Restorative Justice – has it sold out and does it matter?

• In Event: National Developments in Restorative Justice

Abstract

Those who advocate for Restorative Justice (RJ) often point to its merits relative to the mainstream criminal justice system. The purported benefits of RJ include reducing recidivism and increasing victim satisfaction. Despite the mounting evidence that has been gathered over recent decades, adoption of RJ remains patchy. Building RJ provision depends upon securing public and political acceptance of its benefits. In those jurisdictions that have adopted RJ practices, it has often been deemed necessary to accommodate the dominant, punitive presuppositions about dealing with crime, and therefore to position RJ as an adjunct to the dominant, punitive approach. For purists, this co-location dilutes or even betrays the roots of RJ. This paper derives from a project aimed at increasing and improving the provision of RJ in South Australia, where RJ plays a prominent role as a diversionary mechanism in the Youth Court, but is a marginal practice when it comes to adult offenders. Is compromise an inevitable part of building the provision of RJ in jurisdictions like South Australia?

Author

• Ben Livings, University of South Australia