This website is built around the idea that exploring restorative justice (and for that matter any area of knowledge) requires a critical approach – an approach which privileges questioning the unspoken premises of a field of knowledge, in order to create possibilities for its transformation. This section focuses specifically on those studies which described] themselves as ‘critical’, providing a rather brief overview of a wide province of the restorative justice universe.
Cunneen, C. and Hoyle, C. (2010) Debating Restorative Justice, Hart Publishing: Oxford
Abstract
‘In this first volume Carolyn Hoyle argues that communities and the state should be more restorative in responding to harms caused by crimes, antisocial behaviour and other incivilities. She supports the exclusive use of restorative justice for many non-serious offences, and favours approaches that, by integrating restorative and retributive philosophies, take restorative practices into the ‘deep end’ of criminal justice. While acknowledging that restorative justice appears to have much to offer in terms of criminal justice reform, Chris Cunneen offers a different account, contending that the theoretical cogency of restorative ideas is limited by their lack of a coherent analysis of social and political power. He goes on to argue that after several decades of experimentation, restorative justice has not produced significant change in the criminal justice system and that the attempt to establish it as a feasible alternative to dominant practices of criminal justice has failed. This lively and valuable debate will be of great interest to everyone interested in the criminal justice system.’
Commentary
An excellent two-volume introduction to some of the most pressing issues affecting restorative justice theory and its applications.
Daly, K. (2006) The Limits of Restorative Justice, in Dennis Sullivan and Larry Tifft (eds.) Handbook of Restorative Justice: A Global Perspective. New York: Routledge.
Abstract
‘Restorative justice (RJ) is a set of ideals about justice that assumes a generous,
empathetic, supportive, and rational human spirit. It assumes that victims can be
generous to those who have harmed them, that offenders can be apologetic and contrite for their behavior, that their respective “communities of care” can take an active role of support and assistance, and that a facilitator can guide rational discussion and encourage consensual decision-making between parties with antagonistic interests‘
Commentary
An interesting, rather comprehensive yet concise, overview of some of the ambitions of restorative justice and when they can get wrong.
Gabbay, Z. (2007) Exploring the Limits of the Restorative Justice Paradigm Restorative Justice and White Collar Crime, Cardozo J. Conflict Resol, 8, 421-485
Abstract
‘Sixty-three-year old advertising executive Paul Coffin stood up in a Quebec Superior Court room and apologized “to all Canadians.”1 In his emotional testimony in mid-August 2005, Coffin stated: “I realize what I have done. . . I know I have tarnished my family name. I know I have disappointed all Canadians.”2 What Paul Coffin had done was to defraud the Canadian government of over a million and a half dollars. It was not a crime of passion or one committed on impulse..’
Commentary
Another general overview of the limits of restorative justice, focussing on some specific types of harms for which practical issues would arise when implementing restorative justice
Crawford, A. and Newburn, T. (2002) Recent Developments in Restorative Justice for Young People in England and Wales: Community Participation and Representation, The British Journal of Criminology, 42(3), 476–495
Abstract
‘This article examines some recent attempts to introduce elements of restorative justice into the youth justice system. We focus on the introduction of referral orders and youth offender panels and, in particular, consider the issues of community participation and representation. In examining the early experiences of these new ways of working we highlight a series of questions that arise out of the tension between the participatory character of restorative justice and the managerialist nature of much contemporary youth justice in England and Wales.’
Commentary
An excellent, groundbreaking study on the problematic effects and broken promises that the implementation of youth restorative justice designed by the English policymaker in the later 1990s caused.
Gray, P. (2005) The Politics of Risk and Young Offenders’ Experiences of Social Exclusion and Restorative Justice, British Journal of Criminology, 45(6), 938–957.
Abstract
‘The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 sets out a new framework for the governance of youth crime, with the primary aim of preventing criminality among young people by addressing the risk factors associated with offending. One of the main technologies of risk management is that of responsibili- sation through restorative justice interventions. But the ethos of restorative justice envisages more than just holding young people responsible for their offending; it also professes a commitment to the restoration of victim–offender relations and the reintegration of young offenders into mainstream community life. However, in the prevailing penal climate, the principles of restorative justice have been narrowly interpreted to give undue weight to the responsibilisation of young offenders by chal- lenging perceived deficits in their moral reasoning. The exclusionary socio-economic constraints that limit young offenders’ choices and ability to reintegrate have been obscured. The end result is that restorative justice has become harnessed to the interests of reinforcing ‘moral discipline’ rather than engaging with ‘social justice’. The argument is elaborated through the use of a recently completed research study conducted in the South-West of England, in which young offenders share, through in-depth interviews, their experiences of restorative justice and social exclusion’.
Commentary
An excellent study on how restorative justice as applied in the England, may work as a subtle responsibilising technique with limited emancipatory potential for young people, mainly due to contextual socio-economic factors, completely neglected by restorative justice
Bennett, C. (2006) Journal of Applied Philosophy, Taking the Sincerity Out of Saying Sorry: Restorative Justice as Ritual, Journal of Applied Philosophy, 23(2), 127-143
Abstract
‘In this paper I take seriously von Hirsch’s view that sanctions need to be compatible with their dignity, and argue that some versions o notably that defended by Braithwaite — can put offenders in the humilia to make apologies that they do not believe in in order to avoid furth Drawing on recent work by Duff I argue that this problem can be av restorative justice as an apologetic ritual. This view gives some groun presents a view of criminal justice that is distinctively restorative. I con the differences between my account‘
Commentary
Very interesting philosophical work which problematises the role of apology within restorative justice practice drawing on Antony Duff ‘s legal theory.
Acorn, A. (2004) Compulsory Compassion: A Critique of Restorative Justice, Vancouver: UBC Press.
Abstract
‘Often touted as the humane and politically progressive alternative to the rigid philosophy of retributive punishment that underpins many of the world’s judicial systems, restorative justice aspires to a theoretical and practical reconciliation of the values of love and compassion with justice and accountability. Emotionally seductive, the rhetoric of restorative justice appeals to a desire for a “right relation” amongst individuals and communities, and offers us a vision of justice that allows for the mutual healing of victim and victimizer, and with it, a sense of communal repair…’
Commentary
An instant classic, this slender book provides a searing critique of the reparative ambitions of restorative justice, focussing on the subtle relational dynamics which are enacted within restorative encounters
Obold-Eshleman, C. (2004) Victim’s Rights and the Danger of Domestication of the Restorative Justice Paradigm, Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol’y, 18, 571-603.
Abstract
‘Victims’ rights laws and restorative justice theory seem to intersect in their mutual concern for reforming our criminaljustice system to include the people most affected by any given crime. A few victims’ rights laws include the language of “restorative justice.”‘ Some commentators have labeled restorative justice as an outgrowth of the victims’ rights movement, and others link the two concepts in proposed reforms of the justice system.’
Commentary
An interesting study on the relation between victim’s rights and restorative justice, disentangling the sometimes ambiguous overlap between those two worlds
Levrant, S., Cullen, F., Fulton, B. and Wozniak, J. (1999) Reconsidering Restorative Justice: The Corruption of Benevolence Revisited? Crime & Delinquency 45, 3-27
Abstract
‘Restorative justice has emerged as an increasingly popular correctional paradigm that is drawing support not only from conservatives but also from liberals. Although this approach has value, its ready embrace as a progressive reform is potentially problematic in two respects. First, the risk exists that restorative justice programs will be corrupted to serve nonprogressive goals and thus do more harm than good. Second, there is little reason to anticipate that restorative justice programs will have a meaningful effect on offender recidivism. Thus, restorative justice should be viewed and implemented with caution‘
Commentary
A cautionary tale on how restorative justice may turn into something far removed from what it promises, focussing on its overly ambitious aim of reducing recidivism.
Delgado, R. (2000) Goodbye to Hammurabi: Analyzing the Atavistic Appeal of Restorative Justice, Stanford Law Review, 52(4), 751-775
Abstract
‘A recent innovation in criminal justice, the restorative justice movement has serious implications for the relationship among crime, race, and communities. Restorative justice, which sprang up in the mid-1970s as a reaction to the perceived excesses of harsh retribution, features an active role for the victims of crime, required community service or some other form of restitution for offenders, and face-to-face mediation in which victims and offenders confront each other in an effort to understand each other’s common humanity’
Commentary
A critical review of the sometimes taken-for-granted narrative which sees restorative justice as rooted historically in ancient practices, problematising the anachronistic effects of such continuistic perspective.
Sylvester, D. (2003) Myth in Restorative Justice History, Utah Law Review, 1, 471-522.
Abstract
‘As the restorative justice movement surges breathlessly forward, its proponents feel an irresistible urge to glance back. Discontented with the view that restorative justice is a novel and innovative approach to criminal justice, many scholars have begun to disseminate a far older ideological and institutional history than the scant 30 years or so that restorative justice has been considered a real criminal justice movement. John Braithwaite, considered by many as the world’s foremost scholar on restorative justice, has declared no less than that “restorative justice has been the dominant model of criminal justice throughout most of human history for all of the world’s peoples.” Others have added that “humans have used restorative justice for the larger part of their existence.‘
Commentary
A classic study on the history of restorative justice, from a critical perspective
Cunneen, C. (2007) Reviving Restorative Justice Traditions, in Johnstone, J. and Van Ness, D. (eds) The Handbook of Restorative Justice, Cullommpton: Willan Publishing,
Abstract
‘I entitled this chapter with a question because of the complexity of the issues involved and the unresolved matters that continue to be debated among restorative justice advocates. Much of the debate over restorative justice ‘traditions’ centres around claims that restorative justice draws on traditional processes for resolving disputes among indigenous peoples and on processes in the western world which were eroded from the twelfth century onwards and were gradually supplanted with the modern state. Yet there are serious historical and factual questions that need to be addressed before we can assume an Arcadian past where restorative justice ruled supreme. Are there restorative justice traditions to be revived? And should they be revived? Like most complex matters, a simple answer to these questions is neither possible nor desirable…’
Commentary
Another excellent endeavour to discuss critically the often uncritically accepted idea that what we call today ‘restorative justice’ is an expression of historically deep-rooted traditional justice practices.
Blagg, H. (1997) A JUST MEASURE OF SHAME? Aboriginal Youth and Conferencing in Australia, The British Journal of Criminology, 37(4), 481–501
Abstract
‘This article explores the limits of ‘reintegrative shaming’ and family conferencing as encapsulated in the ‘Wagga Model’ currently popular in Australia. I question the relevance of the model to the task of reducing the over-representation of Aboriginal people in custody. I argue that the model represents an ‘Orientalist’ appropriation of a Maori decolonizing process and is based on a one-dimensional reading of the New Zealand experience which involved a significant reduction in police powers. The product being franchised in Australia (and marketed internationally) promises to intensify rather than reduce police controls over Aboriginal people. There is also danger in assuming that all indigenous peoples are amenable to conference-style resolutions and that all operate within shaming structures of social control’
Commentary
Over the years, Blagg has produced some of the finest theoretically-informed critique of the possible and actual colonising effects of restorative justice focussing on the Australian and New Zealand context. In this paper Blagg specifically problematises the cultural sensitivity of Braithwaite’s reintegrative shaming theory as one of the most diffused social-psychological “softwares” underpinning restorative justice.
Blagg, H. (1998) Restorative Visions and Restorative Justice Practices: Conferencing, Ceremony and Reconciliation in Australia, Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 10(1), 5-14
Abstract
‘Evidence so far suggests that lndigenous families in Australia are reluctant to become involved with the family group conferences and/or are ineligible to participate due to stringent selection criteria. The introduction of the conferencing system has done little to reduce levels of Indigenous youth over-representation. At the same time the reconciliation process has stalled and Indigenous leaders have become frustrated with a government seemingly determined to turn the clock backwards…’
Commentary
Another example of Blagg’s searing critiques of the ambitious promises of restorative justice and how these can actually turn into disquieting nightmares.
Hudson, B. (1998). Restorative Justice: The Challenge of Sexual and Racial Violence, Journal of Law and Society, 25(2), 237–256.
Abstract
‘In particular, assumptions that dangerous offenders are few and that the meaning of a harmful act is negotiable between perpetrators and victims are called into question. The symbolic function of criminalization and penalization is discussed, and the author considers whether strategies suggested by recent proponents of forms of abolitionism and restorative justice can satisfy doubts about the adequacy of earlier abolitionist formulations in relation to both symbolic and instrumental functions presently served by criminal law. While calls for further criminalization and penalization of racial, sexual, and domestic violence are understandable, the abolitionist case that retributive justice is more likely to increase rather than to reduce such violence and to leave victims unsatisfied is defended’
Commentary
A now classic critique of restorative justice and how this deals with racial, sexual, and domestic violence, from a radical, penal abolitionist perspective.
Daly, K. and Stubbs, J. (2006) Feminist theory, feminist and anti-racist politics, and restorative justice, G. Johnstone and Daniel van Ness (eds.), Handbook of Restorative Justice. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Abstract
”Feminist engagement with restorative justice (RJ) takes several forms, and this chapter maps five areas of theory, research and politics. They are: theories of justice; the role of retribution in criminal justice; studies of gender (and other social relations) in RJ processes; the appropriateness of RJ for partner, sexual or family violence; and the politics of race and gender in making justice claims. There is overlap among the five, and some analysts or arguments may work across them. However, each has a particular set of concerns and a different kind of engagement with RJ.’
Commentary
How restorative justice deals with patriarchal structures in society and how these translate into specific harms and destructive relational dynamics is a highly debated area of study. This article sets the scene of this subject from a feminist perspective.
Deer, S., & Barefoot, A. (2018). The limits of the state: Feminist perspectives on carceral logic, restorative justice and sexual violence, Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy, 28, 505-526.
Abstract
‘The American criminal justice system (CJS) is subject to myriad critiques, nearly all of which conclude that our society still has far too many victims and far too many prisoners. The crime of sexual assault brings special concern, because despite decades of CJS reform, most victims never see their perpetrators held accountable. While there have been considerable efforts to develop alternatives to the CJS, these alternatives have rarely been used in the context of sexual violence. Indeed, there is a clear hesitancy to adopt alternatives that might‘
Commentary
Another excellent example of the feminist critique to restorative justice and its relations with the criminal justice system.
van Wormer, K. (2009), Restorative Justice as Social Justice for Victims of Gendered Violence: A Standpoint Feminist Perspective, Social Work, 54(2), 107–116
Abstract
‘This article provides an overview of restorative justice as a process and examines its relevance to women who have been victimized by physical and sexual abuse. The starting point is the justice system with its roots in adversarial, offender-oriented practices of obtaining justice. The widespread dissatisfaction by battered women and rape victims and their advocates with the current system of mandatory law enforcement opens the door for consideration of alternative forms of dealing with domestic violence. Restorative justice strategies, as argued here, have several major advantages. Like social work, these strategies are solution-based rather than problem-based processes, give voice to marginalized people, and focus on healing and reconciliation. Moreover, restorative justice offers an avenue through which the profession of social work can re-establish its historic role in criminal justice. The four models most relevant to women’s victimization are victim- offender conferencing, family group conferencing, healing circles, and community reparations. Each model is examined separately from a feminist standpoint. The discussion is informed by insights from the teachings of standpoint feminist theory and social work values, especially social justice.’
Commentary
A sympathetic critique of restorative justice in cases of gendered violence, namely sexual violence against women. From a feminist standpoint Van Wormer reflects on which restorative practices align best to women sexually victimised, providing more generally precious insights into alternative non-patriarchal ways to deal with this type of crime.
London, R. (2006) Paradigms Lost: Repairing the Harm of Paradigm Discourse in Restorative Justice, Criminal Justice Studies, 19(4), 397-422
Abstract
‘The promotion of restorative justice as a new ‘paradigm’ of criminal justice, while bringing attention to its originality, has also resulted in some unfortunate consequences, including the creation of unnecessary dichotomies. Because restorative justice must retain reliance on the conventional system to achieve the essential goals of criminal justice, however, restorative justice does not manifest the ‘incommensurability’ with the prevailing model that would qualify it as a genuine ‘paradigm’ consistent with Kuhnian analysis. Understood as a new criminal justice goal rather than as a new paradigm, however, restorative justice may fulfill its potential for significant change throughout the criminal justice system’
Commentary
A precious theoretical analysis which problematise another now well-rooted narrative popularised by Howard Zehr around restorative justice being a ‘new paradigm’, in Thoms Kuhn’s sense, of justice. London does well in demonstrating that if we look at current mainstream applications of restorative justice, there is no ‘new paradigm’ in sight, but just a new ‘restorative’ goal added to the criminal justice toolbox
Ashworth, A. (2002) Responsibilities, rights and restorative justice, British Journal of Criminology, 42(3), 578-95.
Abstract
‘The article first discusses the responsibilities of the state under the principles of restorative justice. Although justice administered by the state has been plagued by many flaws and failures, the state must, as the primary political authority, retain control over criminal justice and its administration. This is required in order to ensure respect for the rule of law and human rights standards. Regarding restorative justice approaches, the state’s responsibility should be to impose a framework that guarantees appropriate safeguards to offenders and victims. The emphasis on community participation in restorative justice practice is often associated with self-regulation, consent, and agreement. This emphasis must be tempered by the awareness that communities are often characterized by social exclusion, forms of coercion, and the differential distribution of power relations. Restorative justice strategies must be careful to balance participation by members of affected communities with a means of ensuring that the ultimate power of decision-making remains in impartial bodies. A third issue in the implementation of the principles of restorative justice is the parameters for ensuring victim reparation. Victim interests should encompass reparation or compensation, appropriate services to meet needs created by the offense, and proper protection from further harm. When it comes to punishment, however, the victim should not have undue influence beyond that of any other citizen. Sentencing should be based in standards set by policymakers who represent all citizens. In conclusion, the author advises that the relationship between the formal justice system and any restorative justice processes must be carefully crafted to avoid inequities. Within restorative justice efforts, clear limits are important for preventing violations of rights behind a mask of benevolence‘
Commentary
A classic ‘legalistic’ account of restorative justice, whose attempt to push for the compatibility of restorative justice to the rule of law and human rights, results in sterilising the originality and emancipatory potential of restorative justice, reduced to another tool in the Leviathan’s criminal justice toolbox
Garvey, S. P. (2003) Restorative Justice, Punishment, and Atonement, Cornell Law Faculty Publications, 279, 303-317
Abstract
‘Restorative justice is a way of responding to crime, and according to its proponents, it’s a much better way of responding than the way they believe we now respond: through punishment imposed in the name of retributive justice. According to its proponents, restorative justice is better than retributive justice because it restores, or at least tries to restore, the victim; retribution’s only aim is to punish the offender. According to restorativists, retribution ignores the victim. I argue here for two claims. First, I argue in Part II that restorative justice cannot have it both ways: it cannot achieve the restoration of the victim it seeks without the punishment it rejects. If restorative justice really wants to fully restore victims of crime, then it cannot eliminate punishment. Second, I argue in Part III that restorative justice does not, despite what its proponents say, really insist on the total elimination of punishment. Instead, it insists on its transformation‘
Commentary
Another attempt to reconcile restorative justice with punishment, arguing that restoring victims necessarily entails hard treatment for the offender.
Takagi, P. and Shank, G. (2004) Critique of Restorative Justice, Social Justice, 31(3), 147-163
Abstract
‘The authors look at how the international trend toward restorative justice — non-retributive forms of justice — applies to U.S. cities like Oakland, California, in which entire communities have been torn apart by urban renewal and globalization under the rubric of NAFTA, leading to mushrooming unemployment and related social pathologies in the inner cities. Given the wholesale destruction especially of the Black community, it is difficulty to see how restorative justice models apply, even considering the experience of the Maori in New Zealand or efforts in post-apartheid South Africa.‘
Commentary
An analysis of the issues related to using restorative justice in socio-economically deprived contexts, also raising the problem of the cultural sensitivity of justice practices and the problematic effects of transplanting them from one continent to another.
Hanan, E. (2016) Decriminalizing Violence: A Critique of Restorative Justice and Proposal for Diversionary Mediation, New Mexico Law Review, 46, 123-170
‘The movement to reduce over-prosecution and mass incarceration has focused almost exclusively on non-violent offenders despite data showing that over half of all prisoners incarcerated within the United States are sentenced for crimes of violence. As a consequence of the focus on nonviolent offenses, the majority of current and future defendants will not benefit from initiatives offering alternatives to criminal prosecution and incarceration. A discussion of alternatives to the criminal justice system in cases of violent crime must begin by acknowledging that violent crime is not monolithic. Many incidents meet the statutory elements of a violent crime, that is, the use of force or attempted use of force against another person or person’s property, and yet prosecution may not serve the interests of society at large, the complaining witness, or, certainly, the accused. In many instances in which the crime is not deemed serious enough to warrant punishment, the accused pleads guilty and receives a sentence of probation. In some instances, the prosecution offers the defendant a diversionary program in lieu of court‘
Commentary
An interesting critique of restorative justice focussing on its relations to the same conceptuality which informs mainstream criminal justice.
Grauwiler, P. and Mills, L.G. (2004) Moving Beyond the Criminal Justice Paradigm: A Radical Restorative Justice Approach to Intimate Abuse, The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 31(1), 49-69
Abstract
‘This article traces the history of the development of the treatment of domestic violence as a crime in the United States and the conceptual and practical limitations of this approach in addressing this important social issue. An extensive body of research on restorative justice practice suggests that restorative approaches may contribute to reducing and preventing family violence. Drawing on restorative justice principles, an alternative or supplement to criminal justice approaches is outlined for working with all parties involved in abusive relationships’.
Commentary
A critique of how mainstream criminal justice responds to domestic violence, proposing restorative justice as a more effective gender-conscious alternative.
Shenk BT, Zehr, H. (2001) Restorative Justice and Substance Abuse: The Path Ahead, Youth & Society, 33(2), 314-328.
Abstract
‘In bringing together restorative justice and adolescent treatment, a dialogue has been created between two fields that have developed quite separately. This dialogue is just beginning, and there remain many paths to follow up, many fault lines to explore. Following a clarification about the basic concept of restorative justice, this article explores paths that might benefit from further exploration such as concepts of harms, causes, and obligations; offenders as victims; shame and vindication; and the fundamental and guiding questions of restorative justice. Possible fault lines and dangers, such as co-optation and victim exclusion, are explored. The article concludes with suggestions for ways to stay true to the restorative justice vision through attention to values and evaluation, revisioning the role of the “expert” and the language of respect.‘
Commentary
Although in first instance a study on the application of restorative justice to a specific type of harm, this paper provides an excellent overview of critical issues related to the development of restorative justice.
Jiang, J., Chen, Z. (2022) Victim Welfare, Social Harmony, and State Interests: Implementing Restorative Justice in Chinese Environmental Criminal Justice. Asian Journal of Criminology DOI: 10.1007/s11417-022-09376-5
Abstract
‘While there have been abundant studies on restorative justice (RJ) in China and across the globe, research has paid scant attention to the increasing incorporation of RJ into the framework of Chinese environmental criminal justice (ECJ) and its mounting prominence in handling ECJ cases. To broaden our understanding of RJ in China, this study empirically examines the forms, functions, and foundations of RJ ideals and practices manifested in contemporary Chinese legal responses to environmental crime. Drawing on various sources of qualitative data, we find that RJ in ECJ uses a state-led-and-coordinated network of community organizations and residents (including groups of environmental victims) to account for victim welfare, offenders’ new responsibilization, and public engagement. Furthermore, we argue, as a peculiar form of law’s responsiveness in the wake of China’s swift transition to modernity, RJ in Chinese ECJ works to reinforce the declining legitimacy of the authoritarian state and enhance decreasing trust in the state’s ability to govern. Implications for better understanding and implementing RJ within the ECJ field are also presented and discussed’.
Commentary
An exceptionally interesting, critical analysis of the recent development of restorative justice in China, focussing on a specific context, environmental crime. This is a useful overview more generally of the institutionalisation of restorative justice in China, focussing on the state-led exploitation of restorative justice to increase the legitimation of the Chinese declining authoritarian state.
Hogdson, J. (2022) Gender, Power and Restorative Justice : A Feminist Critique – Critical Criminological Perspectives, London, Palgrave
Abstract
‘This book ties restorative justice into the exercise of patriarchal power. It is focused on the individual narratives of 15 girls and young women who have participated in a victim-offender restorative justice (RJ) conference and the perspectives of youth justice practitioners. Gender, Power and Restorative Justice expands feminist engagement with RJ by focusing critical attention on the importance of the social construction of gender, the exercise of power, shame, stigma, muting and resistance to girls’ experiences of RJ conferencing. Drawing upon recent developments to the sociology of stigma and feminist perspectives on shame, the book contends that RJ conferencing can produce harmful implications for girls and young women who participate. Ultimately it is argued that anti-carceral, social policy alternatives, underpinned by feminist praxis, should replace a youth justice jurisprudence for girls. This book will be of particular use and interest to those studying modules on criminology, youth justice, criminal justice and social work courses.’
Commentary
A very interesting and timely critique of restorative justice and its relationship with young women, from a critical criminological perspective.
Gavrielides, T. (2022) Power, Race, and Justice The Restorative Dialogue We Will Not Have. London: Routledge
Excerpt
‘…Structured around the four concepts of power, race, justice and restorative justice, the book uses empirical new data and normative analysis to reconstruct the way we prevent power abuse and harm at the inter-personal, inter-community and international levels. This book offers new lenses, which allow us to view power, race and justice in a modern reality where communities have been silenced, but through restorative justice are gaining voice. The book is enriched with case studies written by survivors, practitioners and those with direct experiences of power abuse and inequality. Through robust research methodologies, Gavrielides’s new monograph reveals new forms of slavery, while creating a new, philosophical framework for restorative punishment through the acknowledgement of pain and the use of catharsis for internal transformation and individual empowerment. This is a powerful and timely book that generates much needed hope….’
Commentary
A long-awaited book-length work on the intricate relations between restorative justice and race, written by an international scholar who has pioneered work in this area. Gavrielides, in fact, also authored in 2014 Bringing Race Relations Into the Restorative Justice Debate: An Alternative and Personalized Vision of “the Other” Journal of Black Studies, https://doi.org/10.1177/00219347145260.
Cocker, D. and Gonzalez, T. (2022) A Call for an Intersectional Feminist Restorative Justice Approach to Addressing the Criminalization of Black Girls, St. John’s Law Review, 95(4) 977-997
Excerpt
‘…In this Article we focus our attention on school-based restorative justice (“RJ”) as presenting a critical area for embedding intersectional frameworks and approaches at the levels of movement, practice, policy, and law reform. RJ is a primary intervention to prevent youth criminalization in schools. RJ has been adopted in school contexts with positive outcomes ranging from diminished reliance on punitive discipline to promoting protective health factors. Though the empirical literature is limited, this Article draws on three studies to underscore the potential of RJ to place Black girls at the center of what should be the anti-criminalization and RJ discourse. This Article concludes with a call for research that further examines the efficacy of RJ to promote the well-being of Black girls….’
Commentary
An excellent, thoughtful interrogation of a rather still unexplored area, providing critical insights into what restorative justice does and can do to counter the criminalisation of young Black girls, with a focus on the US. Gonzalez over the last decade has produced fantastic papers on restorative justice and school discipline, see e.g. Thalia González, Restorative Justice From the Margins to the Center: The Emergence of a New Norm in School Discipline, 60 How. L.J. 267 (2016).
Gavrielides, T. (2022) Ambitions and Critiques of Restorative Justice Post COVID, Laws, 11(1), 1-6
Abstract
‘The COVID-19 pandemic did not only change how we work with others and deliver public services, but also our very way of living. Furthermore, the way we view and experience conflict and violence will never be the same. Therefore, changes anticipated in relation to justice and criminal justice will be unprecedented, with criminal justice institutions such as prisons, courts and probation to be reviewed whether for financial, political or health and safety-related reasons. This Editorial introduces this Special Issue, which focuses on highlighting both the ambitions but also critiques of the role that restorative justice can play in the post COVID-19 era‘
Commentary
This is not a paper but the opening piece to a journal issue on restorative justice and COVID-19, edited by Gavrielides. A very timely and interesting addition to the canon, rich of critical insights.
Martin, J.T., Zhou, L. Restoring Justice or Maintaining Control? Revolutionary Roots and Conservative Fruits in Chinese Police Mediation. Asian J Criminol (2022).
Abstract
‘This article examines the use of mediation as a police technique in China. Our focus is the “Fengqiao Model” (Fengqiao Jingyan) reforms presently being implemented through the new Social Governance Scheme. Based on 1 year of ethnographic participant-observation, we propose that the overarching practical goal of contemporary Fengqiao Model mediation conferences is to engineer a “good faith/sincere” (chengyi) reconciliation on the part of individual participants in a manner that consolidates the overall hegemony of the market order. To evaluate the substantive qualities of justice generated by this marketized mode of production, we focus on the way it uses techniques of psychic coercion to foreclose non-marketized avenues to political justice. This evidences an illiberal ideal of legitimate force which, we argue, renders these practices inconsistent with ideal–typical definitions of “restorative justice” predicated on a liberal ideal of mediation as a space of free expression. This is a technology of mediation designed to produce revolutionary rather than restorative justice. We further substantiate our argument by locating contemporary practices in the broader history of policing in the PRC, focusing on the enduring significance of “emotion work” as a canonically illiberal technology forged in the context of Mass Line administration. Where Mao-era Fengqiao Model policing utilized reintegrative shaming to deal with political contradictions among the people, Market era Fengqiao Model policing repairs grass root conflict through a mode of producing depoliticized “good faith/sincerity” within the terms of the cash nexus, repurposing revolutionary techniques to uphold a market order.’
Commentary
A fascinating example of a practice described as ‘restorative justice’ being used to serve a moral-political authoritarian agenda in China
“A critique does not consist in saying that things aren’t good the way they are. It consists in seeing on just what type of assumptions, of familiar notions, of established and unexamined ways of thinking the accepted practices are based… To do criticism is to make harder those acts which are now too easy.”
Michel Foucault