Restorative Justice in the Reentry Context: Building New Theory and Expanding the Evidence Base

Abstract

Although there is currently considerable activity around improving the reentry process for former prisoners returning to society, much of this work lacks a strong theoretical and empirical foundation. With its well-developed theoretical grounding and its growing evidence base, the restorative justice movement provides an obvious place to start when thinking about reintegration. Yet there has been relatively little application of restorative models in the reentry context. We argue that restorative justice interventions are too often focused on the "soft end" of the justice process, when a growing body of evidence suggests that restorative practices might be more effectively focused on the reintegration process for more serious offenses. We provide examples of Canadian and U.S. programs that could be considered emerging models of "restorative reentry."

Incarceration as a catalyst for worsening health

“…As such, justice reinvestment efforts should be guided by a restorative justice theoretical framework (Clear 2011; Maruna 2011). Bazemore and Maruna (2009) define restorative justice as “'doing justice’ by repairing the harm caused by crime in a non-adversarial process that invites offenders to 'take responsibility’ rather than simply take their punishment” (p. 376). While some of the justice reinvestment scholarship is situated within larger restorative concepts, a general recognition of the need for justice, and thus holistic and long-term reinvestment, in historically disadvantaged communities is missing.…”

Restoring the social: offender reintegration in a risky world

“…However, one restorative justice provider explained that in order to "sell" restorative justice to government funders, it has to be marketed as "victim-centered" in order to be more "palatable." Bazemore and Maruna (2009) advocate the incorporation of restorative justice principles in the conditions of offender reentry (see also Settles, 2009). As Bazemore and Walgrave (1999) suggest, the three principles of restorative justice are repairing harm, involvement of all parties, and changing community relationships -all of those components involve community and each is a dimension of effective integration, which is fundamentally a social process.…”

“…My primary objective is to highlight some of the theoretical differences between rehabilitation, which is largely psychological in focus, and reintegration, which is largely social in focus, and to suggest a model for making reintegration "restorative" (see Bazemore & Maruna, 2009). Adapting community-based restorative justice principles to smooth community integration is a way out of the theoretical and practical quagmire.…”

Lessons for justice reinvestment from restorative justice and the justice model experience

“…To address such concerns, JR needs (as Clear [2011] acknowledges) to be situated within the much better established (although still developing and amorphous) literature on restorative justice theory. Restorative justice is “best understood as a different way of ‘doing justice’ by repairing the harm caused by crime in a non‐adversarial process that invites offenders to ‘take responsibility’ rather than simply take their punishment” (Bazemore and Maruna, 2009: 376). The JR literature is infused with restorative concepts throughout, although interestingly the “restorative” term is generally avoided.…”

“…Even the strongest advocates of restorative justice acknowledge that, despite the widespread adoption of restorative practices across nearly every continent on the globe, the idea has been too often marginalized into “boutique” or tokenistic “programs” (Bazemore and Maruna, 2009) rather than delivering the fundamental overhaul of criminal justice promised by the movement's early advocates. The ghettoizing of restorative ideas into interventions designed for adolescents caught committing misdemeanor or very low‐level criminal offenses (shoplifting, unsafe driving) in so many jurisdictions has tarred the “restorative” brand and raised the serious risk of “net‐widening” (Cohen, 1985).…”