Restorative Justice as an Alternative to Retributive Punishment
This paper examines whether shaming, peacemaking, and restorative justice offer viable alternatives to the traditional retributive criminal justice system, with particular attention to the needs of victims. Drawing on the work of scholars including McCold, Koss, Sherman and Strang, and Kauzlarich, the paper evaluates restorative justice frameworks that emphasize victim reparation, offender accountability, and community restoration. It reviews empirical evidence on restorative justice outcomes—including recidivism reduction, victim satisfaction, and cost savings—and considers specific applications in domestic violence and juvenile offending. The paper concludes with recommendations for further development of restorative justice programs.
- Introduction: Overview of restorative justice as criminal justice alternative
- Community and Restorative Justice: Community role and critique of punitive justice
- The Victim and Restorative Justice: Victim needs, accountability frameworks, and victimology definitions
- Evidence on Restorative Justice Outcomes: Empirical findings from 36 restorative justice studies
- Summary and Conclusion: Applications to domestic violence and juvenile justice
- Recommendations for Further Research: Call for creative restorative program development
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Grounds the argument in multiple peer-reviewed and practitioner sources, using direct quotations to let scholars make the empirical case before synthesizing them.
- Moves logically from abstract framework to concrete evidence (Sherman and Strang's 36-study review) and then to practical applications in domestic violence and juvenile justice.
- Presents a structured accountability framework (the Mackey table) that gives visual clarity to the roles of victim, offender, community, and society.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates source synthesis: rather than simply summarizing each scholar in isolation, it chains McCold's theoretical framework, Koss's paradigm distinction, and Sherman and Strang's empirical findings into a cumulative argument for restorative justice. This layering of conceptual, definitional, and evidence-based sources is a core graduate-level literature review technique.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a problem statement and definitional overview, then proceeds through two labeled sections—one on community context and one on victim-centered outcomes—before presenting a seven-point evidence summary from Sherman and Strang. A conclusion applies the findings to domestic violence and juvenile offending, and a brief recommendations section closes with a call for continued program development. The bibliography follows APA-adjacent formatting with full URLs.
Introduction
The objective of this work is to examine whether the use of shaming, peacemaking, and restorative justice offer useful alternatives to the traditional criminal justice system, particularly from the point of view of victims. This work seeks to understand the difficulties with the use of these methods, what might render these methods into workable solutions, and what specific changes in the present criminal justice system would be necessary.
Mary P. Koss, in her work "Blame, Shame, and Community: Justice Responses to Violence Against Women," states that traditional retributive justice "aims for punishment of the guilty, whereas restorative justice is a new paradigm seeking victim-oriented criminal justice. Justice is adversarial when two sides of the case square off to uncover truth and affix responsibility by examining evidence through the questioning of witnesses" (Koss, 2000). This is one example of the broader restorative justice framework, which is being explored and utilized throughout court systems. However, this method remains relatively new in criminal justice practice.
Community and Restorative Justice
Paul McCold, in "Restorative Justice: The Role of the Community," argues that the United States "seems gripped in an addiction to a powerful drug, one more destructive than all illegal drugs combined. This drug is vengeance. When we feel the pain and fear caused by crime, we demand ever greater punishment for offenders, as if this will bring relief" (McCold, 1995). McCold notes that there is no existing empirical evidence of a credible nature demonstrating that any type of punishment actually results in a reduction in crime. He argues that restorative justice is a practice "that contains the seeds for solving a new problem — the inadequacy of the criminal justice system itself, as it lurches from crisis to crisis, based as it is on an outdated philosophy of naked revenge" (McCold, 1995).
The Victim and Restorative Justice
McCold addresses the needs of crime victims, which are described as various and "created by the harms they suffer in the crime" (McCold, 1995). Restorative justice requires that perpetrators be held accountable for the crimes they commit. McCold states that real accountability "includes taking responsibility for the results of one's behavior." Restorative justice programs have historically been limited to: (1) victim restitution programs; (2) offender accountability and victim awareness programs; and (3) victim-offender reconciliation programs.
It is suggested in the work of Karmen (1990), as reported by McCold, that restorative frameworks should include at least four distinct groups with divergent goals and differing philosophies: (1) a punishment orientation toward the offender; (2) a treatment mechanism for the rehabilitation of the offender; (3) a means to help victims; and (4) a vehicle for the reconciliation of relationships (McCold, 1995). McCold further relates that a useful framework was proposed by Reverend Virginia Mackey (1990), in which the victim, offender, and community each have defined roles according to the injury suffered, along with corresponding needs and responsibilities in the conflict. This framework is illustrated below.
Framework Proposed by Mackey (1990)
The framework identifies four stakeholders — Victim, Offender, Community, and Society — and maps each against three dimensions: Injury, Need, and Responsibility. Restorative justice, in this model, is an attempt to meet the needs "of the victim, offender and community" (McCold, 1995).
Kauzlarich, Matthews, and Miller (2001), in "Toward a Victimology of State Crime," published in the Journal of Critical Criminology, observe that there are various definitions of what constitutes a victim — and hence what victimology encompasses. They define victims as individuals or groups who: (1) have not given informed consent; (2) are incapable of making a reasonable judgment; and (3) are forced or delivered into participation in a situation that results in adverse consequences to them.
References
Holder, Robin (2001). Domestic and Family Violence: Criminal Justice Interventions. Australian Domestic & Family Violence Clearinghouse. Issue Paper 3.
Kauzlarich, David, Matthews, Rick A., and Miller, William J. (2001). Toward a victimology of state crime. Journal of Critical Criminology, 10, 173–194. Kluwer Law International.
Koss, Mary P. (2000). Blame, shame and community: Justice responses to violence against women. Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse.
McCold, Paul (1995). Restorative justice: The role of the community. Paper presented at the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences Annual Conference, Boston, March 1995. International Institute for Restorative Practices.
Sherman, Lawrence W., and Strang, Heather (2007). Restorative justice: The evidence. Jerry Lee Program of Randomized Trials in Restorative Justice. The Smith Institute.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.