Defining restorative justice

There have been many attempts to define Restorative Justice throughout the decades. Tony Marshall (1999) in his report on Restorative Justice prepared for the British home Office described it as follows: “A process whereby all parties with a stake in a particular offence come together to resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of an offence and its implications for the future”.

Restorative Justice is a process to involve, to the extent possible, those who have a stake in a specific offence and to collectively identify and address harms, needs and obliga­tions, in order to heal and put things as right as possible.

(Zehr, 2002)

A more comprehensive definition that has a closer affinity to the idea of Restorative Justice as a social movement comes from Suffolk University:

[A] broad term which encompasses a growing social movement to institutionalize peaceful approaches to harm, problem-solving and violations of legal and human rights. 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 with our communities. Restorative approaches seek a balanced approach to the needs of victim, wrongdoer and commu­nity through processes that preserve the safety and dignity of all.

(Suffolk University, 2019)

One of the best ways to understand Restorative Justice in theory and practice is to identify the elemental values that drive its applications. For instance, both Sharpe (2011) and Zehr (2002) discuss critical concepts like democracy, responsibility, safety, healing, dignity, respect, and belonging as essential components of the vernacular of Restorative Justice.

Inclusion: By inclusion it is meant that Restorative Justice is invitational, not coercive. It acknowledges that all stakeholders in a situation of harm have unique perspectives, interests, and responsibilities to work to repair the harm that has been or is being done. Inclusion recognizes that when all the affected parties to a violation are brought into a Restorative Justice process, constructive alternatives for repairing and healing the wrong-doing are more likely to occur.

Encounter: The concept of encounter refers to the facilitated interactions of affected parties — either meeting face-to-face or virtually. A guided interface allows for the participants to speak and be listened to without being silenced. It provides an opportunity for all stakehold­ers to increase their levels of empathy, and to re-narrate the negative emotions of the original “conflict-saturated stories” (Monk and Winslade, 2000, pp. 72—82; 155—156) and replace them with hopeful narratives laced with positive change and growth for the future. It entails gaining new understanding and agreement, as well as restoring the balance of power between all stake­holders involved.

Amends: Another word for amends is reparations. Reparations can come in intangible (symbolic) or tangible (material) forms. Symbolic reparations may come in the form of apology, commitment to changed behavior, memorialization, and/or forgiveness, and relational reconcil­iation (although the latter are not forced).Tangible reparations may come in the form of restitu­tion given in terms of money, in-kind contributions, time and expertise resources, or positional and public recognition.The need for reciprocity; to honor human dignity, restore equity, and to show responsibility and generosity are the values driving the processes of amends.

Reintegration: The idea here is to counter the division, marginalization, and isolation that often accompanies serious harms. Reintegration as opposed to degradation, marginalization or isolation involves garnering community assets and resources in support of those who have been harmed and those who have caused harm. It means acknowledging human worth, providing material assistance for basic human needs, and offering safety, healing, and moral or spiritual direction in order to prevent further harm and address future intentions of all parties affected.

These four Restorative Justice ‘process-principles' are particularly strategic because of their value to assist in both micro- and macro-level transformation.They are not only good protocol for interpersonal engagements around harm, but they can also guide the policies, procedures, and human resources of an organization or workplace, and they can serve as the framing for legislation, good governance, and public participation in political decision-making. They pro­vide useful leads for changing hierarchical structures, redistributing ownership and resources in a community, and accompanying whole groups of people through war-to-peace transitions of justice and healing.

Table 14.4 How Restorative Justice practices and processes provide the container for humility value­outcomes:

(Nielson and Marrone, 2018; Wright et al., 2017)

In considering the operationalization of humility in the practice of Restorative Justice, it is important to note how necessary it is to possess humility in order to carry out these process­principles.

The above integration chart is significant because there is now evidence that humility can be taught.Wright et al., (2017, pp. 8—9) undertook a research project using a writing therapy approach that they called the “semantic signature of humility".What these researchers discov­ered is that people can be influenced through education on how to write about themselves, their lives, work and accomplishments in more-humble and less-humble ways. Therefore, as people can learn how to write with humility, it seems appropriate to imagine that people can learn how to act with humility also. In short, Restorative Justice appears to offer the experiential container for teaching people humility should they choose to engage it its processes.

14.5