Restorative Justice and Public Policy: A Web Bibliography
As the use of restorative practices grows, there is a greater awareness of the need to create good public policy around the issues of implementation, evaluation, and practice. The following list offers a variety of resources addressing restorative justice in the public policy or legislative arena. These include governmental discussion papers, theoretical considerations of legislating for restorative justice, examples of national and inter-governmental documents, and programme evaluations.
Discussion Papers
Beginning in 1999, under the auspices of the New South Wales Government, a Working Party studied the possibility of a conferencing scheme for adult offenders. This discussion paper resulted from that study. The paper consists of several parts. (See the Internet addresses above for the text of the paper.) The first two parts provide background to the paper and a model for a conferencing scheme. Chapter 1 details the need for a new approach to adult offending. Chapter 2 examines the idea of conferencing, as well as relevant programs, legislation, benefits, and limitations. Chapter 3 proposes a framework for community justice conferences for adult offenders in New South Wales. A bibliography concludes the discussion paper.
Belgrave, John. (1996). "Restorative Justice: A Discussion Paper." Ministry of Justice, New Zealand.
In New Zealand, when it was became apparent that the adoption of a restorative focus in the adult jurisdiction could constitute major new public policy, the NZ Ministry of Justice requested input on the wide range of views that had to be considered on this issue. This paper endeavoured to set out the main options that the ministry identified as a result of its investigations (without reaching a conclusion), so that those who wished to participate in the consultation knew the issues on which the ministry was seeking input.
The UK government has decided to maximize the use of restorative justice in responding to the needs of victims and reducing re-offending. This document outlines the government’s strategy of building high-quality restorative responses throughout the system and of investigating further application of restorative justice in the criminal justice system.
Department of Welfare. (1997). White paper for social welfare: Principles, guidelines, recommendations, proposed policies and programmes for developmental social welfare in South Africa. Pretoria, South Africa: Department of Welfare, Republic of South Africa.
In the transition from apartheid to a more democratic government and society, South Africa faces significant issues with respect to the social welfare needs of its people. Extreme poverty, great disparities in wealth, a weak economy, and racial and gender inequalities all challenge the country’s government and people. In this policy paper, the government of South Africa, in partnership with other stakeholders, delineates a approach for addressing those needs. The paper outlines key aspects of the social welfare context, a policy framework for a social welfare strategy, systems for implementing that strategy, a list of relevant legislation, and a glossary. In Part II, Section 4 – “Special needs and problems” – the paper specifically proposes crime prevention through development and restorative justice. This section consists of a situation analysis and strategic guidelines in the following areas: services to offenders, victims, and their families; probation services; crime prevention and alternative criminal justice measures targeted at children and juveniles; and community involvement.
The purpose of this paper is to provide a common framework for jurisdictions in Canada to use in gathering information from communities and agencies in the development of restorative justice programs. The first part of the paper provides an overview of restorative justice, including the following: core principles of restorative justice; core program models; the status of restorative justice in Canada; aboriginal justice and restorative justice; restorative justice and the offender; and restorative justice and victims of crime. The second part explores specific issues, concerns, and questions for the jurisdictions to consider, including the following: roles of government and community in restorative justice; effects of restorative processes on victims; appropriate offenses for restorative processes; issues of accountability in restorative programs; and training and standards of practice.
New Zealand’s program of restorative justice is at a significant stage of development. As such, this publication offers the principles of best practice in the field in an attempt to help frame policy for restorative justice processes within the criminal justice system. Not only do these principles of best practice provide guidelines about the use of restorative justice, they also protect the flexibility of the restorative justice process. The principles are drafted to be applied to a variety of restorative justice models operating throughout New Zealand. They are targeted for use in the criminal court for pre-sentence purposes, and do not apply to post-sentencing options. The discussion paper provides a general understanding of what restorative justice means and then, beginning in part 2, drafts the principles of best practices. These principles include elements related to the referral of cases, participants, providers and facilities, conferences, confidentiality and privacy, and cultural issues, to name a few. Critical issues are explored in part 3 and include discussions of type of offenses, proportionality, family violence, sexual violence, and children and young people. Finally, part 4 discusses how to apply these principles to practice within the criminal justice system. Relevant questions to consider are explored. The glossary defines terms and the notes section contains a questionnaire designed to facilitate discussion about the principles of best practice. Abstract courtesy of National Criminal Justice Reference Service, www.ncjrs.org.
This Discussion Paper is the first stage of the Law Commission of
Canada's work under its Social Relationships theme. We believe there is much
to be learned about how to handle complex relationships involving several
competing interests from the way restorative justice is practised in Canada
and throughout the world. In exploring how restorative justice can be
developed within the criminal justice system, we also seek to test whether
its framework and principles can be used to establish new understandings of
processes for resolving civil disputes.
Secretary of State for the Home Department And Lord Chancellor And Attorney
General. (2002). Justice For All. Presented to Parliament by the
Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Lord Chancellor and the
Attorney General by Command of Her Majesty. July 2002. CJS
Online.
This White Paper presents a wide-ranging program of reform for the criminal justice system in England and Wales. The program of reform is oriented around a single priority: to rebalance the criminal justice system in favor of the victim and the community so as to reduce crime and bring more offenders to justice. Five practical steps are detailed in this White Paper to pursue that priority: (1) reduction of offending while on bail; (2) construction of strong cases to put before the court; (3) implementation of new procedures to bring a case to trial quickly, with reduction of procedural manipulation by a defendant; (4) simplification and modernization of the approach to evidence; and (5) development of effective sentencing and punishment that works. Chapters in the Paper deal with the following: the need for reform; improving the criminal justice system for victims, witnesses, and communities; getting the criminal justice process right from the start; delivering justice through fairer, more effective trials; reforming sentencing policy and practices; punishment and rehabilitation; enhancing the public’s engagement in the criminal justice system; and focusing the criminal justice system to fight and reduce crime and deliver justice.
The purpose of this issue paper is to consider the question of restorative justice which includes a consideration of the involvement of victims of crime in the criminal justice process, reparation to victims of crime and community participation in the criminal justice process and to determine whether there is a need for legislative reform. In recent times there has been interest in a new way of doing justice. The desire has been expressed to return to more traditional systems of justice which give greater prominence to the victim, greater emphasis on the issue of redress and community involvement in the fight against crime and healing of the community. When crimes are committed communities feel violated as well and they have needs too. One cannot ignore the public dimension of crime and therefore the justice process cannot be fully private.
Inter-Governmental Documents
Legislation
This legislation, the Young Offenders Act, 1997 in Section 34, gives the
“principles and purposes” of conferencing. Some of the principles listed
include promoting responsibility for the crimes committed, strengthening the
family, providing rights for the victim, and providing developmental
services for the offender. The purpose of each conference is to “make
decisions and recommendations about, and to determine an outcome plan in
respect of, the child who is the subject of the conference.” With this,
children should be dealt with fairly during conferences while also retaining
responsibility for their offensive actions. Reparation for the victim is
also included in this.
The author, a youth court judge in New Zealand, examines the New Zealand Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989. The legislation introduced new principles and procedures for dealing with young people who offend against the law. It provided for jurisdictional separation between children and young persons in need of care and protection and those who offend against the law. Significant changes occurred with much greater police diversion of offenders, far fewer young people appearing in Court or being detained in residences and prison. There is considerable family involvement. Different cultural practices and the needs of victims are being recognised.
This legislation, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, Section 7, describes community-based programs and their general provisions. The Attorney General of Canada or a “minister designated by the lieutenant governor in council of a province” can establish community-based programs that provide alternatives to judicial proceedings. These may including victim-offender mediation and other mediation and restitution programs.
Outlines the provisions in each act supporting restorative justice, the restorative justice work being done in different agencies, and the impact that the acts have on restorative justice and the courts.
Victim-offender mediation – a framework for dialogue between crime
victims and offenders – is one of the basic tools of restorative justice.
The purpose in producing this report is to document existing statutory
authority relating to victim-offender mediation (VOM) in states in the
United States. Specifically, while mediation procedures are relatively
common in civil and family law statutes, the focus of this analysis is to
look at mediation in criminal cases. The existence of specific provisions
for VOM in state codes is important in providing a structure for the
implementation of VOM in a state, though the degree of statutory authority
does not necessarily correspond to the actual development and use of VOM
programs in a state. However, without statutory provisions for VOM, there is
little legal authority, protection, or specific funding mechanism for those
involved in VOM. This study, then, consists of a comprehensive
computer-based search, using VOM language and VOM types of activities, of
all state codes. Mediation in civil cases was excluded from the analysis.
The report presents findings from this search on a state-by state-basis. It
also includes the researchers’ categorization of states and their statutory
provisions on a continuum from “little or no mention of VOM” to a
“comprehensive VOM legislative framework.”
Van Ness, Daniel W. (1997). Legislating for Restorative Justice.
Paper presented at Drafting Juvenile Justice Legislation: An International
Workshop Cape Town, South Africa 4-6 November, 1997.
In this paper Daniel Van Ness addresses the topic of legislating for
restorative justice. He does this by exploring international models and then
looking at particular issues. In the first part of his paper, Van Ness
surveys restorative justice ideas and practices, matters relating to
legislation and restorative justice, and models of legislation for
restorative justice. In the second part, he deals specifically with
legislating restorative justice features. This discussion covers key aspects
of diversion, court procedures, sentencing, and post-sentencing supervision
in a restorative framework.
Policy Development
O'Brien, Sandra. (1999). Restorative Juvenile Justice in the States: A National Assessment of Policy Development and Implementation. Summary of Survey Findings.. Balanced and Restorative Justice Project, Florida Atlantic University, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, Paper presented at the annual conference of the Academy for Criminal Justice Sciences, Orlando, FL
As indicated in the title, this document summarizes results of an assessment of restorative juvenile justice – including the Balanced and Restorative Justice approach – in states in the United States. It surveys evidence for the prevalence of restorative justice principles and practices. Sections of this document include information on location of restorative justice principles in state documents, implementation of restorative justice in various programs, the role of major stakeholders in restorative justice, and funding and resources support for restorative justice. Several tables summarize and present the findings with specific reference to the individual states.
This report reviewed the development and provision of restorative justice
(RJ) programs in 12 European jurisdictions, so as to compare and contrast
the often diverse ways RJ had been deployed, while indicating some of the
common features of successful RJ programs; practical and legal issues were
linked to the wider theoretical debates about the role and effectiveness of
RJ. In each case, this review summarized the provision of restorative
justice under four thematic headings: legal base, scope, implementation, and
evaluation. The European jurisdictions involved in the study were in the
countries of Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, and Spain. Other
European jurisdictions included in the study were Ireland, Italy, Russia,
and Sweden. Attention was also given to the common law jurisdictions of
Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. A summary of program
characteristics focused on the main characteristics of 26 discrete RJ or
victim-offender mediation programs currently operating in the 12 European
jurisdictions. Findings showed considerable heterogeneity. These differences
were not merely contingent on the subsisting legal culture or the pragmatic
choices about the best way of running a RJ or a victim-offender mediation
program, but rather flowed from ideological assumptions about the nature of
unwanted conflicts and the way in which communities should respond to them.
Factors related to program success were a strong and sustained impetus for
reform, a common ideology among those pressing for action, open-mindedness
and the political will of successive governments, attention to practical
detail in the formulation and implementation of the chosen interventions, a
combined and continuing effort on the part of all relevant agencies, sound
financial planning and support, inclusiveness, and supervision by a
responsible coordinating agency.
Van Ness, Daniel W. (2001). "Proposed UN basic principles on restorative
justice. Draft of forthcoming chapter in a collection on restorative justice
and just deserts.. Draft of forthcoming chapter in a collection on
restorative justice and just deserts. Washington, DC: Prison Fellowship
International.
In this essay, Van Ness provides a historical overview of a number of significant initiatives related to restorative justice generated by the United Nations crime congresses, by the Working Party on Restorative Justice (formed from a group of non-governmental organizations participating in the Alliance on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice), and by other notable groups. He also reviews the proposed UN Basic Principles on the Use of Restorative Justice Programmes in Criminal Matters (based on the Working Party’s draft work on standards or guidelines for countries); this commentary covers the document as a whole, each section of the document, and each principle. The conclusion outlines the next steps in international consideration of the proposed principles.
Implementation and Evaluation
The paper will discuss the issues that have emerged from eight years of
partnership between the State Government and the youth sector in Queensland
in implementing programs to address the needs of young people at risk of
entering the youth justice system. Given the experience and insight that has
developed over this time the Department has been able to adopt a more
proactive approach to developing collaborative projects targeting specific
community concerns. To illustrate best practice in crime prevention, the
“Ipswich Project” will be examined in detail as an example of intersectorial
collaboration to develop and implement a project with a “bottom up” approach
across the community and all levels of government. By integrating the key
elements of situational and social crime prevention and early intervention
this project represents a balanced approach to reducing youth offending
within the targeted area.
The Carmarthenshire Youth Offending Team (YOT), a multi-agency team, was established in 2000 in response to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (United Kingdom). With the primary aim of preventing youth offending, it coordinates and provides youth justice services in the county of Carmarthenshire, Wales. This document consists of the plan followed by the YOT. The document begins with guiding principles and policy and practice; an executive summary providing background to the YOT, key developments and areas of progress, key criminal justice trends, and a summary of the YOT objectives for 2001-2002. It also includes an introduction covering significant demographic and economic data, and key developments in 2000-2001 for the Carmarthenshire YOT. In several sections, the remainder of the document details the YOT performance management; the management, structural, and staffing arrangements for the YOT; the objectives for 2000-2001; the 2000-2001 budget; and links with other criminal justice plans and groups. A number of annexes provide more information on the work of the Carmarthenshire Youth Offending Team.
The goals of restorative justice are restoration of the victim,
restoration of the offender to a law-abiding life, and restoration of the
damage to the community caused by the crime. These goals are best served
when the needs of the victim, the community, and the offender are all met,
and each is involved in the process to the greatest extent possible.
Conferencing is one of the strategies designed to achieve this. Tasmanian
legislation formalized the process known as Diversionary Conferencing in
1995. Police have been made the "gatekeepers" of the juvenile justice
system, since they are responsible for diverting youth who have admitted
committing the offense at issue. Such diversion may involve an informal
caution, a formal caution, or a Community Conference. If a youth admits the
commission of an offense and a police officer believes that the matter does
not warrant any formal action, the officer may informally caution the youth
against further offending and proceed no further against the youth. If an
authorized police officer administers a formal caution against further
offending, the officer may also require the youth to comply with one or more
of the following conditions: pay compensation, make restitution, perform
community service, apologize to the victim, or perform other services that
may be appropriate under the circumstances of the case. Community
Conferences consist of formal discussions among all the parties involved in
the case under guidelines designed to reach a formal agreement as to how
restoration from the damage caused by the offense is to be achieved.
Abstract courtesy of National Criminal Justice Reference Service,
www.ncjrs.org.
Johns, Rowena. (2003). Young Offenders and Diversionary Options. Online
Document. Sydney: Parliament of New South Wales.
This briefing paper is a progress report on diversion options from court
for juveniles who commit criminal offenses in New South Wales (Australia),
with attention to the system of cautions, warnings, and youth justice
conferences available under the Young Offenders Act 1997. Abstract courtesy
of National Criminal Justice Reference Service, www.ncjrs.org.
Maxwell, Gabrielle.
(2003). Achieving Effective Outcomes in Youth Justice:Implications of new
research for Principles, Policy and Practice. Paper presented at the
Sixth International Conference On Restorative Justice. Centre for
Restorative Justice. 1-4 June. Vancouver BC. Downloaded 30 June 2003
New research from New Zealand follows up the file outcomes over three
years for 1003 young people aged 16 years who had family group conferences
in 1998. Five hundred and twenty of them were interviewed. Observational
data and interviews were collected from another 115 cases in 2001/2002.
Findings are presented on the extent to which restorative goals have been
implemented. Critical factors predicting outcomes are identified and the
implications of these for policy and practice are discussed. The research
demonstrates that the nature of the youth justice does affect critical
outcomes for young people: both in terms of reducing offending and
increasing the probability of other positive life outcomes. Restorative
practices that include empowerment, the repair of harm and reintegrative
outcomes make a positive difference while the extent of embeddedness in the
criminal justice system, severe and retributive outcomes and stigmatic
shaming have negative effects. There are also important findings for crime
prevention that suggest the need to focus on support for families, the
importance of educational qualifications and the need to respond effectively
when children first come to the attention of the welfare and youth justice
systems. Proposals are made for standards against which practice can be
assessed. Author's Abstract.
Resource Materials
In 1999 the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act introduced the referral order, a significant step in the British government’s strategy to prevent offending by young people. The aim was for national implementation by April 2002, whereupon the primary disposal for young offenders pleading guilty and convicted for the first time would be referral to a youth offender panel convened by the local youth offending team. The panel members meet with the young offender and his or her family to review the offense and its consequences; victims are also invited to participate. The purpose is for the panel and the young offender to agree to a contract, monitored by the panel, that includes reparation to the victim and a program of activity to address re-offending risk. This document contains guidance for youth courts, youth offending teams, and community panel members; it also includes statutory guidance on the selection of community panel members and the conduct of youth offender panels. More specifically, it provides information on referral orders in court; the role of the youth offending team; recruiting and working with community panel members; engaging victims; and procedures for the panel meetings and contract compliance. A number of annexes add relevant forms and materials for the actual operations of referrals in courts, youth offending teams, and youth offender panels.
This extensive document covers a wide range of practices and strategies for responding to the needs people have in the wake of being victimized by crime. These include the following: core elements in corrections-based victims services; agency mission statements; program planning; developing policies and procedures; establishing an advisory committee; program staffing; public awareness; victim notification; victim impact statements; restitution procedures; helping victims document their losses; assessing the offender’s ability to pay; alternate methods for restitution collection; victim protection; handling complaints from victims and witnesses; parole processes; workplace violence in correctional settings; monitoring legislation; program evaluation; fundraising for victim services; restorative justice; and victim/offender programs.
There has been a proliferation of Aboriginal justice initiatives in recent years. The main impetus has been a wide-spread view, common among both Aboriginal people, and officials and key players in the justice system, that the conventional criminal justice system has not worked well for Aboriginal peoples. This working bibliography assembles written materials - books, monographs, reports, articles, and papers - that are of value for policy makers, practitioners, academics, and citizens who are concerned with justice issues and projects in Canada's Aboriginal communities. The field of justice is defined in the broad sense to include laws, justice practices and processes, policing, and corrections. The objective has been to provide readers, where possible, with a short description of each work, emphasizing its key themes and the issues dealt with. For readers' convenience, the review of literature is divided into two parts: Part A, Contextual and Academic Bibliography, and Part B, Evaluations, Manuals and Programs. Additional sections provide a short background or context for locating or placing Aboriginal justice initiatives and, from the authors' perspective, a short compilation of chief "lessons learned" from the previous justice initiatives.
Van Helvoirt, Trent. (2003). The Youth Criminal Justice Act: Implementing Restorative Provisions. Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in the School of Criminology. Simon Fraser University. Downloaded 21 August 2003.
As the popularity and use of restorative justice continues to increase, many advocates express concern about the possible co-optation and dilution of the restorative philosophy. This is especially evident in Canada with the implementation of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The Canadian government has decided to incorporate restorative provisions in the new Act due to frustration with the current way of doing things and the increased need to recognize victim issues. However, there are many potential problematic situations that may occur when implementing restorative initiatives, particularly in a legislated context. The rapidly growing literature on restorative justice identifies a plethora of potential dangers. Through exploratory research, a number of these problematic issues are identified and discussed in specific relation to the YCJA and the Canadian situation. These potential downfalls include: accessibility of resources, funding issues, offender-oriented agencies and staff, the role of professionals and youth justice workers, marginalization and McDonaldization, community involvement, evaluation efforts, and issues regarding the public, the media and politicians. Three youth justice conferences were attended to obtain data for this research. Beyond identifying potential hazards, the information obtained from these conferences produced a variety of implementation strategies, including: concentrating on the fundamental principles of restorative justice, the need for constant and appropriate evaluation, involvement of the community in all aspects of implementation, formation of strong Youth Justice Committees, and gaining support and educating the public, media and politicians. Overall, it is argued that implementation efforts must be guided by the values of restorative justice in order to prevent the co-optation and dilution of the restorative philosophy.
Theory
The purpose of this paper is to summarize the directions and developments
in respect of restorative justice (RJ) in Canada as well as Canada’s efforts
in support of the adoption of international principles to guide policy and
practice in this emerging field. The summary of RJ in Canada includes a
brief account of its roots in Aboriginal cultures, faith communities and
non-governmental organizations, the milestone events that led to an
expansion of programmes during the 1990s, and an overview of recent
activities that have promoted awareness, discussion and education in RJ
across the country. The paper also provides a synopsis of the results of
research on RJ in Canada, including evaluations of programmes, meta-analyses
of the impacts of RJ, victims’ perceptions of RJ and public attitudes
towards RJ. The policy debate and expressed concerns about RJ are
highlighted. This summary of developments and debate, which serves to
illustrate the promise and pitfalls of RJ, is followed by an account of
Canada’s contribution to the elaboration of U.N. Basic Principles of
Restorative Justice. The paper concludes with a call for further research to
guide future policy and programme development.
Elding,
Michelle And Donnelly, Jenny And Sanderson, Kathy. (1999). The Challenge
of Delivering Services Which Provide for Restoration to Rurally Isolated
Communities - The Victorian Example. Paper presented at the Restoration
for Victims of Crime Conference. Australian Institute of Criminology and
Victims Referral and Assistance Service. Melbourne.
This paper outlines the work of the Victim’s Assistance Program. The
principles of the program are to strengthen community action, build healthy
public policy, create supportive environments, develop personal skills, and
reorient health services. The authors point out the difficulties of
providing victims services to rural areas where there may not be service
personnel and where victim and offender may encounter each other is social
outings. Using a case study, the authors show the way in which victim’s
needs may be met.
Olson, Susan M And Dzur, Albert W. (2003). Reconstructing Professional
Roles in Restorative Justice Programs. Utah Law Review. 2003(1): 57-89.
University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law. Downloaded 13 October
2003.
This paper explores the tensions that are created when professionals work in restorative justice programmes. The authors ask three questions:
- What are the roles—if any—of criminal justice professionals in restorative justice programs?
- What changes to professional roles do we see in the practice of restorative justice programs currently implemented?
- What tensions arise in the roles professionals play in restorative justice programs?
In order for practitioners to successfully divert Indigenous Australians
from vortex-like aspects of the criminal justice system, it is important for
them to gain appreciation of the difficulties that thwarted their
predecessors’ efforts and to understand the alternative paradigms that may
better deliver the desired reduction in the over-representation of
Indigenous Australians in police cells, court lists and prisons populations.
This paper looks firstly at the reality of over-representation in the
context of the findings of the 1991 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths
in Custody. It then reviews the aims of diversionary theory and analyses its
apparent failure to deliver on its promises. The paper finally previews the
possibilities associated with embracing the ‘restorative justice’ paradigm
for those seeking to re-enliven the theory of diversion by aligning it with
principles of Aboriginal ‘community’ justice.
Schmid,
Donald J. (2001). Restorative justice in New Zealand: A model for U.S.
criminal justice.. Wellington, New Zealand.
Through the Ian Axford Fellowships in Public Policy – administered by The Commonwealth Fund – Donald J. Schmid, an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice, traveled to New Zealand to research its restorative justice initiatives. This substantial paper results from his research and experiences in New Zealand. Schmid argues that restorative justice in New Zealand provides a model for the U.S. criminal justice system. To make his argument, Sschmid discusses the following topics: types of restorative justice processes in New Zealand and other countries, potential contributions from restorative justice processes; potential concerns and issues with respect to restorative justice; and restorative justice for the U.S. federal criminal justice system.
Jon Stanhope is Attorney General for the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). In this conference presentation he addresses the commitment the ACT has to mediation. He points to legislation in the ACT that supports and promotes mediation processes, standards of competency for mediators as prescribed by relevant legislation, and mediation processes in courts and tribunals. Through his presentation, he aims to make a positive contribution to mediation theory and practice, restorative justice, and the use of mediation in courts and tribunals.
Swart, a member of South Africa’s Parliament, addresses the hopeful prospect that practicing RJ would gives to address the greatly elevated crime rate in SA that accompanied the end of apartheid. Swart notes that years of abuses by and within the formal legal system under apartheid left it delegitimized. Swart outlines the principles and practices of RJ and points out how they mirror traditional African principles for restoring harmony in communities where offenses have been committed. He counsels that any model of RJ must be “framed within a culture of rights and should be used to promote respect for and obedience to the law at local level.
December 2003
