Four Challenges in the Future of Restorative Justice

Abstract

Restorative justice (RJ) emerged in the late 1970s as an alternative to conventional youth and criminal justice practices. Since this time, RJ has experienced rapid growth in theory and practice. At the same time, much of this growth has come from expansion in lower-end criminal justice responses to crime, and in the increasing use of the term “restorative” for a widening host of practices and interventions. RJ has also faced problems related to its increasing institutionalization, resulting in divergence from earlier aims and goals. In this article, we set forth what we see as the four biggest challenges facing the future of RJ, namely problems related to definition, institutionalization, displacement, and relevance of RJ practices. We follow with discussion of possible future directions of RJ.

Keywords:

• international
• offenders
• restorative justice
• victims

Notes

1. We limit our discussion to Anglophone countries for two reasons. Primarily, countries such as Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States have adversarial systems of justice, as opposed to many other European countries that do not. RJ thus tends to be used as a postadjudicative practice in these countries, whereas in counties that use inquisitorial systems (i.e., Germany, Sweden, etc.) RJ may more frequently be used prior to or as part of court processes (Dünkel, Grzywa-Holten, and Horsfield, 2015). Also, Anglophone countries are generally those where RJ has had the longest and most comprehensive development and implementation.

2. See for example volume 1, issue 7 of the Contemporary Justice Review for a good example of debates between purists and maximalists.

3. See http://www.defenceabusetaskforce.gov.au/Outcomes/Pages/DefenceAbuseRestorativeEngagementProgram.aspx

4. For other research on the question of how the institutionalization of RJ may negatively impact victims, see Choi et al. (2012).

5. However, Prichard (2010) found that there was no evidence of net widening in the RJ program in Tasmania, Australia, although there was a significant increase in detention orders.

6. There are a few exceptions. Rodriguez (2005, 2007) and Baffour (2006) have looked at the efficacy of RJ programs for young Latino offenders as well as the role that ethnicity and other structural factors may have in reintegrative processes for young offenders in RJ programs.

7. There is some debate among RJ scholars and practitioners as to whether reducing reoffending should be a primary focus of RJ (c.f. Gavrielides, 2007; Robinson & Shapland, 2008; Zehr, 2002).

8. Here we do wish to note that certain categories of offending such as sexual violence and domestic violence present significant and unique problems for RJ in terms of the dynamics of meetings between victims and offenders.