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 paper, 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.
Empirical work on criminological theories in Asia has been increasing. However, few comprehensive and systematic reviews on the application of criminological theories in Asia have been conducted. Using a systematic quantitative literature review method on peerreviewed English-language journal articles, we aim to provide an overview of the use of five major criminological theories in Asia: (1)
The role of forgiveness in restorative justice (RJ) remains peripheral because interpersonal forgiveness has been considered a ‘gift’ that should not be forced on victims in RJ. In this article, we aim to advance the role of forgiveness in RJ. However, we do not focus on interpersonal forgiveness. We instead focus on another dimension of forgiveness: self-forgiveness for offenders. Because self-forgiveness is linked with both RJ and desistance, self-forgiveness has the potential to function as a catalyst to connect RJ with desistance. Drawing on their relationship, we offer a process-based model of how offenders may or may not desist through RJ. We conclude by offering implications for research on RJ.
While many studies on restorative justice conferencing (RJC) for youth offenders have shown favourable outcomes such as victim satisfaction and fairness, and offender accountability and perceived legitimacy, other studies have demonstrated more problematic outcomes in terms of mutual understanding, sincerity of apology and reoffending. Given the complexity of RJC as a concept and as a process, such ‘limits’ might be attributed to the capacity and characteristics of youth offenders. To date, however, there has been little examination of developmental, cognitive, or environmental impediments on the part of youth offenders in terms of achieving restorative outcomes in RJC. This paper discusses the potential impacts of limited developmental and cognitive capacities of youth offenders on the RJC process and outcomes.
Restorative justice conferencing (RJC) has demonstrated strengths over traditional criminal justice approaches, including victim satisfaction and redress, and offender perceptions of legitimacy and fairness. However, less is known about how and why. This research examines conference convenor perspectives concerning how and why RJC 'works' in terms of such outcomes. The convenor perspective is a poorly investigated area in RJC research, despite the pivotal role that convenors play as 'key' participants in RJC practice. Based on semi-structured interviews with convenors involved in the Youth Justice Group Conferencing program in Victoria, findings highlight that not only face-toface dialogue, but also preparation and follow-up play distinct and important roles in the outcomes of RJC. As preparation and follow-up phases are often dismissed or compromised in practice, this article suggests that RJC should be clearly articulated and implemented as a 'holistic' process that requires equal attention to all three phases.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.