Book Review: Restorative justice theory and practice: addressing the discrepancy.

By Theo Gavrielides.  (European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control HEUNI, Publication series № 52.)  Helsinki:  Academic Bookstore;  Monsey NY:  Criminal Justice Press, 2007  ISBN 978-952-5333-32-9.   301 pages.  US$ 50.00


With four surveys over seven years, this large study aims to identify contradictions within the restorative justice movement, especially, as the title indicates, the gap between theory and practice.  After outlining the history, theory and practice of restorative justice, the author identifies six fault-lines.  Some of these partly overlap (is it a new paradigm or complementary to the traditional one; is it within criminal justice; is it punishment or an alternative?). At the same time, he also asks whether the focus should be on the process or the outcome (some, including the author (p. 139) would say both); how big should the circle of participants be; and how flexible are restorative principles? 

Practices in various parts of the (mainly English-speaking) world are described.  Gavrielides quotes ‘serious questions’ raised by a judge (p. 71), such as the relationship of restorative justice to mitigation, and what happens to the offender if a victim refuses to meet?  These questions show that the judge is, not surprisingly, approaching the questions from a conventional legal standpoint.  His third question, however, does deserve more thought:  is random allocation of cases for research purposes fair to those who are eligible but are not selected?

Some international guidelines on restorative justice are listed, although the United Nations Handbook would have merited a mention (UN 2006), as well as recent developments in Northern Ireland (2002) and New Zealand (2002), together with the follow-up to the Council of Europe’s earlier Recommendation (CEPEJ 2007).  Some of these evidently appeared after the book was written, other gaps no doubt reflect the long period of its gestation

A large section of the book presents the findings of two surveys:  one by postal questionnaire, with 40 respondents in a range of countries, including some from continental Europe, and 13 interviews with representatives of statutory and voluntary organizations in England and Wales.  Between them, they articulate a number of concerns which the restorative movement needs to address.  The numbers and nationalities of interviewees expressing particular views are not always given, but there seems to be a fair spread of opinions.

‘There has been no paradigm shift from a state-run adversarial process designed to deliver punishment to a process owned and controlled by those affected by the crime, and focused on repairing and healing the harm’, says one respondent (p. 97).  Only about 60 per cent thought the term ‘restorative justice’ appropriate, although nearly all thought that it is now too late to find a different adjective.  Some respondents thought that the development of restorative justice would benefit if the concept were expanded to ‘other justice and conflict resolution matters such as in school and neighbour conflicts, boundary disputes, community conflicts, …divorce and family reconciliation and international, interstate disputes’ (p. 116).  Most were optimistic about the future, although they also thought there is a long way to go before a ‘reawakening’ (p. 121).

The findings are compared with those in the (mainly Anglophone) literature.  Gavrielides maintains that restorative justice is ‘a new approach to life, interpersonal relationships and … learning how to coexist in our respective communities’ (p. 139).  There have been instances of authoritarian or judgmental facilitators, so training and support are always needed, with a national accreditation process, especially for those previously educated in punitive criminal justice values.  Short-term funding is a problem. 

There is a danger of re-victimizing victims, especially through pressure for a speedy process (the author might have added that this should be drawn to the attention of government ministers who claim to ‘rebalance the system in favour of the victim’).  Some interviewees wanted more involvement of members of the community, and there is a need for suitable, non-degrading placements for offenders making reparation.  Many of these findings will be familiar to practitioners and researchers, but it is useful to have them collected in one volume. 

Part III presents findings from two further surveys, on the application of restorative justice to hate crimes (written with Lewis Parle Baber Khan and Ryan Honeyman) and sexual offences (with Dale Coker).  Survey III presents case studies from Minnesota, Oregon, Israel and England.;  most concern racism, but some involve homophobia.  After giving examples of hate crime and police racism, Gavrielides asks whether restorative justice is a viable option for dealing with it, and concludes that it offers hope if it is mainstreamed. 

The section on sexual offending focuses on the scandals in the Roman Catholic Church.  It gives case histories, and suggests how a restorative intervention might have brought healing to victims in a way that the processes of law could not.  Two of the case histories show successful application of a restorative approach (plus compensation in one case and prison in the other).  The third presents findings by Kathleen Daly from a study of 387 cases, indicating that victims believe they are better off if their case is handled restoratively.  The argument is presented in terms of benefits to victims rather than prevention of re-offending.  Evidence, however, is still awaited.

Finally in Section IV Gavrielides proposes a way forward for the restorative movement.  Conceptual clarification is needed, with a clear ethos – but modifiable over time.  There is potential in education, especially with regard to bullying, and for problem-solving between pupils, staff and parents.  Training and accreditation are needed, and evaluation itself needs to be evaluated:  it should not only ask ‘what works?’ but ‘what exactly happened?’ 

The ultimate goal should be to transform the criminal justice culture, leading to ‘justice administered with love’ (T Steward), although this seems to conflict with the statement on the next page (260) that to believe that restorative justice was introduced to lead to a fundamental transformation of the justice system is a ‘misconception.  That is exactly where some of us would like it to aim.  Gavrielides, quoting an interviewee, warns against the misuse of the label ‘restorative justice’ by punitive projects to ‘hijack’ funding.  He stresses the potential role which the voluntary and community sector can offer.  Above all, the gap between theory and practice needs to be closed. 

It is a shame that the book is marred by some presentational gaps.  The most serious is the lack of an index, in a book of 300 pages.  There are some glitches with names, e.g. Fattah/Fatic (p. 92), Chankova (p. 269), Lázaro (p. 270).  Oddly, the chapters are not numbered, but the summary on pp. 266-7 refers to them as if they were.  However, the inclusion of viewpoints and a few references from continental Europe is welcome, although most of the research cited is from Anglo-Saxon countries.  The value of the book is that it presents views of practitioners as well as academics;  on the whole they are positive, but they point to important work that needs to be done.  Advocates of restorative justice, as well as policy-makers, would do well to read this book and act to meet the challenges it poses.

_____________________________________________

REFERENCES

CEPEJ (European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (2007) Guidelines for a better implementation of the existing recommendation concerning mediation in penal matters  (CEPEJ (2007) 13.)    Strasbourg:  CEPEJ.

New Zealand (2002)  Sentencing Act 2002.

Northern Ireland (2002)  Justice (NI) Act 2002. 

United Nations.  Office on Drugs and Crime (2006)  Handbook on restorative justice programmes .  (Criminal justice handbook series.)  New York:  UN.


Martin Wright
December 2008