WHAT IS RESTORATIVE JUSTICE?

Restorative Justice is a process through which remorseful offenders accept responsibility for their
misconduct, particularly to their victims and to the community. It creates obligation to make things right
through proactive involvement of victims, ownership of the offender of the crime and the community in
search for solutions which promote repair, reconciliation and reassurance. Thus, the restorative justice
process is actively participated in by the victim, the offender, and/or any individual or community
member affected by the crime to resolve conflicts resulting from the criminal offense, often with the
help of a fair and impartial third party. Examples of restorative process include mediation, conferencing,
sentencing/support circle and the like. The restorative outcome is the agreement obtained as a product
of a restorative justice process. Examples of restorative outcomes include restitution, community work
service and any other program or response designed to accomplish reparation of the victim, and the
reintegration of the victims and/or offenders.

HOW WAS RESTORATIVE JUSTICE ADOPTED IN THE PHILIPPINES?

The Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, of which the Philippines is a member-
country, through a draft resolution, recommended to the Economic and Social Council of the United
Nations Organization (UNO), the adoption of the “Basic Principles on the Use of Restorative Justice
Programmes in Criminal Matters”. The said document is a formulation of UN Standard in the field of
mediation and restorative justice. The Philippines, being a signatory member-country should ensure
adoption of this resolution.

Consequently, the goal of the government is to establish a more enlightened and humane correctional
system that will promote the reformation of offenders and thereby reduce the incidence of recidivism.
This is in line with the applicable laws, rules, and policies mandating this Agency to administer the Parole
and Probation System in the country. As such, the Parole and Probation Administration (PPA) is
empowered to create innovative policies, programs, and activities to facilitate the reintegration of its
clientele into the mainstream of society and consequently prevent the commission of crime. Therefore,
PPA adopts Restorative Justice as one of its rehabilitation programs which utilizes restorative processes
and aims to achieve restorative outcomes.

WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE AS A REHABILITATION PROGRAM OF PPA?

Reintegration of the offenders to the social mainstream and encouraging them to assume active
responsibility for the injuries inflicted to the victims;

Proactive involvement of the community to support and assist in the rehabilitation of victims and
offenders;
Attention to the needs of the victims, survivors and other persons affected by the crime as participating
stakeholders in the criminal justice system, rather than mere objects or passive recipients of services of
intervention that may be unwanted, inappropriate or ineffective;

Healing the effects of the crime or wrongdoing suffered by the respective stakeholders; and

Prevention of further commission of crime and delinquency.

HOW IS RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IMPLEMENTED IN PPA?

A. During the Investigation Stage

Information such as victims’ version of the offense, effect of victimization to their lives, families, future,
and plans, and victims’ appreciation on how the damage/harm inflicted by the crime can be repaired
and healed are gathered to serve as input in the post-sentence investigation (PSI) or
pre-parole/executive clemency investigation (PPI) reports prepared by the investigating officer to be
submitted to the Court and the Board of Pardons and Parole, respectively. These data are vital in the
conduct of restorative justice processes during the supervision phase.

Soliciting stakeholders’ interest for their introduction to the restorative process commences during this
stage.

B. During the Supervision Stage

Restorative Justice Program is a part of the rehabilitation of the client which is incorporated in the
client’s Supervision Treatment Plan (STP). In applying the various restorative justice processes for the
client’s rehabilitation, the supervising officer observes the following points:

The parties are brought within the program out of their own volition. Parties have the right to seek legal
advice before and after the restorative justice process;

Before agreeing to participate in the restorative justice process, the parties are fully informed of their
rights, the nature of the process, and the possible consequences of their decision;
Neither the victim nor the offender is induced by unfair means to participate in restorative justice
processes or outcomes;

Discussion in restorative justice processes should be highly confidential and should not be disclosed
subsequently, except with the consent of the parties, and should not be used against the parties
involved;

Where no agreement can be made between the parties, the case is withdrawn from the restorative
justice process; and

In the event agreement is reached by parties, it is put in writing to give substance/essence to the
agreement. The failure to implement any provision of the agreement made in the course of the
restorative justice process is a basis for the withdrawal of the case from the program.

WHAT ARE THE ROLES OF THE PROBATION AND PAROLE OFFICERS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE?

A Probation and Parole Officer assigned to handle investigation and supervision caseloads acts as
restorative justice planner. As such, he/she undertakes the following responsibilities:

Identifies and recommends to the Chief Probation and Parole Officer (CPPO) potential case for
Peacemaking Encounter;

Conducts dialogue to explore the possibility of restorative justice process;

Coordinates/collaborates with responsible members and leaders of community for their participation in
the conference;

Serves as facilitator-strength in the conference;

Assists in healing process of stakeholders based on the Supervision Treatment Plan; and

Prepares casenotes reflective of restorative justice values and utilizing the following points:

Impact of crime and effect of victimization

Victim inputs and involvement opportunities

Offender opportunity to take direct responsibility for the harm inflicted on the victim and/or the
community.

A CPPO engages in the following responsibilities:

Approves cases for Peace Encounter Conference and issues office orders; and

Implements and monitors plans and agreements achieved during the conference and sets direction to
realize success of the process.

WHAT ARE THE PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS TO BE OBSERVED IN APPLYING THE RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
PROCESSES TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS ARISING FROM THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE?

The clients must admit the offense to be eligible for the conference, and if possible, they should be
encouraged to take full responsibility;

A personal visit by the Restorative Justice planner may be necessary to solicit interest and willingness of
stakeholders to participate in the restorative process;

The victims’ preference for the time, date and place of the meeting should be given greatest weight;

Restorative Justice planners should also get in touch with community strengths to serve as facilitator like
local officials, members of the Lupon Tagapamayapa or any responsible and respected personalities in
the locality;

A pre-conference meeting with the selected facilitators prior to the actual conduct of peace encounter
conference should be set to carefully plan for all the details, from the sitting arrangements and
refreshments to the box of tissue papers which incidentally would let participants know that display of
emotions is okay;

A pre-conference meeting could likewise be arranged separately with individual stakeholders to explain
the process and other vital details of the conference;
The Restorative Justice planner should ensure that everyone knows how to get to the location site of the
conference;

Facilitators should ensure that the conference shall be conducted without interruption in a comfortable
location and shall secure the safety of all stakeholders;

Stakeholders shall also be consulted relative to the composition of the panel of facilitators. Any party
may move to oppose the inclusion of persons by reason of relationship, bias, interest or other similar
grounds that may adversely affect the process; and

Indigenous system of settling differences or disputes shall accordingly be recognized and utilized to
conform with the customs and tradition of that particular cultural community.

WHAT ARE THE RESTORATIVE JUSTICE MODELS THAT CAN BE APPLIED IN PPA?

Peacemaking Encounter

Peacemaking Encounter is a community-based gathering that brings the victim, the victimized
community, and the offender together. It supports the healing process of the victims by providing a safe
and controlled setting for them to meet and speak with the offender on a confidential and strictly
voluntary basis. It also allows the offender to learn about the impact of the crime to the victim and
his/her family, and to take direct responsibility for his/her behavior. Likewise, it provides a chance for
the victim and the offender to forge a mutually acceptable plan that addresses the harm caused by the
crime.

As a community-based decision model, the Agency Peacemaking Encounter is being implemented

through the following processes:

Victim/Offender Mediation – a process that provides an interested victim an opportunity to meet face-
to-face his/her offender in a secured and structured setting or atmosphere, with the help of a trained
mediator, and engage in a discussion of the past offense and its impact to his/her life. Its goal is to
support the healing process of the victim and allow the offender to learn the impact of his/her offense
on the victim’s physical, emotional and financial existence, and take direct responsibility for his/her
behavior by mutually developing a Restorative Justice plan that addresses the harm caused by the said
offense.

Conferencing – a process which involves community of people most affected by the crime – the victim
and the offender and their families, the affected community members and trained facilitators and
community strength – in a restorative discussion of issues and problems arising from an offense or
coincidence which affects community relationship and tranquillity. Facilitated by a trained facilitator, the
above parties are gathered at their own volition to discuss how they and others have been harmed by
the offense or conflict, and how that harm may be repaired and broken relationship may be restored.

Circle of Support – a community directed process organized by the field office and participated in by the
clients, the Volunteer Probation Aides (VPAs) and selected members of the community in the discussion
of the offense and its impact. Within the circle, people freely speak from the heart in a shared search for
understanding the incident, and together identify the steps necessary to assist in the reconciliation and
healing of all affected parties and prevent future crime or conflict.

In the Agency, the circle of support is facilitated by trained Probation and Parole Officers, Volunteer
Probation Aides or selected community leaders who offered their services free of charge to serve as
facilitator or keeper.

In implementing this process, the probation and parole officer should be the facilitator who is sensitive
to the needs of the victim. Likewise, the probation and parole officer should exert effort to protect the
safety and interest of the victim.

WHAT ARE THE OUTCOMES OR INTERVENTIONS WHICH CAN BE AGREED UPON DURING THE
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE PROCESS?

As a result of the restorative justice process, the following outcomes or interventions may be agreed
upon by parties in a Restorative Justice discussion, such as, but not limited to:

A. Restitution

Restitution is a process upon which the offender accepts accountability for the financial and/or non-
financial losses he/she may have caused to the victim. Restitution is a “core” victim’s right which is very
crucial in assisting the redirection of the victim’s life. Part of the conditions of probation as imposed by
the Court is the payment of civil liability to indemnify the victim of the offender, and to inculcate to the
offender a sense of responsibility and obligation towards the community.
 Consequently, the probation and parole officer should see to it that the offender complies with this
condition.

B. Community Work Service

Community Work Service, whether imposed as a condition of offender’s conditional liberty or integral
part of his treatment plan, should be purposely motivated to make the offender realize that he/she
incurred an obligation to make things right. In its application, the offender can be subjected to perform
work service measures, including, but not limited to any of the following:

Mentoring and Intergenerational Service – offenders will develop their nurturing needs thru caring for
other people; example: with senior citizens, with orphanages, or with street children.

Economic Development – to link directly with the business project; examples: cleaning downtown area,
tree planting, maintenance of business zones, housing restoration, garbage and waste management,
cleaning of esteros, recycling, construction, repair of streets, and the like.

Citizenship and Civic participation-experiential activities which involve solving community problems;
examples: puppet shows that showcase values, street dramas, peer counseling.

Helping the Disadvantaged – this will enhance offender’s self esteem; examples: assist handicapped,
assist in soup kitchen, tutor peers, visit the aged in jail and hospitals.

Crime Prevention Project – examples: Brgy. Ronda, giving testimony to the youth.

The probation and parole officer should ensure the adoption of these community work services to
facilitate the reintegration of the offender in the community.

C. Counseling (whether individual, group or family)

It will enhance client’s interpersonal relationship and it will help him/her become more aware of his/her
shortcomings/weaknesses. This will also help him/her overcome painful experiences that drove him/her
to commit a crime/ offense.
D. Attendance to trainings, seminars and lectures

E. Participation in education, vocation or life skills program

F. Group Therapy Session

An intervention which provides recovering drug dependents or those with serious behavioral problems
an opportunity to discuss their problems.

G. Spiritual development session/faith-based session

H. Submission to psychological/psychiatric assessment

I . Submission to drug test/drug dependency examination

J. Attendance to skills training/livelihood assistance program

K. Marital enhancement program

L. Written or oral apology

M. Submission to family therapy session

This session aims to develop healthy personal relationship within the family and to establish open
positive communication between family members and significant others. Family members should be
oriented in their individual responsibilities and roles.
N. Confinement in Drug Treatment Rehabilitation Center Including Aftercre

Restorative justice is an approach to justice that focuses on the needs of the victims and the offenders,
as well as the involved community, instead of satisfying abstract legal principles or punishing the
offender. Victims take an active role in the process, while offenders are encouraged to take
responsibility for their actions, "to repair the harm they've done—by apologizing, returning stolen
money, or community service".[1] In addition, it provides help for the offender in order to avoid future
offences. It is based on a theory of justice that considers crime and wrongdoing to be an offence against
an individual or community, rather than the state.[2] Restorative justice that fosters dialogue between
victim and offender shows the highest rates of victim satisfaction and offender accountability.[3]

Contents [hide]

1 Definition

2 History

3 Application

3.1 Application in prisons

4 Processes

4.1 Victim-offender mediation

4.2 Family group conferencing

4.3 Restorative conferencing

4.4 Community restorative boards

4.5 Restorative Circles and restorative systems

4.6 Circles of Support and Accountability

4.7 Sentencing circles

4.8 Implementation

5 Limitations on restitution
6 Confidentiality

7 Recidivism

8 Restorative practices

9 Other social movements

9.1 Prison abolition

10 Research

11 Criticisms

12 Mass media

13 See also

14 References

15 External links

Definition[edit]

According to John Braithwaite (2004), restorative justice is:

...a process where all stakeholders affected by an injustice have an opportunity to discuss how they have
been affected by the injustice and to decide what should be done to repair the harm. With crime,
restorative justice is about the idea that because crime hurts, justice should heal. It follows that
conversations with those who have been hurt and with those who have inflicted the harm must be
central to the process.

The process of restorative justice necessitates a shift in responsibility for addressing crime. In a
restorative justice process, the citizens who have been affected by a crime must take an active role in
addressing that crime. Although law professionals may have secondary roles in facilitating the
restorative justice process, it is the citizens who must take up the majority of the responsibility in
healing the pains caused by crime.[4]

Dr. Carolyn Boyes-Watson (2014) at Suffolk University's Center for Restorative Justice defines restorative
justice as:
...a growing social movement to institutionalize peaceful approaches to harm, problem-solving and
violations of legal and human rights. These range from international peacemaking tribunals such as the
South Africa Truth and Reconciliation Commission to innovations within the criminal and juvenile justice
systems, schools, social services and communities. Rather than privileging the law, professionals and the
state, restorative resolutions engage those who are harmed, wrongdoers and their affected
communities in search of solutions that promote repair, reconciliation and the rebuilding of
relationships. Restorative justice seeks to build partnerships to reestablish mutual responsibility for
constructive responses to wrongdoing within our communities. Restorative approaches seek a balanced
approach to the needs of the victim, wrongdoer and community through processes that preserve the
safety and dignity of all."[5]

Howard Zehr describes the difference between restorative justice and traditional criminal justice in
terms of the guiding questions each system asks. In Changing Lenses, Zehr asserts that restorative
justice asks:

Who has been hurt?

What are their needs?

Whose obligations are these?

What are the causes?

Who has a stake in the situation?

What is the appropriate process to involve stakeholders in an effort to address causes and put things
right?[6]

This contrasts with the traditional criminal justice, which seeks answers to three questions:

What laws have been broken?

Who did it?

What do the offender(s) deserve?[7]

Restorative justice is very different from either the adversarial legal process or that of civil litigation. J.
Braithwaite writes, "Court-annexed ADR (alternative dispute resolution) and restorative justice could
not be philosophically further apart", because the former seeks to address only legally relevant issues
and to protect both parties' rights, whereas restorative justice seeks "expanding the issues beyond those
that are legally relevant, especially into underlying relationships."[8]
Similarly, citing Greif, Liebmann wrote

a way of looking at restorative justice is to think of it as a balance among a number of different tensions:

a balance between the therapeutic and the retributive models of justice

a balance between the rights of offenders and the needs of victims

a balance between the need to rehabilitate offenders and the duty to protect the public.[9]

History[edit]

Alternative dispute resolution

Arbitration Conciliation Mediation Negotiation Collaborative law Conflict resolution Dispute resolution
Lawyer-supported mediation Party-directed mediation Restorative justice

vte

Restorative approaches to crime date back thousands of years (and the term "restorative justice" has
appeared in written sources since the first half of the nineteenth century[10]):

In Sumer, the Code of Ur-Nammu (c. 2060 BC) required restitution for violent offenses.[11]

In Babylon, the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1700 BC) prescribed restitution for property offenses.[citation
needed]

In Israel, the Pentateuch specified restitution for property crimes. See for example Exodus 22: 1-14.

In Rome, the Twelve Tables (449 BC) compelled convicted thieves to pay double the value of stolen
goods.[citation needed]

In Ireland, under the Brehon Laws (first recorded in the Old Irish period) compensation was the mode of
justice for most crimes.[citation needed]

In Gaul, tribal laws promulgated by King Clovis I (496 AD) called for restitutive sanctions for both violent
and nonviolent offenses.[citation needed]

In England, the Laws of Æthelberht of Kent (c. 600 AD) included detailed restitution schedules.[12]
Retributive justice began to replace such systems following the Norman invasion of Britain in 1066 A.D.
William the Conqueror's son, Henry I, detailed offenses against the "king's peace". By the end of the
11th century, crime was no longer perceived as injurious to persons, but rather was seen as an offense
against the state.[13]

"Two peoples have made very specific and profound contributions to practices in the field – the First
Nations people of Canada and the U.S., and the Maori of New Zealand... [I]n many ways, restorative
justice represents a validation of values and practices that were characteristic of many indigenous
groups," whose traditions were "often discounted and repressed by western colonial powers," writes
Zehr.[14] For example, in New Zealand/Aotearoa, prior to European contact, the Maori had a well-
developed system called Utu that protected individuals, social stability and the integrity of the group.
[15]

In Restoring Justice–An Introduction to Restorative Justice, Daniel W. Van Ness and Karen Heetderks
Strong say that the term "restorative justice" was likely coined by Albert Eglash in 1958 when he
distinguished between three approaches to justice: (1) "retributive justice", based on punishment; (2)
"distributive justice", involving therapeutic treatment of offenders; and (3) "restorative justice", based
on restitution with input from victims and offenders.[16]

Howard Zehr's book Changing Lenses–A New Focus for Crime and Justice, first published in 1990, is
credited with being "groundbreaking",[17] one of the first to articulate a theory of restorative justice.
[18] The title of this book refers to providing an alternative framework for thinking about – or new lens
for viewing – crime and justice.[19] Changing Lenses juxtaposed a "retributive justice" framework,
where crime is viewed as an offense against the state, with a restorative justice framework, where crime
is viewed as a violation of people and relationships.[20] The book made reference to the positive results
of efforts in the late 1970s and 1980s at victim-offender mediation, pioneered in the United States by
Howard Zehr, Ron Claassen and Mark Umbreit.[21]

A number of scholars believe it is not a coincidence that Mennonites in North America, like Zehr and
Claassen,[21] and the social-action arm of their church-community, Mennonite Central Committee,
played major roles in popularizing the theory and practices of restorative justice.[22][23] "[T]he
antinomiam groups advocating and supporting restorative justice, such as the Mennonites (as well as
Amish and Quaker groups), subscribe to principled pacifism and also tend to believe that restorative
justice is much more humane than the punitive juvenile and criminal justice systems."[24]
By the second half of the 1990s, the expression "restorative justice" had become popular, evolving to
widespread usage by 2006.[25] The restorative justice movement has attracted many segments of
society, including "police officers, judges, schoolteachers, politicians, juvenile justice agencies, victim
support groups, aboriginal elders, and mums and dads."[26]

"Restorative justice is a fast-growing state, national and international social movement that seeks to
bring together people to address the harm caused by crime," write Mark Umbreit and Marilyn Peterson
Armour. "Restorative justice views violence, community decline, and fear-based responses as indicators
of broken relationships. It offers a different response, namely the use of restorative solutions to repair
the harm related to conflict, crime, and victimization."[27]

In North America, the growth of restorative justice has been facilitated by NGOs dedicated to this
approach to justice, such as the Victim Offender Mediation Association, as well as by the establishment
of academic centers, such as the Center for Justice and Peacebuilding at Eastern Mennonite University in
Virginia, the University of Minnesota's Center for Restorative Justice and Peacemaking, the Community
Justice Institute at Florida Atlantic University, the Center for Peacemaking and Conflict Studies at Fresno
Pacific University in California, and the Centre for Restorative Justice at Simon Fraser University in British
Columbia, Canada.[28]

Application[edit]

In criminal cases, victims can testify about the crime's impact upon their lives, receive answers to
questions about the incident, and participate in holding the offender accountable. Offenders can tell
their story of why the crime occurred and how it has affected their lives. They are given an opportunity
to compensate the victim directly —to the degree possible.[29] In criminal cases, this can include
money, community service in general and/or specific to the offense, education to prevent recidivism,
and/or expression of remorse.

In social justice cases, impoverished victims such as foster children are given the opportunity to describe
their future hopes and make concrete plans to transition out of state custody in a group process with
their supporters.[30] In social justice cases, restorative justice is used for problem solving.[31]

Restorative justice can proceed in a courtroom or within a community or nonprofit organization.

A courtroom process might employ pretrial diversion, dismissing charges after restitution. In more
serious cases, a prison sentence may precede other restitution.[32]

In the community, concerned individuals meet with all parties to assess the experience and impact of
the crime. Offenders listen to victims' experiences, preferably until they are able to empathize with the
experience. Then they speak to their own experience: how they decided to commit the offense. A plan is
made for prevention of future occurrences, and for the offender to address the damage to the injured
parties. All agree. Community members hold the offender(s) accountable for adherence to the plan.

While restorative justice typically involves an encounter between the offender and the victim, some
organizations, such as the Mennonite Central Committee Canada, emphasize a program's values over its
participants. This can include programs that only serve victims (or offenders for that matter), but that
have a restorative framework. Indigenous groups are using the restorative justice process to try to
create more community support for victims and offenders, particularly the young people. For example,
different programs are underway at Kahnawake, a Mohawk reserve in Canada, and at the Pine Ridge
Indian Reservation of the Oglala Lakota nation, within the United States.

The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission shows how restorative justice can be used to
address system-wide offenses that affect broad swaths of a group or a society.[33]

Brief introductions to some of the applications of restorative justice can be found in the Little Books of
Justice and Peacebuilding series, edited by Howard Zehr, with seven titles that pertain to restorative
justice: The Little Book of Restorative Justice (2002); ... of Family Group Conferences, New Zealand Style
(2004); ... of Circle Processes (2005); ... of Restorative Discipline for Schools (2005); ... of Restorative
Justice for People in Prison–Rebuilding the Web of Relationships (2006); ... of Victim Offender
Conferencing–Bringing Victims and Offenders Together in Dialogue (2009); ...of Restorative Justice for
Colleges and Universities–Repairing Harm and Rebuilding Trust in Response to Student Misconduct
(2013).

Application in prisons[edit]

In addition to serving as an alternative to civil or criminal trial, restorative justice is also thought to be
applicable to offenders who are currently incarcerated.[34] The purpose of restorative justice in prisons
is to assist with the prisoner's rehabilitation, and eventual reintegration into society. By repairing the
harm to the relationships between offenders and victims and offenders and the community that
resulted from the crime, restorative justice seeks to understand and address the circumstances which
contributed to the crime in order to prevent recidivism once the offender is released. The potential for
restorative justice to reduce recidivism is one of the strongest and most promising arguments for its use
in prisons, but there are both theoretical and practical limitations, which can make restorative justice
unfeasible in a prison environment-such as: difficulty engaging offenders and victims to participate in
mediation; the controversial influence of family, friends, and the community; and the prevalence of
mental illness among prisoners.[35]

Processes[edit]

Victim-offender mediation[edit]

Victim-offender mediation, (VOM, also called victim-offender dialogue, victim-offender conferencing,

victim-offender reconciliation, or restorative justice dialogue), is usually a meeting, in the presence of a
trained mediator, between victim and offender. This system generally involves few participants, and
often is the only option available to incarcerated offenders. VOM originated in Canada as part of an
alternative court sanction in a 1974 Kitchener, Ontario case involving two accused vandals who met
face-to-face with their many victims.[citation needed]

Family group conferencing[edit]

Family group conferencing (FGC) has a wider circle of participants than VOM, adding people connected
to the primary parties, such as family, friends and professionals. FGC is often the most appropriate
system for juvenile cases, due to the important role of the family in a juvenile offender's life. Examples
can be found in New South Wales (Australia) under the 1997 Young Offenders Act, and in New Zealand
under the 1989 Children, Young Persons, and their Families Act. The New South Wales scheme has been
favorably evaluated by the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.

Restorative conferencing[edit]

Restorative conferencing (RC) also involves a wider circle of participants than VOM. Restorative
conferences, which have also been called restorative justice conferences, family group conferences and
community accountability conferences, originated as a response to juvenile crime.[36][37]

An RC is a voluntary, structured meeting between offenders, victims, representatives from the

community,[38] and both parties' family and friends, in which they address consequences and
restitution. RC is explicitly victim-sensitive.[39][40]
The conference facilitator arranges the meeting. In some cases, a written statement or a surrogate
replaces an unwilling victim. The conference facilitator sticks to a simple script[41] and keeps the
conference focused, but intentionally does not actively participate in structuring the outcome of the
conference. The goal of the conference is for the participants to produce a mutually acceptable
agreement that addresses the harm caused by the offender.[38] The intent is to allow subsequent
conferences to succeed without a facilitator.[39]

RC was successfully introduced in several schools in England, including St. Augustine of Canterbury
(2004–2008) Taunton, Somerset by Avon and Somerset police officer, Andy Jenrick. Positive results led
officials to offer training to all Somerset secondary schools.[42][43]

Community restorative boards[edit]

A community restorative board, also referred to as Community Justice Committees in Canada and
Referral Order Panels in England & Wales, is typically composed of a small group, prepared by intensive
training, who conduct public, face-to-face meetings. Judges may sentence offenders to participate;
police may refer them before charging them; or they may engage outside the legal system.

Victims meet with the board and offender, or submit a written statement which is shared with the
offender and the board. Board members discuss the nature and impact of the offense with the offender.
The discussion continues until they agree on a deadline and specific actions for the offender to take.
Subsequently, the offender documents progress in fulfilling the agreement. After the deadline passes,
the board submits a compliance report to the court or police, ending the board's involvement.

Dominic Barter in Lyon (France) during a Restaurative Circles session.

Restorative Circles and restorative systems[edit]

In Brazil the juvenile justice system, neighbourhoods and schools have begun to use Restorative
Circles[44] [45] developed by Dominic Barter inspired by Nonviolent Communication. The approach
involves a much wider circle of participants than conventional victim/offender conferencing, and begins
with establishing a restorative system in the neighbourhood or school where circles will be held. As
such, Barter's approach offers scope for radical social transformation. This process is being adopted in
Germany, the USA, the UK, Canada and Uganda, and outside of the justice and education systems.
In Hawaii, Huikahi Restorative Circles allow prisoners to meet with their families and friends in a group
process to support their transition back into the community. Meetings specifically address the need for
reconciliation with victims of their crime(s).[46] A Modified Restorative Circle was developed and used in
Hawaii for offenders whose loved ones are unable or unwilling to participate. Other prisoners sit in the
Circle and help develop the transition plan.

Circles of Support and Accountability[edit]

Main article: Circles of Support and Accountability

Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA) originated as a project of the "Welcome In", a Mennonite
church in Hamilton, Ontario. This approach has demonstrated the capacity to enhance the safe
integration of otherwise high-risk sex offenders with their community. Canada judges some sex
offenders too dangerous for any form of conditional release, "detaining" them until they serve their
entire sentence. A subsequent conviction often leads to designation as a "Dangerous Offender".

Prior to 1994 many such offenders were released without any support or observation beyond police
surveillance. Between 1994 and 2007, CoSA assisted with the integration of well over 120 such
offenders. Research indicated that surrounding a 'core member' with 5–7 trained volunteer circle
members reduced recidivism by nearly 80%.[47] Further, recidivist offences were less invasive and less
brutal than without the program. CoSA projects now exist in every Canadian province and every major
urban centre. CoSA projects are also operational in several U.S. states (Iowa, California, Minnesota,
Oregon, Ohio, Colorado, Vermont) as well as in several United Kingdom regions (Cornwall, Devon,
Hampshire, Thames Valley, Leicestershire, North Wales, North Yorkshire, and Manchester).

Sentencing circles[edit]

Sentencing circles (sometimes called peacemaking circles) use traditional circle ritual and structure to
involve all interested parties. Sentencing circles typically employ a procedure that includes: (1)
application by the offender; (2) a healing circle for the victim; (3) a healing circle for the offender; (4) a
sentencing circle; and (5) follow-up circles to monitor progress.

Implementation[edit]

Brian Royce developed an approach he called "Operationalized Restorative Justice" for a contracted
private prison for the state of Pennsylvania in the United States. The system was adopted and used in
numerous contracted prisons around the country. The system was shown to significantly reduce
recidivism and internal conflicts within the prisons.[48]

The two primary uses within an institution are to manage behavior overall and to respond to specific
criminal actions and behavior. Using restorative justice as an overall BMT is significantly more effective
over the long term. It can be difficult to implement, as such wide changes to the culture of an institution
are usually met with resistance from both the staff and the institution population.

Predominately restorative justice is used for the victim, specifically with a kind of mediation and/or
restitution from the offender. Restorative justice is based on bringing together the victim, the offender,
and the community; all have equal parts in repairing the relationships destroyed by crime. Generally the
offender is held accountable to the victim for the criminal action and accountable as well to the
community. The underlying premise of restorative justice holds that all three are accountable to each
other.

The offender must be held accountable, the offender must give back in the way prescribed by the victim
to make amends. Additionally the offender must also give back to the community, as crime devalues any
community. The community is accountable to the victim by assisting in enforcing any reparations agreed
upon by the victim, and to the offender by helping the person avoid committing any more crime. In
some cases, it may be difficult for the victim to participate in meetings directly, but the system is based
on the offender being brought to face the implications of the crime.

To implement the system within an institution, considerable ground work is needed. First, the institution
has to establish what the norms are – what really goes on within the institution, evaluate whether they
are acceptable to the whole community, and work from there. Ideally, the institution will define and
establish positive norms which each person understands. For example, Albert Elias wrote about the
norms of Respect, Responsibility, Confrontation, Help, Trust and Support. He gave concrete definitions
for these norms, and held the inmates in their care to these norms, establishing what was called
normative behavior. It is likely better for an institution to decide its norms through a process.

The second aspect is to ensure that the rules support the norm and are consistent with it, to make the
rules enforceable. When there are clear norms/rules for what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior,
the community can be held accountable to live by these. This can be done numerous ways, depending
on the size of the institution, the physical layout, the type, the counseling programs, and the staffing.
Here is where the separation between a response to criminal behavior within the institution and the
overall behavior management tool becomes apparent. When used as a response to criminal behavior,
the sequence of events is:

Crime takes place;

A circle (defined below) is called, composed of the victim, offender, and people within the community;
and

The circle discusses what happened, and develops and executes some sort of reparation.

A circle is one of the most commonly used Restorative Justice practices, usually comprising the offender
and the community and, if applicable, the victim. The offender must acknowledge the crime, the
community discusses the implications, and, if applicable, the victim discusses the ramifications and the
personal "cost". The circle must come to agreement on an acceptable restoration. The offender has to
restore the cost, or provide a kind of compensation. The circle has regular meetings to discuss the
progress, address any issues, and ultimately attempt to restore justice.

When used as an overall behavior management tool, Restorative Justice embraces cognitive behavioral
techniques (CBT) through counseling and therapy. It is based on a person's taking positive actions and
being able to see oneself positively. By feeling good about being positive, the person is more likely to
maintain the positive behavior. CBT can contribute to the success of restorative justice. Restorative
justice and CBT are being used together in alternative counseling, specifically targeted at sex offenders,
juvenile offenders, extremely violent offenders, drug counseling, family counseling, etc.

Limitations on restitution[edit]

Some judicial systems only recognize monetary restitution agreements. For instance, if victim and
offender agree that the offender would pay $100 and mow the victim's lawn five times, the court would
only recognize the $100 as restitution. Some agreements specify a larger monetary amount (e.g. $200)
to be paid if the non-monetary restitution is not completed.

Many jurisdictions cap the amount which a juvenile offender can be required to pay. Labor regulations
typically limit the personal service tasks that can be performed by minors. In addition, personal service
usually must be approved by the juvenile's parents.
According to the Victim Offender Mediation Association, victims are not allowed to profit from
restitution (the equivalent of punitive damages); only out-of-pocket losses (actual damages) can be
recovered. Courts can disallow unreasonable compensation arrangements.

Poor facilitator training is a common cause of poorly designed agreements.

Confidentiality[edit]

Some restorative justice systems, especially victim-offender mediation and family group conferencing,
require participants to sign a confidentiality agreement. These agreements usually state that conference
discussions will not be disclosed to nonparticipants. The rationale for confidentiality is that it promotes
open and honest communication.

Recidivism[edit]

Reduction of recidivism is also a goal of RJ,[49] secondary to the restoration of offenders.[50]

Proponents argue that it can prevent reoffending[49] and deter other potential criminals.[51] Critics
counter that RJ does not significantly influence crime rates.[50][51]

While some older studies showed mixed results, as of 2013, studies that compared recidivism rates have
become more definitive and in favor of Restorative Justice.[49][51] Some studies claim modest, relative
reductions,[52][53][54][55] but more recent studies are finding significant and meaningful reductions in
recidivism rates (see below).

After defining RJ more accurately and perhaps improving RJ practices, Latimer, Dowden and Muise
(2005)[56] conducted the second meta-analysis on the effectiveness of RJ. This study is very important
because it addresses the file-drawer problem. Also, some of the studies analyzed implemented a
randomized-control group (RCG) design (a gold standard in research methods), although this does not
represent the majority of studies included. This meta-analysis lends empirical support for the
effectiveness of RJ to lower recidivism rates and increase compliance and satisfaction rates. However,
the authors caution that a self-selection bias is rife through most studies of restorative justice. They
reference authors from one study (McCold & Wachtel, 1998) who found no evidence that restorative
justice has a treatment effect on recidivism beyond a self-selection effect.
The third meta-analysis on the effectiveness of RJ was conducted by Bradshaw, Roseborough, and
Umbreit (2006). The results of this meta-analysis add empirical support for the effectiveness of RJ in
reducing juvenile recidivism rates.

Since then Baffour (2006) and Rodriguez's (2007) studies also supports the use of RJ over the traditional
justice system when it comes to recidivism rates. Bergseth and Bouffard (2007, 2012) supports these
findings and also concludes that there may be some long-term effects of RJ over the traditional justice
system; as well as RJ being more effective with serious crimes. RJ participants are less likely to commit
serious crimes if they do re-offend and they go longer without re-offending. All of these studies found
that RJ is equally effective regardless of race.

Sherman & Strang's (2007) book is a review of the previous literature and they conclude that in no way
can RJ be more harmful than the traditional justice system. It is at least equally as effective as the
traditional justice system in all cases. In most cases (especially with more serious offenses and with adult
offenders) it is significantly more effective than the traditional justice system at lowering recidivism
rates. These authors conclusions are as follows... 1) Substantially reduced repeat offending for some
offenders, but not all. 2) Doubled (or more) the offenders brought to justice as diversion from CJ
[Conventional Justice or traditional justice]. 3) Reduced crime victims' post-traumatic stress symptoms
and related costs. 4) Provided both victims and offenders with more satisfaction with justice than CJ. 5)
Reduced crime victims' desire for violent revenge against their offenders. 6) Reduced the costs of
criminal justice, when used as diversion from CJ. 7) Reduced recidivism more than prison (adults) or as
well as prison (youths). (Sherman & Strang, 2007, p. 4).

A recent meta-analysis by the Cochrane Collaboration (2013) on the effect of youth justice conferencing
on recidivism in young offenders found that there was no significant effect for restorative justice
conferencing over normal court procedures for number re-arrested, nor monthly rate of reoffending.
They also noted a lack of high quality evidence regarding the effectiveness of restorative justice
conferencing for young offenders.[57]

Restorative practices[edit]

The restorative practices (RP) concept has its roots in RJ. RP is an emerging field of practice and study
devoted to building social capital and achieving social discipline through participatory learning and
decision-making. RP ties together theory, research and practice in fields such as education, counseling,
criminal justice, social work and organizational management. The unifying hypothesis of restorative
practices is that human beings are happier, more cooperative and productive, and more likely to make
positive behavioural changes when others do things with them (via collaboration), rather than to them
(via coercion) or for them (via independent action).

In criminal justice, RP circles and conferences allow involved parties to resolve offenses collaboratively.
[58] In social work, RP family group decision-making (FGDM) and FGC support collaboration within
families, e.g., to protect children.[59] In education, student circles and groups collaborate to peacefully
resolve disputes.[60]

The criminal justice field uses the phrase "restorative justice";[61] social workers say "empowerment";
[62] educators prefer "positive discipline"[63] or "the responsive classroom";[64] while leadership
consultants choose "horizontal management".[65]

RP is spreading in multiple countries, in education, criminal justice, family and youth and-serving and
workplace applications.[37][66]

RJ has not currently succeeded when applied to drug offences, sexual assault and domestic violence.
South Australia and New Zealand have attempted RJ with juvenile sexual offenders.[66]

Indigenous regions of Canada have tentatively implemented circle sentencing to deal with domestic
violence. Advocates believe that it may be applicable to these indigenous communities because it
relates to traditional cultural values of restoring balance in the community. In addition, First Nations
have low regard for the local (punitive) court system, in which their people are over-represented in
court and in prison.

Since 2000, Kahnawake, a Kanien'kehá:ka reserve, has introduced the use of restorative justice to
intervene before an arrest occurs, and to prevent one. Feeling ill-served by the adversarial Canadian
system, the community is particularly interested in incorporating restorative justice to work with its
younger members and help prevent future offenses.[67] Some Native American nations have also begun
to adopt Restorative Justice practices; the Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation is planning a
tribal justice center to include a courtroom for Restorative Justice.

The Restorative Justice Facilitator

The role of the facilitator is key to a successful restorative justice conference outcome for both victim
and offender. In 2010 John Bacon submitted, in part fulfilment of the requirement of the University of
Cambridge Master of Studies degree in Criminology, his thesis Making Progress in Restorative Justice: a
qualitative study. This study is cited as a key part of the research evidence used to inform the
Restorative Justice Council's Best Practice Guidance for Restorative Practice (2011:30).

This study reveals for the first time the key skills, techniques and characteristics necessary to make
progress in restorative justice conferencing practice and from which an ideal candidate profile can be
compiled which would assist in the recruitment, training and supervision of future facilitators.

The study also revealed a number of practical and logistical obstacles to making progress which require
a strategic and operational response if future restorative justice projects are to fulfil their remit.

John Bacon's study is free to download from the Restorative Justice Council
http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/resource/making_progress_in_restorative_justice_a_qualitative_s
tudy/

Other social movements[edit]

Prison abolition[edit]

Prison abolition not only calls for the eradication of cages, but also new perspectives and methodologies
for conceptualizing crime, an aim that is shared by restorative justice. In an abolitionist style of
restorative justice, participation is voluntary and not limited by the requirements of organizations or
professionals, the process includes all relevant stakeholders and is mediated by an independent third
party. The emphasis is on meeting the needs of and strengthening the community.[68]

Research[edit]

A 2007 meta-study of all research projects concerning restorative justice conferencing published in
English between 1986 and 2005 found positive results, specifically for victims:[3]

Greater ability to return to work, to resume normal daily activities, and to sleep
No cases of offenders verbally or violently abusing victims

Reduced fear of the offender (especially for violence victims); lower perceived likelihood of another
offense; increased sense of security; reduced anger towards the offender; greater sympathy for the
offender and the offender's supporters; greater feelings of trust in others; increased feelings of self-
confidence; reduced anxiety

Other findings included:

The only principled basis for selectively allowing, or banning, RJ is harm reduction.

Limited public familiarity and misconceptions about RJ

Greater availability, together with information about victims' positive views is likely to increase the
proportion of victims willing to participate.

In July 2011, the International Center for Transitional Justice published a report entitled "To Live as
Other Kenyans do: A Study of the Demands of Kenyan Victims of Human Rights Violations".[69] The
findings are based on individual and group interviews of victims of human rights abuses from Kenya's
2007 post-election violence. It highlights the importance of a victim-centered approach to determine the
most effective mode of implementation for a comprehensive reparations program. The main finding of
the report is that victims demand tangible basic benefits lost as a product of violence, such as food and
shelter. It also acknowledges the need for symbolic reparations, such as formal apologies. The provision
of reparations will in a sense create a restoration of the way life was before violence, and also signal the
moving forward of a society through institutional change.

The COREPOL Project (Conflict Resolution, Mediation and Restorative Justice and the Policing of Ethnic
Minorities in Germany, Austria and Hungary) tries to broaden the fundament of knowledge concerning
applied Restorative Justice concepts in Germany, Austria and Hungary. COREPOL uses a comparative
design (Germany, Austria, Hungary) to establish whether better police - minority relations can be
achieved through means of a Restorative Justice (RJ) approach. The extent and cultural particularities of
RJ programs and their affiliation to the criminal justice system is ascertained. Then specific minority
populations (Turks in Germany, Roma in Hungary, Africans in Austria) will be examined in regard to the
country's security context. The involvement of police in RJ programs for minority populations will be
explored. Finally, the proposed research will exemplify the scope of RJ approaches for the improvement
of police - minority communication and interaction. Based on the legality principle and on an
inquisitorial civil law tradition of policing and criminal justice, the partner countries' legal and policing
systems differ substantially from the Anglo-American-Australian hemisphere of restorative justice. The
findings will have a wider impact on the Middle and Eastern EU situation. The research will include open
questions of gender, age and cultural compatibility of RJ. With positions at police universities the
researchers are well grounded in police science and have carried out previous work on minorities. This
grants them access to the field and to practical areas of police work and management. Their principal
involvement in B.A./ M.A. programs for police officers and in further European research secures
dissemination into police and the scientific community. COREPOL is coordinated by the German Police
University and funded through the European Commission´s Seventh Framework Program (FP7).

Criticisms[edit]

According to Morris, the following are some of the most common criticisms that are used against the
practicality or realism of restorative justice:

...restorative justice erodes legal rights; restorative justice results in net-widening; restorative justice
trivializes crime (particularly men's violence against women); restorative justice fails to "restore" victims
and offenders; restorative justice fails to effect real change and to prevent recidivism; restorative justice
results in discriminatory outcomes; restorative justice extends police powers; restorative justice leaves
power imbalances untouched; restorative justice leads to vigilantism; restorative justice lacks legitimacy;
and restorative justice fails to provide "justice".[70]

Another critique of restorative justice suggests that professionals are often left out of the restorative
justice conversation. Albert W. Dzur and Susan M. Olson argue that this sector of justice cannot be
successful without professionals. They claim that professionals can aid in avoiding problems that come
up with informal justice and propose the theory of democratic professionalism, where professionals are
not just agents of the state – as traditional understandings would suggest – but as mediums, promoting
community involvement while still protecting individuals' rights.[71]

Additionally, some critics like Gregory Shank and Paul Takagi see restorative justice as an incomplete
model in that it fails to fix the fundamental, structural inequalities that make certain people more likely
to be offenders than others.[72] They and others question the structure of society and the fairness of
institutional systems at their very core, pushing for addressing the root causes of many one-on-one
offenses as well as for creating a socio-economic system that will be more conducive to harmonious,
healthy living in general.[73]

Mass media[edit]

A recent increased public awareness of alternatives to the classic prison system has created favorable
social climate for the growth of restorative justice in the public domain. The growth of the victim
identity and victimization of our society has created satisfactory conditions for public acceptance of the
ideas of restorative justice, especially through mass media. Studies by Kelly M. Richards have shown that
the general public would be open to the idea of alternative forms of justice only after the idea has been
explicitly explained to them.[74] According to other studies performed by Vicky De Mesmaecker, in
order for restorative justice to become publicly accepted, there must be an effective public relations
collaboration between the media and the criminologists.[75]

The use of forgiveness as a tool has in the restorative justice programs, run for victims and perpetrators
of Rwandan genocide, the violence in Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and Northern Ireland conflict, has also
been documented in film, Beyond Right and Wrong: Stories of Justice and Forgiveness (2012).[76][77]

Caritas

Restorative Justice Ministry

Is a process whereby parties with stake in a particular offense come together to resolve collectively how
to deal with the aftermath of the offense and its implications for the future. It is based on the attitude of
our Lord Jesus Christ who sought them out, aided and reconciled them with the Father. The Restorative
Justice Prison Ministry is a special ministry of the Church through Caritas in the development of the
correctional community based on the principles of Restorative Justice (RJ). We refer to it simply as
Caritas RJ.

The 3 phases of CARITAS RJ

COMMUNITY CARRE PROGRAM (PREVENTION PHASE)

Organizes RJ groups, provides training and formation sessions

Conduct social conscientization and awareness sessions

Conducts recollections and spiritual formations

Cares for community lock-up cells

Pa-RELEASE-ME PROGRAM (PROPER PHASE)

Paralegal assistance

Religious and guidance counselling services

Livelihood assistance

Educational and vocational skills training program services

Advocacy and lobbying

Services for social action

Medical and dental services

AFTERCARE PROGRAM (POST CARE PHASE) – a support services program for released inmates to help
them become responsible and productive members of society.

The 12 CARITAS RJ serves the following prisons, jails and youth rehablilitation centers:

New Bilibid Prisons

Correctional Institution for wowen

Manila City Jail - Male Dept.

Manila City Jail - Female Dept.

Manila City Jail - Annex

Manila City Jail

Mandaluyong City Jail

Pasay City Jail

San Juan City Jail

Cradle

Manila Youth Reception Center

Pasay Youth Center

for more inquiries for Caritas RJ program email us caritas_manila@yahoo.com