Restorative Justice Theory Validation (From Restorative Justice: Theoretical Foundations, P 110-142, 2002, Elmar G.M. Weitekamp, Hans-Jurgen Kerner, eds., -- See NCJ-199553)

• NCJ Number: 199558
• Author(s): Paul McCold; Ted Wachtel
• Date Published: 2002
• Length: 33 pages
• Sale Source: Willan Publishing
• Publication Format: Book (Softbound)
• Publication Type: Research (Theoretical)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This chapter proposes a theory of restorative justice.

Abstract

This theory has three distinct but connected causal structures: the Social Discipline Window, Stakeholder Needs, and Restorative Practices Typology. The interplay of two continuums, control and support, comprise the Social Discipline Window. Control is defined as the act of exercising restraint or directing influence over others. Support is defined as the provision of services intended to nurture the individual. A high or low level of control is combined with a high or low level of support to reveal four general approaches to social discipline and the regulation of behavior: punitive, permissive, neglectful, and restorative. Stakeholder Needs relates to the injuries caused by offending behavior to the specific social responsibilities required to meet those needs. This causal structure distinguishes the interests of the direct stakeholders, those most affected by a specific offense, from those indirectly affected. The direct stakeholders are victims, offenders, and their communities of care. In Restorative Practices Typology, the degree to which all three are involved in meaningful emotional exchange and decisionmaking is the degree to which any form of social discipline can be termed fully restorative. The four major theoretical hypotheses derived from the structures proposed are transformation, collaboration, empowerment, and involvement. Data were collected from published program evaluation studies where victims and offenders were surveyed regarding their overall satisfaction and sense of fairness. Results show that on average, victims and their offenders rate as more satisfying and fair those programs that include their communities of care than those programs that exclude their communities of care. On average, victims and their offenders rate as more satisfying and fair those programs that include victims (victim-offender mediation) than those programs that exclude victims (traditional justice). The results provide a limited and partial validation test of the Restorative Practices Typology and the restorative justice theory. 9 figures, 8 tables, 45 references