NCJ Number
209405
Date Published
July 2004
Length
10 pages
Annotation
This article discusses the rise of restorative justice and enumerates its main tenets.
Abstract
The article opens with two case studies involving the perpetrators of robberies in Japan, one of which involves a traditional criminal justice system response while the other involves a restorative justice response. The purpose is to illustrate the way in which restorative justice processes can restore the loss to the victim and the sense of dignity to the offender, resulting in greater victim satisfaction and lower recidivism rates for offenders. The failures of traditional criminal justice approaches are described, followed by a description of the restorative justice process and its benefits. The author draws a distinction between reintegrative shaming, as is the practice in restorative justice processes, and stigmatization, which typically occurs within traditional criminal justice approaches. Reintegrative shaming reduces crime by disapproving of the criminal activity while treating the offender as essentially good; stigmatization, on the other hand, increases crime by humiliating offenders and treating them as outcasts. Restorative justice works by restoring offenders’ sense of dignity by allowing them to accept responsibility for their crime and apologize; it restores the community by empowering victims and restoring their sense of agency. The universality of restorative justice processes is outlined; all cultures have some type of deep-seated restorative traditions from which to draw. The decline and revival of these restorative justice traditions is reviewed, followed by a call to enlist in the social movement for restorative justice processes around the world. Footnotes