Although restorative justice has become more regularly utilized in workplace and school settings, its use in the criminal justice system is still often met with criticism. A new study by Masahiro Suzuki, from Central Queensland University, and Xiaoyu Yuan, from Shanghai University of Political Science and Law, seeks to provide empirical evidence for why and how restorative justice works within a criminal justice setting for both offenders and victims. This article provides a summary of their research, which was approved for publication in Criminal Justice and Behavior and published online February 20, 2021.
What Is Restorative Justice?
Restorative justice is a method of justice response intended to address the harm caused by an offender and provide an opportunity for all those involved to repair and/or rebuild their relationships. In a criminal justice setting, restorative justice involves someone who has committed a crime taking responsibility for their actions, while simultaneously providing space for the victim of the crime to share the impact of the harm caused.
Prior evidence-based studies and analyses referenced by the authors on restorative justice in a criminal justice has detailed the benefits to criminal justice. Specifically, that it has been shown to:
- Decrease a victim’s PTSD and fear of revictimization;
- Be more effective than conventional justice methods for decreasing the frequency of reoffense after two years;
- Decrease the rate of recidivism for young people charged with delinquency, while also decreasing likelihood of future delinquent activities;
- Provide youth who have committed offenses with a greater sense of fairness with regard to the outcome of their case; and
- Increase a sense of satisfaction among victims with regard to the outcome of their case.
Understanding How Restorative Justice Works: Research Results
Although empirical evidence exists to indicate that restorative justice in criminal justice settings works, the researchers of this study noted that no one has yet studied why or how it works. The purpose of this research, therefore, was to identify consistent elements that lead to a positive outcome when using restorative justice. The authors conducted a qualitative metasynthesis of 26 previously published studies, examining the experiences of both people who had committed crimes and victims of crimes who participated in restorative justice.
The authors identified three overall themes that point to why restorative justice worked, particularly when understood in relation to and in interaction with each other element:
“(a) opportunities for humanization, learning, and putting emotions of individuals who committed a crime and victims at the center of conflict-solving,
(b) support networks and mechanism for communication between individuals who committed a crime and victims, and
(c) life-changing journey enshrined in healing.”
Humanization, Learning and Emotions
The authors identified this theme as a micro-element when looking at the themes in relationship to one another. Findings categorized under this theme included:
- Both victims of crimes and those who had committed crimes reported appreciating restorative justice because it helped them humanize the other party or parties involved.
- For those who committed crimes, restorative justice also offered the opportunity to “understand the impact of their offending on victims.”
- For victims of crimes, restorative justice enabled them to see the people who had committed a crime as “normal” and “like them.”
- The moral framework that restorative justice offers also helped all the parties involved by providing offenders with the opportunity to feel and ultimately release emotions of guilt and shame; while victims could better understand why they were involved in the incident and that it was not “their fault.”
- Both parties involved in the restorative justice process typically reported a “positive outlook” built on mutual understanding.
Support Networks and Communication
The authors identified this theme as a meso-element. Findings categorized under this theme included:
- Communication within restorative justice relied on support networks, such as family members, mediators or facilitators, and individuals who work within justice agencies. It also required mechanisms for creating procedures that ensure justice and fairness.
- Preparatory work completed by facilitators was recognized and appreciated by both victims of crimes and those who had committed crimes.
- Facilitators were also vital in providing support through creating and maintaining a safe environment and process for all participants, which included a neutral stance free of judgment for either party.
- Social support was also identified as a critical component. Forming a “therapeutic alliance” with justice agency workers helped those who had committed crimes successfully reintegrate into the community and also made them less likely to reoffend.
A Healing Journey
The authors identified this theme as a macro-element. Findings categorized under this theme included:
- Both victims of a crime and those who committed a crime saw the restorative justice process as a “life-changing” process.
- Those who committed crimes reported being less likely commit future crimes because they better understood the impact of their actions on others and they also could recognize and choose to eliminate patterns of behavior that might lead to reoffense.
- Victims reported that restorative justice helped them regain confidence and recognize a “community of care” that they could utilize for support. They also reported the ability to “gain closure,” which left them with fewer negative feelings.
Next Steps
The authors were able to synthesize the key themes identified into a new model wherein each aspect of restorative justice is seen in relation to one another. Specifically, that these themes can be understood to function as micro-, meso- and macro-elements which, when in interaction with each other, establish the “interactional dynamics” that make restorative justice work effectively.
More research is needed that focuses on adults who have committed crimes, rather than young people, because the needs of each population when reaching the reintegration stage is different. In addition, the authors noted a potential bias in existing studies toward those who have committed crimes and recommend future study of how restorative justice can benefit victims of crimes in order to better understand its impact for their recovery. Finally, because those in support roles were identified as such a critical element for the efficacy of restorative justice, the authors encouraged future study and testing on people who function as facilitators and members of the “community of care.”
* References available upon request
To read the full article, visit: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0093854821994622
