Restorative justice—the perplexing concept: Conceptual fault-lines and power battles within the restorative justice movement

Abstract

Although the fast-growing literature on restorative justice is extensive, and in some regards repetitive, there is still no consensus as to the nature and extent of applicability of the restorative notion. This article claims that the restorative movement is experiencing a tension between normative abolitionist and pragmatic visions of restorative justice. It proceeds to identify six conceptual fault-lines that characterize this tension. These do not only refer to various definitional positions, but also disagreements that negatively affect both the theoretical and practical development of restorative justice. These tensions also encourage a power-interest battle between different stakeholders within the restorative movement including practitioners, theoreticians, researchers and policy makers. To approach these controversies, there needs to be an acknowledgment of the multidimensional nature of the conceptual problem of restorative justice and the impact it has on its application. The article attempts to get to grips with this problem, and provide a common ground for the future development of restorative justice.

Book Review

“…This could significantly increase the world's resources to manage conflict and harm of all kinds (115)(116) The purpose of the book is "to fill the gap between the introductory texts on restorative justice and those examining the many complex issues around its implementation" (17). Since most of the book is dedicated to describing the wide range of practical applications of restorative justice, the first two chapters on the principles and history of restorative justice are also descriptive in nature and tend not to engage in critical appraisal of the many contested conceptual and definitional issues that other authors examine (e.g., Dignan 2002;Doolin 2007;Gavrielides 2008). However, chapter 13 considers some conceptual issues such as the nature of voluntarism, shame and forgiveness and chapter 14 discusses questions arising from research such as whether restorative justice can prevent or reduce offending, procedural fairness, cost effectiveness, and 'what works' in implementing restorative approaches.…”

A faithful compass: rethinking the term restorative justice to find clarity

“…in an effort to avoid any potential connotations the term evokes relating to crime and the judicial system. This ongoing discussion regarding theoretical and practical perspectives has resulted in rj being characterized as ambiguous and inconsistent within the judicial context and beyond (Gavrielides, 2008;Sullivan & Tifft, 2005;Johnstone & Van Ness, 2007) in spite of efforts to come to a common vision. These tensions, however, have not impeded the growth of rj initiatives as is evidenced in the proliferation of organizations, books, articles, videos, and websites espousing the value of rj.…”

“…If this more comprehensive perspective is understood amongst advocates of rj, I make the case that when the terms restorative and justice remain paired and in place they act as a compass needle guiding proponents in the field to their desired destinations. Gavrielides (2008) identifies that a simple theoretical discussion of definitions will not adequately diffuse the vicious circles created by the conceptual tensions. He states that what is necessary is acknowledging the multidimensional nature of the tensions and exploring each in depth to gradually bring about equilibrium (p. 179).…”

“…In the field of restorative justice (rj) there is regular debate over the terms restorative and justice (Gavrielides, 2008;Sullivan & Tifft, 2005;Johnstone & Van Ness, 2007). The term restorative frequently leads to questions about what exactly is being restored.…”

“…Part I describes the study and how conceptual tensions result in uncertainty and a search for direction. It includes a brief outline of key theoretical discussions and a description of the debates that have caused significant faultlines in the field (Gavrielides, 2008). Part II develops a theoretical argument for maintaining the term justice by exploring what occurs when it is eliminated or when it is accepted.…”