Some Considerations of Restorative Justice Before and Outside of Contemporary Western States

Abstract

[full article, abstract in English; only abstract in Lithuanian]
 This article provides an overview of the main themes and controversies in the restorative justice discussions in Europe and the US with special attention to the role of victims and mediators. This discussion is contextualized through a short description of the history of both state-centered and community-oriented restorative systems in response to law violation. Indigenous and pre-state formation responses to crime have predominantly been of a restorative nature with an interest in healing the harm experienced by all participants, aimed at addressing social problems and strengthening the community as a whole.

Seeing the Harm to Happiness: Integrating Satisfaction With Life Into Restorative Practices

“…These harms can be physical and/or emotional, such as where the person harmed suffers tangible loss of money and a lingering sense of fear arising from an armed robbery. As is the case in our armed robbery example, where a harm has already damaged the web, reactive restorative practices aim to repair the relationships and transform the essential people into a future state of peaceful, moral, and just living among themselves while also working to prevent repeat harms (Davis, 2019; Hamer et al, 2013; Kuhlmann & Kury, 2018; Muhammad, 2019). Where potential harms to the web are identified but not yet perpetrated, such as in the proposed implementation of a racially disparate sentencing policy, proactive restorative practices can help keep the web intact by averting the possible harms (Ishiyama & Laoye, 2016; Olson & Sarver, 2021; Zehr, 2015a).…”

“…RJ encourages all interested essential people to enter into the processes of addressing harms and needs. It does this by seeing crimes as a harm to interpersonal relationships and returns the offense and its consequences to the parties directly impacted by the offense and to members of the surrounding communities (baliga, 2021; Davis, 2019; Hamer et al, 2013; Kuhlmann & Kury, 2018). Thus, as Christie (1977) called for, restorative practices encourage exploration of the harms and needs that are based on the full spectrum of community perspective rather than on rigid evidentiary and testimonial rules, and ensuing punishments, determined by courtroom actors unaffected by the harms.…”

How Restorative are You? Introducing the Restorative Index

“…They can include both physical and emotional consequences of the harm (Bazemore & Walgrave, 1999;Kuhlmann & Kury, 2018;Marshall, 1999;Muhammad, 2019;Pranis, 2004;Smith, Fisher, & Frey, 2015;Yazzie, 1996;Zehr, 2002Zehr, , 2015a. In broader views of RJ, harms arise from interpersonal behaviors that may not be considered crimes.…”

“…Under RJ, when an individual engages in a behavior that harms another, they create needs for the person harmed (Braithwaite, 2002;Daly, 2016;Kuhlmann & Kury, 2018;Marshall, 1999;O'Brien & Nygreen, 2020). The needs can have immediate and/or long-term implications.…”

“…We can also recognize from definitions that RJ seeks to transform the conditions which allowed for the harm to occur in the first place (Braithwaite, 2002;Kuhlmann & Kury, 2018;Yazzie, 1996;Zehr, 2015a). Doing so goes beyond restoring to pre-harm status and results in an environment which is in a better condition than before the offense.…”