The political rationality of restorative justice

Abstract

This article investigates the political conditions that have enabled the development of restorative justice, in England and Wales, over the last 40 years. By applying a governmentality approach, it conceptualizes the emergence of restorative justice as a response to distinctive political problematics, enacted by a range of governmental technologies and driven by a combination of competing political rationalities. In so doing, the article seeks to shed light on the assemblage of ambivalent principles and values that constitute restorative justice by linking them to conflicting political contingencies. This could have implications in understanding both the fragmentary growth of restorative justice in England and Wales, and, more generally, the political roots of restorative justice policies, programmes and practices beyond the British borders.

Restorative justice informed criminal justice social work and probation services

“…This includes partnership working in the creation and management of ‘community justice’ services. As explained by Maglione (2018), these ‘third-way’ or ‘hybrid’ approaches to justice, connecting state and community relations, are compatible with an RJ orientation that encourages participation and empowerment among community members in the delivery of justice. Weaver (2011) describes RJ as a personalised response to crime that places the main stakeholders (the person responsible for the offence, the victim and the community) at the centre of the process.…”

Discursive representations of restorative justice in international policies

“…Salm and Coelho (2017) have analysed the discursive framings of two declarations-the Ibero-American Restorative Juvenile Justice Declaration and the Leuven Declaration of Restorative Approach to Juvenile Crime-referring to Pavlich's notion of 'imitor paradox' (Pavlich, 2005), arguing that those declarations simultaneously aspire to visions of restorative justice that are distinct from criminal justice, and yet hold on to a discourse that reflects basic allegiances to founding concepts of the latter. Focusing on the United Kingdom, the work of Maglione (2020aMaglione ( , 2020bMaglione ( , 2019aMaglione ( , 2017aMaglione ( , 2017bMaglione ( , 2017c) has consistently applied a Foucauldian critique to restorative justice policies, by identifying 'authoritative discourses' and political governmentalities reconstructing representations of victims, offenders and communities, and shedding light on taken-for-granted assumptions of restorative justice. This article, although sharing a critical criminological stance with this recent strand of literature, focuses originally on a comparative analysis of EU, UN and CoE policy on restorative justice using a 'policy-as-discourse' approach.…”

Restorative Justice, Crime Victims and Penal Welfarism. Mapping and Contextualising Restorative Justice Policy in Scotland

“…as an instrument to tackle with complex power imbalances (e.g. environmental damages, political violence or racialised conflicts), as a progressive framework to contest criminalisation processes or as a measure seeking to overcome the victim-offender dichotomy (Pavlich, 2005;Maglione, 2019aMaglione, , 2019b.…”