Punitive Justice vs Restorative Justice Reform

Policy Article Analysis

Introduction

The criminal justice system in America is impacted by class, race, and gender issues that affect and can be affected by policy decisions (Barak et al., 2018). One particularly policy issue deals with reform of the system, and how restorative justice can be used instead of punitive justice, to help create better integration between minorities and socio-economically challenged offenders and the wider community. This paper discusses the idea of a restorative justice policy in terms of how it could affect class, race, and gender inequities, based on the article “Civic Implications of Restorative Justice Theory: Citizen Participation and Criminal Justice Policy” by Dzur (2003).

Restorative Justice and Its Policy Implications

Restorative justice is the idea that justice can be served via restitution paid by the offender. It stands in contrast to punitive justice, which focuses on punishing the offender (typically with imprisonment) but does little to nothing in terms of restoring what was taken from the community as a result of the offense. In restorative justice, the offender is given an opportunity to make restitution, for example, through some community service, and the victim and community can feel satisfied that the offense has been rectified, the offender rehabilitated, and justice served (Dzur, 2003). The overall policy aim is to reduce incarceration and recidivism rates while also addressing the disparities in class, race and gender as they relate to crime and punishment. This non-punitive approach to justice has its historical roots in humanism.

Historical Perspective

The idea of restorative justice goes back to the Mennonite Central Committee’s victim-offender mediation projects in Kitchener, Ontario, and Elkhart, Indiana (Chiste, 2013). These early forays into restorative justice were motivated by religious and reformist principles, but over time the idea took on a social justice dimension, too, in order to address lingering issues of inequity in class, race, and gender (Payne & Welch, 2015; Kim, 2021; Willis, 2020). Restorative justice has been supported theoretically and practically as a reform policy in criminal justice, due to its ability to reduce recidivism rates among offenders and appease victims better than punitive justice approaches (Kim, 2021; Turner, 2019). It also appeals to reforms due to its potential for reducing the costs associated with imprisonment and alleviating the social consequences of traditional punitive measures??, like father or mother absence, and undermining of minority populations (Dzur, 2003).

Historically, restorative justice has offered an alternative to the punitive measures that disproportionately affect lower socioeconomic classes (Willis, 2020). Traditional punitive systems have been linked to class disparities due to the fact that economically disadvantaged offenders tend to face harsher penalties such as longer sentences since they have limited capital for top-tier legal representation. Restorative justice, on the other hand, takes a different approach to justice by focusing on reparations made to the community and the victim rather than punitive measures; the offender is not separated from the community but instead is obliged to create stronger ties and bonds with the community through some service—and this manner class disparities and social equity are not worsened and can be actually improved (Willis, 2020).

The racial implications of restorative justice are also interesting, since in punitive criminal justice policies, such as mandatory minimum sentencing, there is a disproportionate impact on minority communities, such as African Americans and Hispanics (Turner, 2019). Restorative justice is a way to address racial disparities in criminal justice by involving community representatives in the adjudication process, promoting racial understanding and dialogue between victims and offenders, and creating new bonds by which racially marginalized populations can be better integrated into society and have a sense of belonging. This approach to reform policy can be a way to reduce racial biases and establish more of an equitable justice system?? based on integration rather than separation (Payne & Welch, 2015).

Restorative justice can also address issues of gender disparities within the criminal justice system. Traditional punitive measures do not always address the needs of female offenders and victims (Kim, 2021). Restorative justice’s emphasis on making restitution and community involvement represent a more supportive and pro-social, gender-sensitive, and inclusive approach to justice—one that can be gender-based and appropriately responsive to the needs of women??.

Current Perspective

Restorative justice policy can be impactful across race, class and gender spectrums in terms of serving as a framework for family group conferences, victim-offender reconciliation programs, community reparative boards, community service programs, and housing (Dzur, 2003). These programs can range from voluntary participation to court-mandated service, but the overall aim is the same—repairing some harm done and reintegrating offenders into society.

Current research shows that restorative justice practices can alleviate class disparities, as Willis (2020) points out, simply because this non-punitive, pro-social approach to reform in criminal justice can reduce the negative impacts of social class on recidivism. It is a reform-minded policy approach that can be used to level the playing field by creating more equitable outcomes for people in the criminal justice system who come from all different socioeconomic backgrounds

Future Policy Implications

Restorative justice has potential to reform criminal justice policy to better address disparity issues stemming from class, race, and gender inequities. Policy changes will have to focus on these specific issues, however, to be most fully effective. In terms of class, future policies should incorporate restorative justice programs so that those who are disproportionately affected, such as the lower socioeconomic classes, can receive pro-social treatment in the system. Payne and Welch (2015) suggest that implementing such an approach in educational settings has already shown that it can prevent the school-to-prison pipeline, which is one thing that affects students from disadvantaged backgrounds??. Such practices can be extended to adult offenders to reduce recidivism.

To address racial disparities, future policies should focus on making sure that community representatives involved in restorative justice programs reflect the diversity of the communities they serve. Turner (2019) notes the importance of a critical race feminist approach here, so as to reduce gender and racial biases within the system??. Overall, restorative justice policies should be sensitive to gender needs, as Kim (2021) argues??. The main takeaway for future policy, as Dzur (2003) shows, is that for restorative justice to be most effective it must have the support of the public. Future research should look, therefore, at the impact of restorative justice on public perceptions of justice. Policies should bring restorative justice approaches into more and more criminal justice processes.

Conclusions and Implications

Recommendations for Policy Changes

Restorative justice programs should be expanded so that they are available for marginalized groups and minority populations. This would help in addressing class disparities in criminal justice. More diversity and inclusivity should be promoted in policy regarding community representatives on restorative justice committees. This can help with racial biases in the system. There should also be some gender awareness aspect in policy that considers the needs of female offenders and victims from a restorative justice approach.