This essay examines the role of restorative justice in the contemporary U.S. criminal justice system. Drawing on multiple peer-reviewed studies, it argues that restorative justice practices offer meaningful advantages over traditional retributive approaches, particularly in reducing mass incarceration costs and lowering rates of reoffending. The essay also acknowledges counterarguments, including evidence of victim dissatisfaction and concerns that some programs prioritize offender rehabilitation over victim needs. Ultimately, the paper concludes that restorative justice, when implemented thoughtfully, represents a more cost-effective and rehabilitative alternative to punitive justice.
Various arguments have been presented both for and against restorative justice. The relevance of restorative justice cannot be overstated in the contemporary criminal justice system, and this essay examines the key evidence on both sides of that claim before reaching a reasoned conclusion.
As Pavlacic, Kellum, and Schulenberg (2021) point out, the standard focus in responding to various kinds of crimes and wrongdoing in the U.S. has traditionally been retribution — that is, sending people to jail. As those authors further indicate, the costs associated with this response have been prohibitive. In their words, "states incur incredible mass incarceration costs because of these ineffective practices" (Pavlacic, Kellum, & Schulenberg, 2021, p. 2). The embrace of restorative justice practices would therefore be an ideal way of reining in unsustainable mass incarceration costs.
It should also be noted that, as Lloyd and Borrill (2020) indicate, various meta-analyses have clearly demonstrated that restorative justice practices result in lower rates of reoffending compared to other interventions deployed in the criminal justice system. This finding is corroborated by a further study on the effectiveness of restorative justice in reducing repeat offending. Sherman, Strang, Wilson, Woods, and Ariel (2015) conclude that "restorative justice conferences (RJCs) between crime victims, their accused or convicted offenders, and their respective kin and communities are a cost-effective means of reducing frequency of recidivism" (p. 11). These findings collectively make a compelling case for integrating restorative justice more fully into the U.S. legal system.
It would be prudent to note, however, that some studies indicate restorative justice practices are in certain instances associated with high rates of victim dissatisfaction (Choi, Bazemore, & Gilbert, 2012). Indeed, those authors indicate that some victims deem offender apologies to be inadequate and/or insincere.
"Victim dissatisfaction and program design flaws"
Based on the findings of the discussion above, restorative justice would serve the country's legal system best. This is particularly the case given that it has been deemed more cost-effective than punitive justice, insofar as the present costs of mass incarceration are concerned. Restorative justice would also help reduce the burden on the criminal justice system, as restorative practices have been shown to result in lower rates of reoffending. While genuine concerns regarding victim satisfaction and program design must be addressed, these challenges point to the need for more careful implementation rather than a rejection of restorative justice principles altogether.
You’re 64% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.