restorative justice

# Restorative Justice: A Viable Alternative to Traditional Punishment?

## Introduction

The criminal justice system in England and Wales has traditionally been centred on a retributive model, where the state prosecutes and punishes an offender for breaking the law. However, this approach is often criticised for sidelining the victim and failing to address the underlying causes of crime. In response, restorative justice (RJ) has emerged as an alternative philosophy and practice. It re-frames crime not just as an offence against the state, but as a violation that causes harm to individuals and relationships. This essay will explain the core principles of restorative justice and examine its application within the criminal justice system of England and Wales. It will be argued that while restorative justice provides significant benefits, particularly for victims and in reducing reoffending, its practical and theoretical challenges mean it is currently best viewed as a valuable supplement to, rather than a wholesale replacement for, the conventional justice system.

## Understanding Restorative Justice

Restorative justice is fundamentally different from a retributive approach. While retribution asks what law was broken, who did it, and how they should be punished, restorative justice asks different questions. According to one of its key pioneers, Howard Zehr, the central questions are: ‘Who has been hurt? What are their needs? And whose obligations are these?’ (Zehr, 2015). This shifts the focus from punishment to repairing the harm caused by the offence. The process aims to involve all stakeholders – the victim, the offender, and sometimes members of the wider community – in a dialogue to collectively resolve the aftermath of the crime.

This dialogue can take several forms. The most common is victim-offender mediation, where a trained facilitator enables a meeting between the victim and offender. This allows the victim to express how the crime has affected them and to ask questions, and gives the offender an opportunity to take personal responsibility, explain their actions, and offer an apology or reparation. Other models include family group conferences, which involve the families of both parties, and restorative circles, which can include a wider group of community members. The objective is not simply to decide on a punishment, but to reach an outcome that helps to repair the harm and reintegrate both victim and offender back into the community. As such, RJ is more of a process than a fixed outcome, prioritising communication and mutual understanding (Johnstone and Van Ness, 2007).

## Restorative Justice in England and Wales

The use of restorative practices in England and Wales has grown significantly over the last few decades, moving from small-scale experiments to becoming a recognised part of the criminal justice landscape. Its initial formal entry was into the youth justice system following the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, which introduced referral orders requiring young offenders to attend a youth offender panel with community members to agree a contract of rehabilitative and restorative activities.

At the adult level, the development has been more gradual. A key moment was the publication of several government-backed research projects which indicated positive outcomes. In particular, a major seven-year evaluation by Shapland et al. (2008) found that restorative justice was linked to a 14% reduction in the frequency of reoffending and generated very high levels of victim satisfaction. Such findings gave impetus to its wider adoption. The Crime and Courts Act 2013 represented a significant step forward by creating a legislative framework for the use of pre-sentence restorative justice and placing a duty on the Secretary of State for Justice to ensure RJ services are available. Today, RJ can be used at various stages, from an out-of-court disposal used by the police to divert low-level offenders from prosecution, to a process undertaken post-sentence to help a victim or offender come to terms with a serious crime. The Restorative Justice Council acts as the independent body for the field, setting standards and promoting its use across the justice system.

## The Case for Restorative Justice

The arguments in favour of restorative justice are compelling and based on its positive impacts on the key participants. Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, it has been shown to benefit victims. Traditional court processes often leave victims feeling marginalised and unheard. In contrast, RJ provides them with a voice. Ministry of Justice research has consistently shown that a large majority of victims who participate in an RJ process (often around 85%) are satisfied with the experience (Ministry of Justice, 2016). It empowers them to confront the offender, seek answers to questions that a court process would not address (such as ‘why me?’), and have a say in how the harm can be repaired.

Secondly, there is credible evidence that RJ can be effective in reducing reoffending. The findings by Shapland et al. (2008) are supported by other studies suggesting that the process of directly facing the person they have harmed can force an offender to understand the real-world consequences of their actions. This can foster a greater sense of empathy and responsibility than the more abstract process of being sentenced by a court. This aligns with criminological theories such as John Braithwaite’s concept of ‘reintegrative shaming’, which argues that shaming the act rather than the person, within a respectful process that offers a path back into the community, is more effective at preventing future crime than the stigmatising shaming of the traditional court system (Braithwaite, 1989).

## Limitations and Criticisms

Despite its clear benefits, restorative justice is not without its challenges and limitations. A primary concern relates to its suitability for all types of offences and participants. While it has proven effective for property crimes and lesser assaults, its application in cases of serious violence or sexual offences is far more complex and controversial. There are significant risks of re-traumatising the victim or of power imbalances in the process that a facilitator, however skilled, may struggle to manage (Daly, 2002). This means that participation must be strictly voluntary and subject to careful risk assessment, limiting its potential scope.

Furthermore, there are practical and resource-based barriers to its widespread implementation. Delivering high-quality restorative justice is a skilled and labour-intensive process that requires significant investment in trained facilitators and administrative support. The provision of RJ services across England and Wales remains uneven, leading to what is often described as a ‘postcode lottery’ where access depends on where you live rather than on need. This inconsistency undermines the principle of equal access to justice. Finally, some critics raise a theoretical objection, arguing that RJ privatises justice and undermines the public, denunciatory function of the law. The concern is that by focusing on interpersonal repair, it may be perceived as ‘soft justice’ that fails to adequately condemn criminal behaviour on behalf of society as a whole.

## Conclusion

In conclusion, restorative justice offers a profound and valuable shift in perspective away from state-sponsored punishment towards repairing harm and meeting the needs of those most affected by crime. Its proven ability to increase victim satisfaction and contribute to reduced reoffending demonstrates its significant potential. However, its use in England and Wales is constrained by important practical barriers, including inconsistent provision and resourcing, and valid concerns over its suitability for the most serious offences. For these reasons, while restorative justice plays an increasingly important role, it cannot be seen as a complete replacement for the traditional criminal justice system. Instead, it functions most effectively as a complementary approach, offering a more humanising and effective path to justice in appropriate cases.

## References

• Braithwaite, J. (1989) Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge University Press.
• Daly, K. (2002) ‘Restorative Justice: The Real Story’, Punishment & Society, 4(1), pp. 55-79.
• Johnstone, G. and Van Ness, D.W. (2007) Handbook of Restorative Justice. Willan Publishing.
• Ministry of Justice (2016) An Assessment of the Use of Restorative Justice in the Criminal Justice System. London: Ministry of Justice.
• Shapland, J., Atkinson, A., Atkinson, H., Chapman, B., Colledge, E., Dignan, J., Howes, M., Johnstone, G., Robinson, G. and Sorsby, A. (2008) Does restorative justice affect reconviction? The fourth report from the evaluation of three schemes. Ministry of Justice Research Series 10/08.
• Zehr, H. (2015) The Little Book of Restorative Justice: Revised and Updated. Good Books.

**Legislation**

• Crime and Courts Act 2013
• Crime and Disorder Act 1998
• Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999