goal of j ust deser t s, wher e puni shment i s i n r esponse to

t he of f ense har m and i n pr oport i on t o ot her har ms. Ther e can be

ot her goal s associ at ed wi t h r et r i but i vi sm; one i s t o compensat e a

har m ( a f or m of r est i t ut i on) . Associ at ed wi t h a consequent i al i st

j ust i f i cat i on f or puni shment ar e t he goal s of r ehabi l i t at i on and

t r eat ment , gener al and speci al det er r ence, and i ncapaci t at i on.

I n al l such cases usi ng consequent i al i st j ust i f i cat i ons, t he ai m

i s t o pr event or r educe f ut ur e cr i me i n some way.


21/43

21

I n t he l ast decade, a not ed r et r i but i vi st , Andr ew von

Hi r sch, has modi f i ed hi s posi t i on. He no l onger j ust i f i es har d

t r eat ment wi t h a benef i t s- and- bur dens argument ( al so t er med

r i ght i ng- of - t he- bal ance; von Hi r sch 1985) . Rat her , hi s

anal ysi s cent er s on t he censur i ng el ement of cr i mi nal l aw

( r epr obat i on) wi t h a secondar y emphasi s on t he pr udent i al

di si ncent i ve t hat har d t r eat ment af f or ds ( pr event i on of cr i me)

( von Hi r sch 1993: 9- 14) . Al t hough von Hi r sch i s one phi l osopher

among many, hi s i deas have been i nf l uent i al , and hi s wor k i s

f r equent l y ci t ed by rest or at i ve j ust i ce advocat es.

Wi t h t hi s background, we may now note probl ems i n how some

r est or at i ve j ust i ce advocat es dr aw cont r ast s bet ween j ust i ce

model s. Fi r st , advocat es uni f y t he puni shment goal s of j ust

desert s, i ncapaci t at i on, and det er r ence under one headi ng of t he

r et r i but i ve model . Thi s i s i nappr opr i at e and mi sl eadi ng.

Second, advocat es do not descr i be t he puni shment j ust i f i cat i on

f or rest orat i ve j ust i ce. I s i t consequent i al i s t , ret r i but i vi st ,

a combi nat i on? Thi r d, advocates seem unaware of changes i n

r et r i but i vi st i deas. For exampl e, r et r i but i on i s under st ood as

channel i ng r evenge ( Wal gr ave 1995: 236) , t he assumpt i on bei ng

t hat i ncar cer at i on [ i s] t he pr i mar y means of sanct i oni ng

of f enders ( Bazemore 1996: 50) . These vi ews ar e not hel d a

l eadi ng r et r i but i vi st , who says t hat a decent soci et y shoul d

seek t o keep t he pur posef ul i nf l i ct i on of hur t t o a mi ni mum and

who i s i nt erest ed i n how f i nes and communi t y servi ce mi ght be

scal ed on desert gr ounds ( von Hi r sch 1993: 4) .

Per haps advocat es ar e ar gui ng f or a t hi r d posi t i on t hat

combi nes el ement s of r et r i but i vi sm and consequent i al i sm? Thi s


22/43

22

woul d not be di f f i cul t : one coul d devi se a deser t - based

st r uct ur e to communi t y servi ce hour s, as was done i n t he 1980s i n

New Yor k Ci t y under t he auspi ces of t he Ver a I nst i t ut e of J ust i ce

( McDonal d 1986) and, mor e recent l y, t he Cent er f or Al t er nat i ve

Sent enci ng and Empl oyment Servi ces ( Si ngl et on 1990) . Wal gr ave

and Aert sen ( 1996: 82) argue f or a deser t - based appr oach t o

communi t y ser vi ce when they say, t he obl i gat i on to rest or e

al l ows t he i nt r oduct i on of a f or m of pr opor t i onal i t y. The

r ef er ence t o the har m caused pr ovi des an i ndi cat i on of t he extent

t o whi ch a r est r i ct i on of f r eedom i s per mi ssi bl e t hr ough i mposed

r est or at i on.

Zedner ( 1994) asks whet her i t i s possi bl e t o r econci l e

r epar at i on and r et r i but i on. Af t er anal yzi ng t he pur poses and

pr i nci pl es of st at e puni shment , her answer i s a qual i f i ed yes,

al t hough she t hi nks that accommodat [ i ng] r epar at i ve j ust i ce t o

t he rat i onal e of puni shment coul d easi l y st r i p i t of much of

i t s or i gi nal appeal , [ especi al l y] i t s commi t ment t o r epai r i ng

r upt ur ed soci al bonds. Zedner s car ef ul consi der at i on of t he

poi nt s of over l ap and di f f er ence, dr awi ng f r om t he legal

l i t er at ur e, i s r ei nf or ced by empirical st udy of what occur s i n

t hose pr act i ces ( or cer emoni es) t hat may be t er med r est or at i ve.

From observat i ons of f ami l y gr oup conf er ences f or admi t t ed

j uveni l e of f ender s i n Aust r al i a, one of us ( Dal y) f i nds t hat when

conf er ence par t i ci pant s t al k about t he of f ense and i t s i mpact ,

why t he of f ense came about , and t he ways an of f ender can r est ore

t he harm, el ement s of censure, payi ng back the vi ct i m, and

hel pi ng t he of f ender t o r ef or m ar e al l i nvoked. That i s to say,

pr act i ces t er med r est or at i ve j ust i ce ar e capaci ous: t hey can


23/43

23

i ncl ude di scour ses of bl ame and censur e, r epai r , and pr omi ses f or

good wor ks i n t he f ut ur e. Consi der t oo t hat t he t heor y of

r ei nt egr at i ve shami ng cal l s f or censur i ng of t he act , f ol l owed by

gest ur es of l ove and af f i r mat i on t owar d of f ender s by t hose cl ose

t o t hem. And i n pr act i ce, dur i ng f ami l y gr oup conf er ences,

par t i ci pant s do shi f t f r om di scussi ons of of f ender r esponsi bi l i t y

f or an act and t he censur i ng of t he act , t o ef f or t s t o assi st an

of f ender i n t he f ut ur e.

At i ssue i s not onl y what gets discussed, but the forum of

discussion. Many pr act i ces ter med r est or at i ve do not t ake

pl ace i n publ i c, f or mal si t es; i nst ead, t hey ar e under st ood t o be

pr i vat e, t hat i s, out si de publ i c vi ew and wi t h l i mi t ed pr esence

of a l egal aut hor i t y. Rest or at i ve j ust i ce advocat es need t o be

cl ear about what act i ons and conver sat i ons ar e t aki ng pl ace i n

publ i c or pr i vat e set t i ngs ( t hat i s, what act i ons ar e par t of

f or mal and i nf or mal j ust i ce) . For exampl e, when Br ai t hwai t e and

Mugf or d ( 1994) i l l ust r at e t he condi t i ons of successf ul

r ei nt egr at i on cer emoni es, dr awi ng f r om obser vat i ons of f ami l y

gr oup conf er ences, t hey i gnor e bot h a di f f er ence and a si mi l ar i t y

i n t he condi t i ons of degr adat i on and r ei nt egr at i on

ceremoni es. They over l ook the f act t hat a degr adat i on ceremony

( as descr i bed by Gar f i nkel 1956 wi t h r ef er ence t o cour t

pr oceedi ngs, pr i mar i l y sent enci ng) i s a publ i c cer emony i n a

cour t , whereas a r ei nt egr at i on ceremony i s a pr i vat e ceremony

( conf i dent i al , onl y f or t he par t i ci pant s i nvol ved) i n a non- cour t

set t i ng. [ Wal gr ave and Aer t sen ( 1996: 78- 81) al so i dent i f y t hi s

probl em; t hey ar gue t hat shami ng may be accept abl e i n an

i nf or mal set t i ng, but publ i c shami ng coul d easi l y degener at e i nt o


24/43

24

a degr adat i on ceremony. ] At t he same t i me, Br ai t hwai t e and

Mugf or d ( 1994) i gnor e a si mi l ar i t y i n what occur s dur i ng t he t wo

ceremoni es: t he act i s denounced and t he of f ender i s expect ed t o

t ake r esponsi bi l i t y f or i t . 20

Ther e ar e i mport ant di f f er ences i n what can be sai d and

achi eved i n a cour t r oomand a conf er ence ceremony. I n t he

l at t er , f or exampl e, vi ct i ms can be hear d and t hose cl ose t o t he

of f ender can al so expr ess t hei r af f ect i on and desi r e t o

r ei nt egr at e t he of f ender . The poi nt i s t hat st r ong cont r ast s

t hat anal yst s may wi sh t o dr aw between r et r i but i ve and

r est or at i ve model s of j ust i ce or of degr adat i on and

r ei nt egr at i on cer emoni es do not r ef l ect poi nt s of si mi l ar i t y;

t hey may al so negl ect ot her poi nt s of di f f er ence.

2. Address the Relationship of Retributivism and

Consequentialism to Restorative Justice. We have al r eady not ed

di f f er ences bet ween t hose who j ust i f y puni shment on r et r i but i vi st

and consequent i al i st gr ounds. We shal l not det ai l t he

pr ot agoni st s posi t i ons her e, but we do wi sh t o cl ar i f y cer t ai n

f eat ur es of t he debat e. Fi r st , t her e i s an unf or t unat e hi st or y

t o t he exchanges i n t he j ust deser t s ( e. g. , von Hi r sch 1985;

von Hi r sch and Ashwor t h 1992; Ashwor t h and von Hi r sch 1993) and

not j ust deser t s ( Br ai t hwai t e and Pet t i t 1990; Pet t i t wi t h

Br ai t hwai t e 1993, 1994) mat t er . Br ai t hwai t e s (1989) t heor y of

r ei nt egr at i ve shami ng, whi ch he now i ncor por at es i n t he

r epubl i can t heor y of cr i mi nal j ust i ce and whi ch he vi ews as a

f or m of r est or at i ve j ust i ce, i s a consequent i al i st t heor y. The

cr i t i cal r eact i on by von Hi r sch and Ashwor t h t o the sent enci ng

component of t he republ i can t heor y i s ai med pr i mar i l y at t he


25/43

25

pr obl ems i nher i ng ( as t hey see i t ) i n consequent i al i st

j ust i f i cat i ons, not t o r est or at i ve j ust i ce per se. 21 One can

i magi ne a r est or at i ve model coul d be r et r i but i vi st ,

consequent al i st , or a combi nat i on of t he two.

A second pr obl em i s t hat each si de of t he debat e does not

keep up wi t h t he concessi ons t he other has made. For exampl e, as

we have noted, von Hi r sch s posi t i on has now shi f t ed away f r oma

benef i t s- and- bur dens j ust i f i cat i on; he has added a

consequent i al i st j ust i f i cat i on f or har d t i me, ar gued st r ongl y

f or parsi mony i n puni shment , and consi dered ways t o devi se

deser t - based cri t er i a f or non- cust odi al sancti ons. Pet t i t wi t h

Br ai t hwai t e ( 1993, 1994) now concede t hat set t i ng cl ear upper

bounds on sent enci ng i s essent i al .

These schol ar s do di f f er on key poi nt s: among t hem, how

much di scr et i on shoul d be per mi t t ed i n deci di ng sanct i ons, and

t he i nt er r el at ed cri t er i a of f ai r ness, consi st ency, and

pr opor t i onal i t y i n t he i mposi t i on of sanct i ons. But , t o dat e,

t hey have l ar gel y been engaged i n def endi ng t he super i or i t y of

r et r i but i vi sm or consequent i al i sm. I t woul d be hel pf ul t o know

how t hese schol ar s woul d concept ual i ze pr act i ces and pr i nci pl es

i n i nf or mal and f or mal set t i ngs, and how t hey woul d consi der

f ai r ness and consi st ency t o bot h of f ender s and vi ct i ms. Al t hough

t here has been some di scussi on al ong t hese l i nes ( Ashwor t h 1993) ,

mor e coul d be ent er t ai ned.

3. Use More Precise Terms and Promise Less. A maj or

chal l enge posed by rest or at i ve j ust i ce i s whet her we ar e abl e to

even speak about i t or i mpl ement bi t s of i t wi t hi n t he domi nant

puni shment - or wel f ar e- or i ent ed j ust i ce f r amewor ks. Pr obabl y


26/43

26

not , or not ver y wel l . An added pr obl em i s how advocates may t r y

t o per suade pol i t i ci ans, pol i cymaker s, and member s of t he gener al

publ i c of i t s mer i t s. The f ol l owi ng st at ement s i l l ust r at e t hese

t hemes. They show t he di f f i cul t i es of descr i bi ng r est or at i ve

j ust i ce i n gener al t er ms, usi ng a vocabul ar y t hat i s f ami l i ar and

r eassur i ng t o pol i cymaker s and ci t i zens.

Fr om Bazemore and Umbrei t ( 1995: 304, 311) :

Nei t her puni t i ve nor l eni ent i n i t s f ocus,r est or at i ve j ust i ce gauges success i n sanct i oni ng notby how much puni shment was i nf l i ct ed or t r eat ment

pr ovi ded but by how much r eparat i on, r esol ut i on, andr ei nt egr at i on was achi eved.

Rest or at i ve j ust i ce . . has i mpl i cat i ons f orenhanci ng and bui l di ng suppor t f or a more empower i ng,hol i st i c, and ef f ect i ve r ei nt egr at i ve appr oach t or ehabi l i t at i on . . . and f or def i ni ng a new r ol e f orj uveni l e j ust i ce prof ess i onal s i n enhanci ng t hesaf et y and secur i t y of communi t i es.

And t hese st at ement s f r omvan Ness ( 1993: 264, 266) :

The over al l pur pose of r est or at i ve j ust i ce i st o r esi st cr i me by bui l di ng saf e and st r ongcommuni t i es.

The chal l enge i s t o pr i or i t i ze r est or at i veout comes over pr ocedur al goal s. The t est ofany response t o cr i me must be whether i t i shel pi ng t o r est or e t he i nj ur ed par t i es.

For t he f i r st st at ement , one sees why deser t t heor i st s ar e

concer ned wi t h t he i deas put f or war d by some r est or at i ve j ust i ce

advocates. Can success i n sanct i oni ng be gauged by t he amount

of r epar at i on? Al t hough t he achi evement of r esol ut i on and

r ei nt egr at i on ar e l audabl e ai ms, can or shoul d t hese be t he f ocus

of sanctions?

For t he second, desert t heor i st s may agai n l ook askance.

The l anguage of mor e ef f ect i ve r ehabi l i t at i on and enhanci ng

t he saf et y of communi t i es pr omi ses bot h t her apy and rest r ai nt


27/43

27

( von Hi r sch 1985) , r ai si ng agai n t he spect er of wi de- r angi ng

di scr et i on. Mor eover , t her e appear t o be di f f er ences bet ween

advocat es over t he r ol e of r ehabi l i t at i on i n a r est or at i ve

j ust i ce model . Whereas Bazemor e and Umbrei t ( 1995) seem t o

suppor t t he i dea, Wal gr ave ( 1995: 244) does not , at l east not as

par t of t he f or mal ( or j udi ci al ) f r amewor k of j ust i ce. 22

For t he t hi r d, cr i me coul d best be r esi st ed ( ar guabl y) by

abol i shi ng cr i mi nal l aw, and even i n saf e and st r ong

communi t i es, t her e wi l l be har ms i nf l i ct ed. Mi ght t he aut hor be

pr omi si ng t oo much f or r est or at i ve j ust i ce?

For t he l ast st at ement , what i s t he rel at i onshi p bet ween

pr ocedur al and subst ant i ve j ust i ce i n a r est or at i ve j ust i ce

model ? I n r est or i ng t he i nj ur ed par t i es, i s pr i or i t y gi ven t o

of f ender s or t o vi ct i ms wi t h r espect t o f ai r ness? Or by

rest or i ng, i s t he aut hor r ef er r i ng t o r econci l i ng t hei r

i nt er ests or , per haps, t o t hei r r econci l i at i on?

We do not wi sh t o si ngl e out t hese aut hor s and t hei r i deas

as devi ant . Thei r aspi r at i ons and cl ai ms f or a bet t er f or m of

j ust i ce ar e t he norm, especi al l y i n t he U. S. l i t er at ure. I t i s

t hi s nor m, wi t h i t s set of pr omi ses, t hat we wi sh t o chal l enge. 23

The r het or i cs i n cr i me and j ust i ce pul l us t owar d si mpl e

underst andi ngs of good and evi l , whether i n academi a or

popul ar cul t ur e. Some l i ber al and cri t i cal cri mi nol ogi st s t oday

may f i nd i t seduct i ve t o chal l enge t he evi l s of escal at i ng

r epr essi ve puni shment , especi al l y i ncreasi ng r at es of

i mpr i sonment , whi ch ar e cl ai med ( wr ongl y) t o have been caused by

pol i ci es anchor ed i n j ust deser t s. 24 They may see i n r est orat i ve

j ust i ce a good t o suppl ant t hi s evi l . But i n t r yi ng t o


28/43

28

per suade ot her s of i t s pot ent i al goodness, per haps t oo much i s

bei ng pr omi sed. I n a pol i t i cal cl i mat e wher e ci t i zens and

pol i cymakers may demand pr oof s of t he ef f i cacy of r est or at i ve

j ust i ce, advocat es may not be abl e t o del i ver . They may have set

expect at i ons t oo hi gh.

Modest ai ms and st r at egi es may pr ove more successf ul . One

i magi nat i ve act i on- r esear ch pr oj ect i s t he Medi at i on f or

Repar at i on Pr oj ect i n Leuven, Bel gi um ( Pet er s and Aer t sen 1995) .

The proj ect does not of f er di ver si on f r om cour t ; medi at i on st af f

r un vi ct i m- of f ender meet i ngs i n par al l el wi t h pr osecut or i al

i nvest i gat i on, t he expect at i on bei ng t hat t he out come of t he

medi at i on may af f ect t he sent ence. The pr oj ect r equi r es

di scussi ons bet ween pr osecutors and member s of t he medi at i on

st af f i n sel ect i ng and goi ng f or war d wi t h cases. Thi s per mi t s a

f or um f or per manent r ef l ect i on and r e- t hi nki ng of t he exi st i ng

appr oach wi t hi n t he syst em. . . . [ I t pr ovi des a way to make]

member s of t he j udi ci ary more ef f ect i vel y commi t t ed t o the new,

r est or at i ve par adi gm ( Wal gr ave and Aert sen 1996: 76) .

The Leuven r esear ch can r eveal how f or ms of r est or at i ve

j ust i ce may be abl e t o wor k al ongsi de cur r ent pract i ces, and i t

may suggest ways i n whi ch t r adi t i onal l egal pr act i ces i n cr i mi nal

or j uveni l e cour t s can be i nf or med, and perhaps changed by,

r est or at i ve j ust i ce i deas. Many l egal actors resi st r est or at i ve

j ust i ce, seei ng i n i t s predomi nant l y medi at i on f or m, a second-

cl ass f or m of j ust i ce. ( So t oo f or cr i me vi cti ms, of f ender s,

and ot her s. ) Legal act or s, especi al l y j udges, magi st r at es,

pr osecut or s, and pol i ce of f er s, may di spar age r est or at i ve j ust i ce

as a sof t opt i on t hat does not send st r ong si gnal s


29/43

29

pr oscri bi ng i l l egal conduct . Exhor t at i ons about t he evi l s of

pr i son and the goodness of compensat i on and communi t y ser vi ce are

not l i kel y t o per suade member s of t he l egal est abl i shment . But

i f some members see the ways t hat r est or at i ve j ust i ce can wor k,

and wi t h what ki nds of cases, t hen some change i s possi bl e.

Conclusion

Rest or at i ve j ust i ce has bur st on t he i nt er nat i onal scene as

an umbrel l a concept and soci al movement . As a concept , i t means

many t hi ngs and cont ai ns var i ed pr act i ces at di f f er ent si t es of

deci si on- maki ng. For t he j uveni l e and cr i mi nal j ust i ce syst ems,

i t i s vi ewed as a set of al t er nat i ves t o f or mal j ust i ce, as a way

t o hi ve of f l ess ser i ous cases, t o di ver t young of f ender s f r om

cour t , t o pr ovi de oppor t uni t i es f or vi ct i ms and of f ender s t o meet

and perhaps t o make amends, and t o reduce a r el i ance on pr i son.

As a soci al movement , i t s members are agai nst cur r ent j ust i ce

syst em pr act i ces, especi al l y t he over use of pr i son, on bot h

et hi cal and economi c r at i onal i st gr ounds. As a concept and

soci al movement , r est or at i ve j ust i ce has capt ur ed t he i magi nat i on

of gr owi ng segment s of pr act i t i oner s, academi cs, and pol i cymaker s

f or i t s pr omi se t o do j ust i ce di f f er ent l y and bet t er . Can i t ?

And how wi l l t hat be done?

I n movi ng f r om good i nt ent i ons, st r ong met aphor s, and

compel l i ng st or i es of vi ct i m- of f ender r el at i onshi ps, t o a

r ef l ecti on on et hi cal , l egal , and phi l osophi cal t heor i es, t he

wor k becomes har der , t he pol i t i cal and pr of essi onal chal l enges

mor e i nt ense. Debat e wi l l emer ge over pr i nci pl es and pr act i ces,

as i t shoul d.


30/43

30

We have ar gued agai nst t he wi sdom of opposi ng r et r i but i ve

and r est or at i ve model s of j ust i ce, and we have pr oposed t hat

gr eat er concept ual cl ar i t y be br ought t o bear on what i s bei ng

compar ed and eval uated. Gr eater at t ent i on shoul d be pai d t o t he

pr act i ces t hat may be opt i mal i n f or mal and i nf or mal si t es, t o

how deci si ons i n f or mal and i nf or mal si t es mi ght be l i nked, and

t o t he t r adeof f s bet ween consequent i al i st and r et r i but i vi st

j ust i f i cat i ons. For some t i me t o come, r est or at i ve j ust i ce wi l l

oper at e as shadow j ust i ce ( Har r i ngt on 1985) , i t s advocat es

gai ni ng a f oot hol d t hr ough t he st eal t h of di squi et and

ent er pr i se r at her t han . . . t he f or ce of open def i ance ( Pavl i ch

1996: 42) . Pr act i ces wi l l l ar gel y be cont ai ned by f or mal st at e

j ust i ce, al t hough not ent i r el y.

We worr y that advocates of r est or at i ve j ust i ce may be

pr omi si ng t oo much: of r epai r i ng soci al bonds, of of f ender s

maki ng r epar at i ons t o t he communi t y, of t he r ei nt egr at i on of

of f ender s i nt o communi t i es, of vi ct i ms r ecei vi ng compensat i on, of

vi ct i ms bei ng sat i sf i ed wi t h t he pr ocess, and on and on i t goes.

We shoul d r emember t hat j ust i ce i s el usi ve, an exper i ence of t he

i mpossi bl e ( Pavl i ch 1996: 37, quot i ng Der r i da 1992) .

Rest or at i ve j ust i ce, al r eady compl i cat ed and conf used enough as

i t i s, may do wel l by r educi ng i t s excess of pr omi ses.

Endnotes

1 Tony Mar shal l r epor t s hear i ng t hese t er ms used i n r ef er r i ng t o

new j ust i ce modes: r est or at i ve, communi t ar i an, nei ghbor hood,


31/43

31

pr ogr essi ve, r ei nt egr at i ve, s i t uat i onal , accessi bl e, i nf or mal ,

r epar at i ve, hol i st i c, gr een, r eal , sof t , negot i at ed, bal anced,

t rue, posi t i ve, nat ural , genui ne, rest i t ut i ve, rel at i onal ,

communi t y, al t er nat i ve, const r uct i ve, par t i ci pat or y, pr obl em-

sol vi ng, and t r ansf or mat i ve. "What ever t he t er m, " he not es, " t he

t endency i s t o br i ng i n ever yt hi ng" ( Mar shal l 1997: 2) .

2 Our epi gr amcomes f r om Wal gr ave and Aert sen s ( 1996) di scussi on

of t he ut i l i t y of t he t er m, r est or at i ve shami ng, whi ch had been

suggest ed i nf or mal l y by J ohn Br ai t hwai t e. They ar gue t hat whi l e

r ei nt egr at i ve shami ng and r est or at i ve j ust i ce may be seen as

compl ement ary concept s, [ t hey] shoul d not be f used t ogether.

They expl ai n why: The ar ea i s compl i cat ed and conf used enough

as i t i s.

3 Wal gr ave ( 1995: 245) suggest s t hat r est or at i ve j ust i ce i s . . .

an i deal of j ust i ce i n an i deal of soci et y. Thus, i t i s not

si mpl y a new way of doi ng j ust i ce, but depends f or i t s ul t i mat e

success on a change i n soci al et hi cs and a di f f er ent i deol ogy of

soci et y.

4 Par t I excer pt s f r om and r evi ses I mmar i geon and Dal y ( 1997) .

5 Par t I I excer pt s f r om and expands on a paper gi ven at t he

J ust i ce Wi t hout Vi ol ence conf er ence, Al bany, New Yor k, J une

1997 ( Dal y and I mmar i geon 1997) .


32/43

32

6 At i ssue i s whether a new pr act i ce mer el y accommodat es i t sel f

t o exi st i ng cr i mi nal j ust i ce pr act i ces or chal l enges and changes

exi st i ng pr acti ces. I n cri mi nal j ust i ce r ef or m ( or any r ef or m,

per haps) , di f f er ences ar i se bet ween what i s sol d and what i s

l at er pr act i ced. Some pr act i t i oner s ( and t he or gani zat i onal and

pol i t i cal cont ext s wi t hi n whi ch t hey wor k) ar e bet t er posi t i oned

t han other s t o i mpl ement t he compl exi t i es of pr oposed r ef or ms.

As si mpl e t echni ques, rest or at i ve j ust i ce pr act i ces can easi l y

become mor e of t he same rat her t han somet hi ng new.

7 Nat i onal and r egi onal var at i on i s evi dent i n t he over vi ews and

col l ect i ons by Abel ( 1982) , Gal away and Hudson ( 1996) , Messmer

and Ot t o ( 1992) , and Mat t hews ( 1988) .

8 Some at t r i but e t he or i gi n of t he t er m r est or at i ve j ust i ce t o

Al ber t Egl ash ( 1976) , who wr ot e about t he need f or cr eat i ve

r est i t ut i on. Egl ash devel oped hi s per spect i ve t hr ough r eadi ng

aut obi ogr aphi es of l awbr eaker s. The r est or at i ve appr oach he

pr oposed r edef i ned t he past r esponsi bi l i t y of an of f ender i n

t erms of t he damage ( or harm) done t o vi ct i ms, and the pr esent

r esponsi bi l i t y of an of f ender i n t er ms of a capaci t y f or

const r uct i ve act i on. Egl ash saw hi msel f as of f ender - or i ent ed.

For me, he once sai d, r est or at i ve j ust i ce and r est i t ut i on,

l i ke i t s t wo al t er nat i ves, puni shment and t r eat ment , i s [ si c]

concer ned pr i mar i l y wi t h of f ender s. Any benef i t t o vi ct i ms i s a

bonus, gr avy, but not t he meat and pot at oes of t he pr ocess

( Egl ash 1976: 99) .


33/43

33

9 I n t he l ast t wo t o t hr ee decades i n t he U. S. , cr i me of f ender s

and vi ct i ms have gai ned some i mpor t ant r i ght s, and pr i soner s

and vi ct i m s r i ght s movement s have achi eved a vi si bi l i t y

pr evi ousl y unknown t o t hem. Bei ng vi si bl e i n a cour t r oom or

l egal br i ef as a pl ai nt i f f may not be adequat e f or ei t her par t y.

Rest or at i ve j ust i ce of f er s a pr ocess by whi ch t he desi r es of

( some) vi ct i ms and of f enders t o f ace and conf r ont each other can

be met .

10 We ar e uncer t ai n why t hi s shi f t i n t er ms occur r ed, f r om VORP to

VOM. One r eason mi ght have been t o al l ay vi ct i m concerns about

r econci l i ng wi t h of f ender s. Anot her i s t hat medi at i on can be

used i n vi ct i m- of f ender encount er s at ear l y st ages of t he

cri mi nal pr ocess.

11 Ther e ar e pr obl ems i n how sent enci ng ci r cl es can be used i n

cases i nt r a- r aci al vi ol ence i nvol vi ng Abor i gi nal women as

vi ct i ms. See Razack s ( 1994) cr i t i que of Ross ( 1992) , and mor e

gener al l y, St ubbs s ( 1995) cr i t i que of Br ai t hwai t e and Dal y

( 1994) on usi ng r est or at i ve j ust i ce met hods i n f ami l y and sexual

vi ol ence cases.

12 I n an ot her wi se i nci si ve anal ysi s of t he Or i ent al i st

appr opr i at i on of Maor i cul t ur e i n t he ser vi ce of whi t e j ust i ce,

Bl agg ( 1997) gi ves t he mi sl eadi ng i mpr essi on t hat t he Wagga


34/43

34

model , wi t h i t s associ at ed component of i nduci ng shame, i s t he

nor m i n Austr al i a.

13 The soci al movement s l i t eratur e i s l arge, but comment at or s

suggest t wo general appr oaches are t aken: r esour ce

mobi l i zat i on, associ at ed wi t h U. S. r esear ch, and new soci al

movement s, associ at ed wi t h Eur opean research ( Tar r ow 1996) .

14

Restor at i ve j usti ce i s s i mi l ar t o t he i dea ( or i deal ) of

communi t y; t he two ar e of t en l i nked by advocat es of r est or at i ve

j ust i ce. As Lacey ( 1996: 118) suggest s, communi t y can ser ve t o

i nf use . . . t he r at i onal - i nst r ument al space of t he l egal wi t h

somethi ng af f ect i ve and commi t t ed. Ter ms such as heal i ng and

r epai r i ng t he communi t y evoke r omant i c not i ons of an i magi ned

past .

15 Advocat es poi nt out t hat r est or at i ve j ust i ce i s not new at al l ,

but evi dent i n West er n l egal codes and bi bl i cal t ext s f r om as

ear l y as 1700 B. C. ( see Van Ness 1993: 252- 57) .

16 Whi l e we ar gue t hat r est or at i ve j ust i ce advocat es t ake a

posi t i on t hat begi ns wi t h a cri t i que of t he f ai l ur es of ext ant

pr act i ces, t hey may not st at e what t hey ar e agai nst pr eci sel y.

St i l l ot her s may cl ai m t hat r est or at i ve j ust i ce i s a good i n

i t sel f , wi t hout r egar d f or how t he i dea may f i t wi t h cur r ent ( or

pr evi ous) t heor i es or pr act i ces i n t he cri mi nal / j uveni l e j ust i ce

syst em. Our char act er i zat i on of st ances against and for i s


35/43

35

br oad- br ushed and dr aws f r oma sel ect i ve r eadi ng of t he advocacy

l i t er at ur e. I deas and posi t i ons ar e f l ui d; t hey can be di f f i cul t

t o r epr esent accur at el y.

17 The number of R s i n t hi s ar ea i s, wel l , r emar kabl e: r epai r ,

r ecogni t i on, r econci l i at i on, r eassur ance, r ecompense,

r ect i f i cat i on. Some cr i t i cs suggest t hat t he mnemoni c

at t r act i veness of t he . . . R s i s not mat ched by the

persuasi veness of t he t heor y on whi ch t hey are based ( Ashwort h

and von Hi r sch 1993: 11, i n cri t i ci zi ng Br ai t hwai t e and Pet t i t s

r epubl i can t heor y of cri mi nal j ust i ce) .

18 When t hese compar i sons ar e made, i t i s of t en not cl ear what i s

bei ng compar ed nor what t o cal l t he cat egor i es. For exampl e, i t

woul d be more sensi bl e t o compare r et r i but i ve and

consequent i al i st puni shment j ust i f i cat i ons, wi t h t he var i ous

puni shment goal s ( deser t s, r ehabi l i t at i on, det er r ence) f al l i ng

wi t hi n t hose cat egor i es. At pr esent , aut hor s seem t o be

conf l at i ng j usti f i cat i ons and goal s i n t hei r t abl es. I f t he ai m

i s t o compare puni shment goal s, t hen t here shoul d be more t han

t hr ee cat egor i es.

19 Some aut hor s chal l enge t he opposi t i on of f ormal and i nf or mal

( or st at e and popul ar ) j ust i ce, suggest i ng t hat bot h shar e

common myt hi cal f i gur es of an i ndi vi dual s aut onomy and of

pr e- exi st i ng communi t y ( see Pavl i ch s 1996 at 83- 87 f or a

di scussi on of Pet er Fi t zpat r i ck s wor k) .


36/43

36

20 See al so Zedner ( 1994: 248) on t hese two poi nt s of si mi l ar i t y

i n r et r i but i ve and r epar at i ve model s of j ust i ce: assumpt i on of

i ndi vi dual aut onomy and a harm- based not i on of r esponse. We note

t hat f r om t i me t o t i me i n a f ami l y gr oup conf er ence, some

par t i ci pant s may accept par t i al r esponsi bi l i t y f or t he of f ense,

and not f ocus on t he of f ender s cul pabi l i t y al one.

21

We ar e not aware of a di r ect exchange between the pr otagoni st s

on t he mer i t s of t he r epubl i can t heor y t hat i ncl udes a

r est or at i ve j ust i ce component ; however , Ashwort h ( 1993) has

r epl i ed t o van Ness s ( 1993) chal l enges of r est or at i ve j ust i ce,

and Fat i c ( 1995) has anal yzed t he rel at i onshi p of r est or at i ve

cr i me handl i ng t o t he Br ai t hwai t e and Pet t i t ( 1990) r epubl i can

t heor y.

22 Wal gr ave ( 1995: 244) says: The f unct i on of j ust i ce i n a

soci et y i s not t o t r eat i t s ci t i zens, nor t o make t hem happy. . . .

Rehabi l i t at i on must t ake pl ace out si de t he j ust i ce system.

Rest or at i ve j ust i ce must ( and can) ensur e t hat ext r a- j udi ci al

r ehabi l i t at i ve appr oaches ar e not pr ecl uded by i t s act i ons.

23 I n f ai r ness, Bazemor e and Umbr ei t r ef l ect on pr obl ems of

i mpl ement i ng r est or at i ve j ust i ce pr act i ces wi t hi n a t r adi t i onal

j ust i ce syst em, and van Ness ar gues t hat i t i s i mport ant t o t est

new i deas t hor oughl y . . .


37/43

37

24 I t was not t he j ust desert s puni shment goal t hat caused

pr i son popul at i ons t o i ncrease. Rat her , i t was t he pol i t i cal

popul ar i t y/ demands of mor e puni shment t hat set penal t y l evel s

hi gh, coupl ed wi t h t he cr i me cont r ol concer ns f or sent enci ng

enhancement s and mandat ory sent ences, al l of whi ch are based on

consequent i al i st pr i nci pl es. Zedner ( 1994: 231, f n. 17) suggest s,

however , t hat deser t t heor y i s par t i cul ar l y suscept i bl e t o

[ st r ong l aw- and- or der ] pr essur es.

References

Abel , R. ( Ed. ) . ( 1982) . The Politics of Informal Justice, Vol s. 1and 2. New Yor k: Academi c Pr ess.

Abel , R. ( 1982) . I nt r oducti on. I n R. Abel ( Ed. ) . The Politics ofInformal Justice, Vol . 2. ( pp. 1- 13) . New Yor k: Academi c Pr ess.

Ashwor t h, A. ( 1993) . Some Doubt s about Rest or at i ve J ust i ce.Criminal Law Forum, 4, 277- 299.

Ashwor t h, A. ( 1994) . The Criminal Process. Oxf or d: Cl ar endonPr ess.

Ashwor t h, A. and von Hi r sch, A. ( 1993) . Deser t and t he Thr eeR s. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 5, 9- 12.

Bazemor e, G. ( 1996) . Thr ee Par adi gms f or J uveni l e J ust i ce. I n B.Gal away and J . Hudson ( Eds. ) . Restorative Justice: InternationalPerspectives. ( pp. 37- 67) . Monsey, NY: Cr i mi nal J ust i ce Pr ess.

Bazemore, G. and Umbr ei t , M. ( 1995) . Ret hi nki ng t he Sanct i oni ngFunct i on i n J uveni l e Cour t : Ret r i but i ve or Rest or at i ve Responsest o Yout h Cr i me. Crime & Delinquency, 41, 296- 316.

Bi anchi , H. and Van Swaani ngen, R. ( Eds. ) . ( 1986) . Abolitionism:Towards a Non-Repressive Approach to Crime. Amst erdam: Fr eeUni ver si t y Pr ess.

Bl agg, H. ( 1997) . A J ust Measure of Shame? Abor i gi nal Yout h andConf er enci ng i n Aust r al i a. British Journal of Criminology ( i npr ess) .

Boer s, A. P. ( 1992) . Justice that Heals: A Biblical Vision forVictims and Offenders. Newt on, KS: Fai t h and Li f e Pr ess.


38/43

38

Br ai t hwai t e, J . ( 1989) . Crime, Shame and Reintegration. New Yor k:Cambr i dge Uni ver si t y Pr ess.

- - - - - - - - ( 1996) . Rest or at i ve J ust i ce and A Bet t er Fut ur e. Dor ot hyJ . Ki l l am Memor i al Lect ure, Dal housi e Uni ver si t y, Hal i f ax, Nova

Scot i a, Oct ober .

Br ai t hwai t e, J . and Dal y, K. ( 1994) . Mascul i ni t i es, Vi ol ence andCommuni t ar i an Cont r ol . i n T. Newbur n and E. A. St anko ( Eds. ) .Just Boys Doing Business? ( pp. 188- 213) . New Yor k: Rout l edge.

Br ai t hwai t e, J . and Mugf or d, S. ( 1994) . Condi t i ons of Successf ulRei nt egr at i on Cer emoni es. British Journal of Criminology, 34,139- 171.

Br ai t hwai t e, J . and Pet t i t , P. ( 1990) . Not Just Deserts: A

Republican Theory of Justice. New Yor k: Oxf or d Uni ver si t y Pr ess.

Bur nsi de, J . and Baker , N. ( Eds. ) ( 1994) . Relational Justice:Repairing the Breach. Wi nchest er , ENG: Wat er si de Pr ess.

Car l en, P. ( 1990) . Alternatives to Womens Imprisonment. Mi l t onKeynes: Open Uni ver si t y Pr ess.

Cody, J . ( 1991) . Devol ut i on, Di sengagement and Cont r ol i nt he St at ut or y Soci al Ser vi ces. i n P. McKi nl ey ( Ed. ) .Redistribution of Power? Revolution in New Zealand. ( pp. 159-190) . Wel l i ngt on, NZ: I nst i t ut e f or Pol i cy St udi es.

Col son, C. and Van Ness, D. ( 1989) . Convicted: New Hope forEnding Americas Crime Crisis. West chest er , I L: Cr ossway Books.

Consedi ne, J . ( 1995) . Restorative Justice: Healing the Effects ofCrime. Lyt t l et on, NZ: Pl oughshar es Publ i cat i ons.

Cr agg, W. ( 1992) . The Practice of Punishment: Towards a Theory ofRestorative Justice. New York: Rout l edge.

Dal y, K. ( 1989) . Cr i mi nal J ust i ce I deol ogi es and Pr act i ces i n

Di f f er ent Voi ces: Some Femi ni st Quest i ons about J ust i ce.International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 17, 1- 18.

Dal y, K. and I mmar i geon, R. ( 1997) . Rest or at i ve J ust i ce as aSoci al Movement . Paper pr esent ed at t he conf er ence J ust i ceWi t hout Vi ol ence: Vi ews f r omPeacemaki ng Cr i mi nol ogy andRest or at i ve J ust i ce Conf er ence, Al bany, NY, J une.

de Haan, W. ( 1990) . The Politics of Redress: Crime, Punishmentand Penal Abolition. London: Unwi n Hyman.

de Wol f , L. H. ( 1975) . Crime and Justice in America: A Paradox ofConscience. New York: Har per & Row.


39/43

39

Di Masci o, W. M. ( 1997) . Seeking Justice: Crime and Punishment inAmerica. New Yor k: The Edna McConnel l Cl ark Foundat i on.

Duf f , R. A. and Gar l and, D. ( Eds. ) ( 1994) . A Reader onPunishment.

Oxf or d: Oxf or d Uni ver si t y Pr ess.

Egl ash, A. ( 1976) . Beyond Rest i t ut i on - - Cr eat i ve Rest i t ut i on. i nJ . Hudson ( Ed. ) . Restitution in Criminal Justice. ( pp. 90- 101) .St . Paul , MN: Mi nnesota Depar t ment of Cor r ect i ons.

Fat i c, A. ( 1995) . Punishment and Restorative Crime-Handling: ASocial Theory of Trust. Br ookf i el d, VT: Avebur y.

Gal away, B. and Hudson, J . ( Eds. ) . ( 1996) . Restorative Justice:International Perspectives. Monsey, NY: Cr i mi nal J ust i ce Pr ess.

Gar f i nkel , H. ( 1956) . Condi t i ons of Successf ul Degr adat i onCeremoni es. American Journal of Sociology, 61, 420- 424.

Gar l and, D. ( 1997) . Gover nment al i t y and t he Probl em of Cr i me.Theoretical Criminology, 1, 173- 214.

Gi l l i gan, C. ( 1982) . In a Different Voice: Psychological Theoryand Womens Development. Cambr i dge: Har var d Uni ver si t y Pr ess.

Gr i f f i t hs, C. T. ( 1996) . Sanct i oni ng and Heal i ng: Rest or at i veJ ust i ce i n Canadi an Abor i gi nal Communi t i es. International Journalof Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 20, 195- 208.

Har l and, A. ( 1996) . Towar ds a Rest or at i ve J ust i ce Fut ur e. i n B.Gal away and J . Hudson ( Eds. ) . Restorative Justice: InternationalPerspectives. ( pp. 505- 516) . Monsey, NY: Cr i mi nal J ust i ce Pr ess.

Har r i ngt on, C. ( 1985) . Shadow Justice: The Ideology andInstitutionalization of Alternatives to the Court. West por t :Gr eenwood.

Har r i s, M. K. ( 1987) . Movi ng i nt o t he New Mi l l eni um: Toward a

Femi ni st Vi si on of J ust i ce. The Prison Journal, 67, 27- 38.

Hei densohn, F. ( 1986) . Model s of J ust i ce: Por t i a or Per sephone?Some Thought s on Equal i t y, Fai r ness and Gender i n t he Fi el d ofCr i mi nal J ust i ce. International Journal of the Sociology of Law,14, 287- 298.

Henr y, S. ( 1983) . Private Justice: Towards Integrated Theorisingin the Sociology of Law. London: Rout l edge & Kegan Paul .

Hudson, J . , Mor r i s, A. , Maxwel l , G. , and Gal away, B. ( Eds. ) .( 1996) . Family Group Conferences: Perspectives on Policy andPractice. Monsey, NY: Cr i mi nal J ust i ce Pr ess.


40/43

40

Hul l , S. C. and Knopp, F. H. ( 1978) . Instead of Prisons: MiniWorkshop Manual. Syr acuse: Saf er Soci et y Pr ess.

I mmari geon, R. ( 1984) . VORP and t he Cr i mi nal J ust i ce Syst em:Conf l i ct and Chal l enge. VORP Network News, 3, 7- 9.

I mmar i geon, R. and Dal y, K. ( 1997) . Rest or at i ve J ust i ce: Or i gi ns,Pr act i ces, Cont ext s, and Chal l enges. The ICCA Journal onCommunity Corrections, 8, ( i n press) .

Knopp, F. H. ( 1976) . Instead of Prisons: A Handbook forAbolitionists. Syr acuse: Saf er Soci et y Pr ess.

Lacey, N. ( 1996) . Communi t y i n Legal Theor y: I dea, I deal orI deol ogy? i n A. Sar at and S. Si l bey ( Eds. ) . Studies in Law,Politics and Society, Vol . 15. ( pp. 105- 146) . Gr eenwi ch: J AI

Pr ess.

Mackey, V. ( 1981) . Punishment in the Scripture and Tradition ofJudaism, Christianity and Islam. Pr i vat el y publ i shed.

Mackey, V. ( 1992) . Restorative Justice: Toward Nonviolence.Loui svi l l e, KY: Pr esbyt er i an Chur ch USA.

Mar shal l , T. F. ( 1996) . The Evol ut i on of Rest or at i ve J ust i ce i nBr i t ai n. European Journal on Criminal Justice and Research, 4,21- 43.

- - - - - - - - ( 1997) . Seeki ng t he Whol e J ust i ce. Paper pr esent ed att he conf er ence "Repai r i ng t he Damage: Rest or at i ve J ust i ce i nAct i on, I nst i t ut e f or t he St udy and Tr eat ment of Del i nquency,London, March.

Mat t hews, R. ( Ed. ) . ( 1988) . Informal Justice? Newbur y Par k: Sage.

- - - - - - - - ( 1988) . Reassessi ng I nf or mal J ust i ce. i n R. Mat t hews

(Ed. ) . Informal Justice? ( pp. 1- 24) . Newbur y Par k, CA: Sage.

Mat hi esen, T. ( 1974) . The Politics of Abolition. London: Mar t i nRober t son.

Maxwel l , G. and Mor r i s, A. ( 1993) . Family, Victims and Culture:Youth Justice in New Zealand. Wel l i ngt on, NZ: Soci al Pol i cyAgency and I nst i t ut e of Cr i mi nol ogy, Vi ct or i a Uni ver si t y ofWel l i ngt on.

McDonal d, D. C. ( 1986) . Punishment Without Walls: CommunityService

Sentences in New York City. New Br unswi ck: Rut ger s Uni ver si t yPr ess.


41/43

41

Mer r y, S. E. and Mi l ner , N. ( 1993) . The Possibility of PopularJustice: A Case Study of Community Mediation in the United

States. Ann Ar bor : Uni ver si t y of Mi chi gan Pr ess.

Messmer , H. and Ot t o, H. ( Eds. ) . ( 1992) . Restorative Justice onTrial. Dor dr echt , NETH: Kl uwer Academi c Publ i sher s.

Mi ni st er i al Advi sory Commi t t ee on a Maor i Per spect i vef or t he Depar t ment of Soci al Wel f ar e ( 1988, submi t t ed 1986) .Puao-te-ata-tu: (Daybreak). The Report of the Ministerial

Advisory Committee on a Maori Perspective for the Department of

Social Welfare. Wel l i ngt on, NZ: Depar t ment of Soci al Wel f ar e.

Moor e, D. ( 1993) . Shame, For gi veness, and J uveni l e J ust i ce.Criminal Justice Ethics, 12, 3- 25.

Mor r i s, N. and Tonr y, M. ( 1990) . Between Prison and Probation:Intermediate Sanctions in a Rational Sentencing System. New Yor k:Oxf or d Uni ver si t y Pr ess.

Pakul ski , J . ( 1988) . Soci al Movement s i n Compar at i ve Per spect i ve.i n L. Kr i esber g and B. Mi szt al ( Eds. ) . Research in SocialMovements, Conflicts and Change, Vol . 10. ( pp. 247- 267) .Gr eenwi ch: J AI Pr ess.

Pavl i ch, G. C. ( 1996) . Justice Fragmented: Mediating CommunityDisputes under Postmodern Conditions. New Yor k: Rout l edge.

Pennel l , J . , and Bur f or d, G. ( 1994) . Wi deni ng t he Ci r cl e: TheFami l y Gr oup Deci si on Maki ng Pr oj ect . Journal of Child & YouthCare, 9, 1- 12.

Pepi nsky, H. E. and Qui nney, R. ( Eds. ) . ( 1991) . Criminology asPeacemaking. Bl oomi ngt on: I ndi ana Uni ver si t y Pr ess.

Pet er s, T. and Aer t sen, I . ( 1995) . Rest or at i ve J ust i ce: I n Sear chof New Avenues i n J udi ci al Deal i ng wi t h Cr i me. i n C. Fi j naut(Ed. ) . Changes in Society, Crime and Criminal Justice in Europe,Vol . I . ( pp. 311- 342) . Ant wer pe: Kl uwer Academi c Publ i sher s.

Pet t i t , P. wi t h Br ai t hwai t e, J . ( 1993) . Not J ust Deser t s, Even i nSent enci ng. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 4, 225- 239.

Pet t i t , P. wi t h Br ai t hwai t e, J . ( 1994) . The Thr ee R s ofRepubl i can Sent enci ng. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 5,318- 325.

Qui nney, R. ( 1991) . The Way of Peace: On Cr i me, Suf f er i ng, andSer vi ce. i n H. E. Pepi nsky and R. Qui nney ( Eds. ) . Criminology asPeacemaking. ( pp. 3- 13) . Bl oomi ngt on: I ndi ana Uni ver si t y Pr ess.

Razack, S. ( 1994) . What i s t o Be Gai ned by Looki ng Whi t e Peopl ei n t he Eye? Cul t ur e, Race, and Gender i n Cases of Sexual


42/43

42

Vi ol ence. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 19,894- 923.

Ross, R. ( 1992) . Dancing with a Ghost - Exploring Indian Reality.Toronto: Oct opus Publ i shi ng.

Sant os, B. de S. ( Ed. ) . ( 1992) . St at e Tr ansf or mat i on, LegalPl ur al i sm and Communi t y J ust i ce. Themat i c I ssue of Social andLegal Studies, 1(2) .

Si ngl eton, J . ( 1993) . CASES: The Communi t y Servi ce Sent enci ngProj ect . The IARCA Journal on Community Corrections, 5, 6- 8 f f .

St ubbs, J . ( 1995) . Communi t ar i an Conf erenci ng and Vi ol enceAgai nst Women: A Caut i onar y Not e. i n M. Val ver de, et al . ( Eds. ) .Wife Assault and the Canadian Criminal Justice System: Policy

Debates. ( pp. 260- 289) . Tor ont o: Cent r e of Cr i mi nol ogy,Uni ver si t y of Tor ont o.

St uar t , B. ( 1997) . Building Community Justice Partnerships:Community Peacemaking Circles. Ot t awa: Depar t ment of J ust i ce.

Sul l i van, D. and Ti f f t , L. ( 1997) . Cr i mi nol ogy as Peacemaki ng: APeace- Or i ent ed Per spect i ve on Cr i me, Puni shment , and J ust i ce thatTakes i nt o Account t he Needs of Al l . The Justice Professional ( i npr ess) .

Tar r ow, S. (

Documents

The Past, Present, and Future of Restorative Justice: Some Critical Reflections