Though restorative justice has become an increasingly popular practice in the criminal justice field, there is still no concise, universally acceptable definition of the concept. There is often confusion over what actually constitutes restorative justice, with the concept usually being used interchangeably with terms such as relational justice, peacemaking criminology,...
Though restorative justice has become an increasingly popular practice in the criminal justice field, there is still no concise, universally acceptable definition of the concept. There is often confusion over what actually constitutes restorative justice, with the concept usually being used interchangeably with terms such as relational justice, peacemaking criminology, transformative justice, and community justice (Latimer, Dowden & Muise, 2005). Even so, restorative justice is essentially an approach to offender rehabilitation where the offender is reconciled with victim(s) and/or the larger community (Wenzel et al., 2008). In other words, all stakeholders in a certain offense jointly resolve how to deal with the consequences of the offense.
The fundamental idea behind restorative justice is that an offense constitutes a violation of not only the law, but also individuals and relationships (Stamatakis & Vandeviver, 2013). Restorative justice, therefore, seeks to mend this violation. It provides an opportunity for the victim, the offender, and the community to talk about the offense and work together in finding some form of consensus about appropriate recompense. This process involves a number of important elements: voluntariness, one-on-one encounter in a secure setting (often outside typical criminal justice institutions), dialogue, openness and honesty, acceptance of responsibility on the part of the offender, and, most importantly, mutual satisfaction between the offender and the victim (Dzur, 2003; Latimer, Dowden & Muise, 2005). Further, the process may take a number of forms, notably victim-offender mediations, conferences, sentencing circles, reparative boards, restitution, and community service (Elis, 2005).
Utilising different designs, from anecdotal accounts to randomised assignments, research in this area has shown that restorative justice can generate positive outcomes. By bringing parties to a wrongful act together, restorative justice can contribute to victim recovery, offender satisfaction, compliance with restitution, and recidivism (Dzur, 2003; Stamatakis & Vandeviver, 2013). Indeed, restorative justice has ever more been suggested as a useful way of addressing the problem of recidivism, also known as repeat offending. In their meta-analysis of 22 studies, comparing the effectiveness of restorative justice programs and conventional rehabilitation programs, Latimer, Dowden & Muise (2005) found that the former was effective in reducing recidivism. Nonetheless, majority of the restorative programs included in the meta-analysis were characterised by self-selection bias. This is, however, a common phenomenon in restorative justice research. A narrative review by Elis (2005) further shows that restorative justice programs can reduce the rate of recidivism. They bring the offender to a deeper, emotional realisation of the impact of their offense on the victim, consequently minimising the tendency of repeat offending. The review, however, focused on programs targeted at juvenile female offenders, which somewhat diminishes the applicability of the findings to the larger offender population.
More recent studies have also demonstrated the relationship between restorative justice and recidivism. Using a sample of 901 prisoners obtained from seven prisons in Belgium, Stamatakis & Vandeviver (2013) found that restorative justice programs made offenders feel responsible for the crime, portray a sense of remorse towards victims, and show willingness to build relationships with victims and the community as well as participate in reparative activities. Though the study did not directly address recidivism, it demonstrates that a sense of accountability for the offense committed and remorsefulness towards the victim may reduce the tendency of repeat offending. In spite of the large sample used, a major limitation of the study is that the sampling process was not random in nature. This may have introduced some bias. Additionally, generalising the study beyond the Belgian may be quite difficult, in large part due to cultural and structural differences between countries. Nonetheless, the study has important implications for addressing the problem of recidivism through restorative justice programs.
In their meta-analysis of ten studies involving random assignments, Sherman et al. (2015) found that restorative justice programs in the form of conferences were highly cost-effective in reducing the frequency of recidivism. The randomised nature of the studies involved in the analysis is a major strength of the study. Moreover, dissimilar to most other studies in this area, the analysis specifies the nature of restorative justice program used (conferences). Most studies (e.g. Stamatakis & Vandeviver, 2013) focus on restorative justice programs in general, making it quite difficult to establish the type of programs that are indeed effective in addressing recidivism.
The effectiveness of restorative justice in addressing recidivism may, however, be mediated by some factors. One such factor is identity relation between the offender and the victim (Wenzel et al., 2008). In other words, restorative justice is more likely to work when the offender and the victim share social identity. When the offender and the victim have a common identity, they perceive each other as members of the same group, and are thereby more likely to exhibit willingness to participate in the reconciliation process. Nevertheless, more research is needed to validate this assertion, particularly within the context of recidivism. Other factors that may moderate the relationship between restorative justice and recidivism include gender, racial background, religion, nature of crime committed, as well as public attitudes towards crime (Dzur, 2003; Elis, 2005; Stamatakis & Vandeviver, 2013). These factors may affect the offender's or victim's willingness to participate in restorative dialogue and the extent to which the victim views the wrongful act as one in which justice can be served through dialogue.
Overall, while restorative justice has increasingly become prominent in the criminal justice field, there is still scarcity of research focusing on the impact of restorative on recidivism, warranting further inquiry in this field. Understanding the relationship between restorative justice and recidivism has important implications for offender rehabilitation.
References
Dzur, A. (2003). Civic implications of restorative justice theory: citizen participation and criminal justice policy. Policy Studies, 36(3/4), 279-306.
Elis, L. (2005). Restorative justice programs, gender, and recidivism. Public Organisation Review, 5(4), 375-389.
Latimer, J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D. (2005). The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: a meta-analysis. The Prison Journal, 85(2), 127-144.
Sherman, L., Strang, H., Mayo-Wilson, E., Woods, D., & Ariel, B. (2015). Are restorative justice conferences effective in reducing repeat offending? Findings from a Campbell systematic review. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31, 1-24.
Stamatakis, N., & Vandeviver, C. (2013). Restorative justice in Belgian prisons: the results of an empirical research. Crime, Law and Social Change, 59(1), 79-111.
Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T., Feather, N., & Platow, M. (2008). Retributive and restorative justice. Law and Human Behaviour, 32, 375-389.
The remaining sections cover Conclusions. Subscribe for $1 to unlock the full paper, plus 130,000+ paper examples and the PaperDue AI writing assistant — all included.
Always verify citation format against your institution's current style guide.