Chapter 1: An Overview

Restorative Justice is an alternate form of criminal justice that focuses on addressing the needs of
victims and community and the obligations of the offender. This is in contrast to offenses done against a
state or the law. Restorative justice began (in its modern form) in the 1970s to address burglary and
property crimes, but since has expanded to very serious offenses like rape and murder.

Restorative Justice, like other movements, runs the risk of leading to too many offshoots that don’t stay
true to the foundational principles and risk diluting or coopting the movement. Hence this book.

Restorative justice has expanded to school and university settings. The movement also needs to re-
examine the effects of racial bias (vis a vis The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander). Some have called
into question the oversimplified labels of “victim” and “offender”, especially in contexts where
responsibility is diffuse (e.g. school setting), and some have also preferred “restorative practices” over
“restorative justice”.

It’s important to stress what restorative justice is not...

Restorative Justice:

 is not primarily about forgiveness and reconciliation. Though this may happen as a byproduct,
no one should be pressured to forgive.
 does not imply a return to past circumstances. Some things can’t be restored (e.g. murder of a
child), nor can some offenders with terrible history of abuse be restored; rather things must be
transformed, i.e. it is not a movement to the status quo, but rather transformation to bring out
the goodness that has always been available but missed.
 Beautiful quote by attorney Fania Davis (in email to Zehr): “It’s not about returning to the pre-
conflict status quo but about returning to one’s best self that’s always there. When well
facilitated, RJ processes create the possibility for transformation of p communities. This is often
a radical departure from the preconflict status quo. So what are we restoring? For me it’s about
returning to the part of us that really wants to be connected to one another in a good way.
Returning to the goodness inherent in all of us. One might say, returning to the divinity present
in all of us. Or as indigenous elders put it, returning to that part of us which is related to all
things.” (14, 15)
 is not mediation. Sometimes parties don’t want to meet, so it’s not necessarily about an
encounter. Also, mediation assumes two parties are on equal moral footing, which is not the
case in restorative justice. Better words are “dialogue” and “conferencing” instead.
 is not primarily about reducing recidivism or repeat offenses. Though this can be a valued
byproduct, RJ is done because it’s the right thing to do: have victims’ needs addressed and have
offenders take responsibility.
 is not a particular program or blueprint. RJ solutions must be built from the bottom up, taking to
account a given community's needs and context. There is no single ideal blueprint, as RJ is not a
map, but more like a compass.
 is not limited to “minor offenses” or first-time offenders. Some think RJ should only be applied
to “minor offenses”, but its real power and value may actually become most evident in severest
of cases, as these are often where the needs of the victim and obligations of the offender are
greatest. Facilitators of RJ, though, need to be especially well equipped and knowledgeable to
 handle the nuanced power dynamics and underlying causes of certain cases like domestic abuse,
child offenses, or hate crimes.
 is not primarily a new or North American development. Though the early founders of the
modern RJ movement started in Canada and the US, RJ practices have been implemented way
back in human history, going back to indigenous traditions of North America and New Zealand.
 is not a panacea or replacement of the legal system. Criminal justice has a public/societal
dimension and a private/personal/interpersonal or community dimension. The legal system is
needed for the former and the latter RJ can address quite well, but it’s not a totally replacement
of the former.
 is not necessarily an alternative to prisons: though RJ can work well as an alternative to prison in
some cases, they can be used to compliment prison sentences but not as a total replacement
 is not the opposite of retribution, despite Zehr’s earlier writings.

Restorative Justice is concerned about needs and roles

 Restorative justice focuses on needs rather than deserts or punishments. The needs of the
victim include:
 information(e.g. why did the offense happen? what contributed to it?),
 truthtelling(where there can be therapeutic release or “restorying” which gives transcendence
of one’s experience and pains through public/symbolic acknowledgment and conveying to
offender impact of their wrongdoing),
 empowerment(giving victim a sense of involvement in legal process),
 restitution or vindication knowing that offender sets things right as best as possible and
symbolic representation of this Needs of the offender include
 Having the offender empathize with their impact on the victim and community and take
responsibility (the opposite of this often happens in the adversarial legal system where be
focused on protecting themselves from sentences)
 In addition to (1) accountability, offenders need justice to provide (2) personal transformation
and healing, (3) facilitated reintegration into society, (4) for a small number, temporary restraint
 Needs of the community
 Communities should be considered secondary victims and be involved with (1) their concerns as
victims, opportunities to build a sense of community and mutual accountability, promotion of
healthier community

Chapter 2: Restorative Principles

Restorative Justice comes from the premise shared by many traditional societies of the
interconnectedness of our human relationships. A harm to one hurts the entire web of relations and
obligates us to repair it. The criminal justice system focuses on getting offenders what they deserve; this
comes from seeing crime as harm against state or law, determining guilt, and delivering punishment. RJ
by contrast, focuses on the needs of the victim (and community) and the offender's responsibility to
repair the harm done as best as possible.
Restorative justice has 3 pillars: (1) focusing the harm and resulting needs primarily of the victim, but
also the community and offender, (2) the obligations of the offender to repair the harm as best as
possible, and (3) the engagement or participation of all these stakeholders in the justice process.

RJ favors inclusive, collaborative processes and consensual outcomes between the stakeholders. Some
have claimed that the stakeholder of “community” is somewhat ill defined in certain cultures with
erosion of community, but nonetheless RJ focuses of micro communities of place and relationships.

Restorative Justice aims to put right harms and wrongs by focusing on harms and needs, addressing
obligations, involving stakeholders, and using inclusive, collaborative processes. This all needs to be
done with an attitude of respect for all.

Definitions have drawbacks, but if wanted, “Restorative justice is an approach to achieving justice that
involves, to the extent possible, those who have a stake in a specific offense or harm to collectively
identify and address harms, needs, and obligations in order to heal and put things as right as possible”
(48).

Rather than rely on a specific “program” for RJ set in stone, it’s better to apply the guiding questions of
restorative justice to the crime at hand.

1. Who has been harmed?

Essentially, these questions change the question from “what does the offender deserve” to a RJ
approach.

Chapter 3: Restorative Practices

Restorative Justice practices have evolved and been applied to a range of applications, including aiding
conflict transformation and peacebuilding in various places around the world. Core approaches in RJ
often involve a facilitated encounter, while once different approaches like victim offender conferences,
family group conferences, and circle processes are blended. To resolve a wrongdoing, 3 things must
happen.

(1) The wrong or injustice must be acknowledged;

It is critical that victim participation is fully voluntary. Efforts should be made to also maximize voluntary
participation by the offender. Various communities are working to include restorative justice encounters
as part of the legal process. More often, this may occur after the sentencing, but some cases have
shown positive results as part or prior to the formal hearing, utilizing a “reverse Miranda” statement
that blocks anything from the encounter from being used in the court of law.

Models of restorative justice differ in form, and many of these models are now blended. There are
victim offender conferences (VOC) that focus primarily on victim and offender encounters with a
facilitator; here the family members or community members are largely secondary. Family group
conferences (FGC) broaden the circle to family members and other significant parties; FGCs have been
quite successful in New Zealand where conferences (along with a police officer or special facilitator) can
replace the judicial system for juvenile cases and address both reparation and prevention. Circles are a
form of restorative justice that seems to have the widest applications. Participants gather in a circle and
pass a “talking piece” and everyone takes turn speaking, along with the facilitation of “circle keepers”.
Circles have been held for peacemaking, sentencing circles, workplace conflicts, and community
dialogue. It’s important to note that restorative justice may not involve an encounter.

Models of restorative justice differ in their goals, including alternative or diversionary programs, which
provide an alternative or divert cases from the criminal justice process and sentencing; programs that
focus healing or therapeutic practices; and transitional programs which focus on reintegration into
society after a prison sentence. Based on how closely the RJ goals are being addressed, practices can fall
along a “continuum” of fully restorative to mostly, partial, potentially, and pseudo or nonrestorative.

Chapter 4: Where From Here

Retributive justice of the Western legal system and restorative justice are not polar opposites. In fact,
they both involve the “balancing of scales” in response to a wrongdoing. They simply differ on the
response to balance the scales. Retributive justice believes in pain and punishment balancing the scales,
while restorative justice focuses on acknowledging and addressing harms, needs, obligations, and
getting at causes. Zehr imagines a world where our justice system is as restorative as possible.

Zehr concludes that restorative justice, as others have come to tell him, can be a way of life, a
philosophy grounded in 3 “R” values: respect, responsibility, and relationship. He concludes by saying
that restorative justice is like a river with many sources; though it began in the 70s in its modern form in
North America, it has deeper sources in traditional societies and many tributaries are and will be its
source. Ultimately, “it is a reminder that all of us are indeed embedded in a web of relationships” (82).