Restorative Justice and Practices in New Zealand: Towards a Restorative Society

Abstract

Restorative Justice and Practices in New Zealand: Towards Restorative Society By Gabrielle Maxwell and James H Liu, (Eds) (2007) In this review, I will first summarise some of the key points in the general literature on restorative justice, then I will recount the chief contributions of the Maxwell and Liu book, and finally I will end with brief discussion of directions. General restorative justice literature Restorative justice has gained significant momentum as justice reform movement within the past three decades, and it is estimated that up to one hundred countries worldwide utilize restorative justice practices (Van Ness, 2002). The popularity of restorative justice programs has been attributed to growing dissatisfaction with the conventional justice system and the assertion that this system consistently fails to take into account the needs of offenders, victims, and their communities (Morris, 2002). From the beginning of its rise to prominence, restorative justice perspectives have been contrasted with the assumptions underpinning the criminal justice system in order to promote it as fundamentally different, yet viable, approach to achieving justice. Defining restorative justice is no easy feat because of the multiple strands comprising this conception of correctional justice. Attempts to settle on particular definition have been contentious and rather than guiding theorists towards agreement, the debate around what actually constitutes restorative justice has served to highlight the existence of contrasting and competing perspectives. While the term itself has the obvious implications that it is form of justice that restores something, it is not clear what is being restored and to whom, and what justice means in this context. Dignan and Cavadino (1996) maintain that, ...the precise form of the paradigm is as yet unclear, whether in theory or practice, and the whole debate is characterized by considerable terminological and conceptual confusion (p. 153). Restorative advocates, however, have argued that the appeal of restorative justice lies in its flexibility to encompass wide range of initiatives and thus, any attempts to reach definitive agreement about 'what it is' will somehow contaminate, and potentially destroy, its essence (Johnstone & Van Ness, 2007). Indeed, Braithwaite (1999) goes as tar as to say, answer to the What is to be restored? question is whatever dimensions of restoration matter to the victims, offenders, and communities affected by the crime. Stakeholder deliberation determines what restoration means in specific (p. 6). Although Braithwaite addresses the meaning of restoration rather than justice in his definition, he does imply that justice in this context is purely procedural rather than substantive. An additional implication of this perspective is that restorative justice is nuanced, contextual approach that eschews universal principles and is more concerned with meeting the needs and interests of stakeholders at particular times and in specific locations. Furthermore, there is the suggestion that victims, offenders, and communities ought to drive the process of seeking restoration and that balance should be sought between these diverse, and possibly conflicting, interests. Restorative justice models are commonly viewed as either process-based, such as that described above by Braithwaite, or outcome-based. Theorists who believe that joint stakeholder deliberation is fundamental to achieving restoration actively promote process-based definitions of restorative justice. One such definition is Marshall's (1999) where restorative justice is a process whereby parties with stake in specific offence collectively resolve how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future (p. 5). In comparison, outcome-based definitions tend to prioritize the role that particular outcomes have in achieving restoration; that is, the specific constellation of benefits and burdens arising from the restorative decision-making process. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 41 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.