This document provides an overview of a student's paper examining restorative justice. It discusses the differences between retributive and restorative justice systems, with retributive focusing on punishment and restorative on reparation and healing. It describes the student's experience in restorative justice tutorials and how they helped develop listening and understanding. Finally, it outlines how restorative justice values like empathy, remorse and forgiveness align with the Canadian Charter of Rights and the goal of rehabilitation.

1. Restorative Justice:
An Examination of Value, Process, Theory, Shame, Relationships and Community
Name: Zhe (Daniel) Wang
Student number: 301167572
Instructor: Brenda Morrison
TA: Dorota Salvail
Criminology 315: Introduction to Restorative Justice
Date: April 10, 2015

2. The state-based justice system and the traditional justice system are two significant social
frameworks that influence trends in social justice. Both the state-based justice system and the
traditional justice system aim to serve justice in society, but both systems have adopted different
approaches on how to do so. The social control model and the state-based justice system focus
on punishing offenders to maintain social order within society. The traditional justice system is
influenced by the social engagement model, which focuses on offenders making reparations to
victims (Morrison, 2015). This paper will critically examine restorative justice in terms of
theories, processes, values and laws, focusing on how restorative justice contributes to the justice
system. The paper will discuss the idea of a sense of community and the use of shame and
trauma in restorative justice. The paper will present an analysis of the criminal justice systems in
Japan, Finland, China, and the U.S. in order to provide an understanding of the benefits of the
restorative justice system.
Retributive Justice vs. Restorative Justice
The retributive justice system was developed within state-based societies and it focuses
on the punishment of offenders based on the offender deserving to be punished as a way of
retributions to victims (Elliott, 2011). If the evidence against the offender is obvious, there is no
need for the offender to accept that he committed the crime and understand why his behaviour
was unlawful. When someone is injured, the main legal questions ask who was responsible for
the injury and to what extent. Before criminal activity is punished, mens rea and actus rea,
should be considered, which are both necessary elements of crime (Roach & Sharp, 2009). Mens
rea is defined as “guilty mind,” meaning that the offender must have intentions of committing the
crime before actually committing it. Actus rea is defined as “guilty act,” meaning that the
offender had to commit the act that was formulated within his or her mind. According to the
2

3. retributive justice process, the crimes always focus on actus rea but ignore mens rea. Mental
planning alone cannot result in an actual crime. The retributive justice system does not care for
offenders, for it believes that people who violate the law are bad people, no matter what their
intentions are. Offenders who go through the retributive justice system will lose the opportunity
to authentically resolve the conflict and the harm they have caused (Dzur, 2003). They have no
chance to explain their behaviour and the reasons behind their actions, and they cannot apologize
directly to their victims.
The restorative justice process is a more humane and cooperative process that brings all
parties—including offenders, victims, families, and communities—together to discuss wrongful
behaviour and find a solution that respects every participant’s needs (Johnstone, 2009). Victim-
offender conferences, family group conferences, and the circle approach are three important
approaches in the restorative justice process (Zehr, 2002). Unlike the regular court process in the
retributive justice system, the restorative justice system involves many dialogues between the
offenders, victims, and community members. The open dialogue between participants fosters an
environment that allows all participants to learn and grow (Elliott, 2011). Everyone is treated
equally and has the opportunity to speak honestly. Instead of focusing only on the offenders’
wrongdoings, the healing circle method in restorative justice is based on the “problem-solving
approach” (Elliott, 2011). The aim of restorative justice is not to blame the offenders for the
crimes they committed, as people do not have the ability to alter the past.
My participation in circle gathering tutorials in restorative justice classes gave me a deep
understanding of this method. I felt respected and comfortable in the circle-gathering
environment. In pervious tutorials, we had to actively engage and speak in front of the class in
order to earn participation marks. The TA marked how many times a person spoke in every
3

4. tutorial on the attendance sheet to calculate an individual’s participation score. Some students
were more likely to speak in front of the class than others. I felt afraid to speak in front of the
class and I felt stressed when I noticed some of my classmates dominating the discussion in the
tutorial. I could not focus on what others said because I had to think about what could I say to get
my participation mark. If I did not say anything, I would lose points. In the restorative justice
tutorial, students sat close together and formed a small circle. We held a “talking piece”
whenever we wanted to say anything, and then we passed the “talking piece” to the next person
who wanted to make a comment. I felt that this method of discussion facilitated an emotional
connection with others in the circle. The “talking piece” gave everyone an equal opportunity to
speak. If a person did not have a comment to make, he or she could pass the “talking piece” to
the next person in the circle. I felt comfortable because there was no external pressure that forced
me to speak, and I felt that I had a responsibility to actively listen to others’ opinions. Through
participating in the gathering circle, I felt that I overcome my difficulties with speaking in front
of the class and become a more responsible individual. I developed my listening skills and
learned how to understand others. The class-gathering circle inspired me and helped me grow,
and I firmly believe that the healing circle in restorative justice can encourage individual growth
and responsibility.
The Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Restorative Justice
Restorative justice and formal criminal justice interrelate in Canadian democracy. The
Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedom is the most important constitutional document
in Canada. The Canadian Charter encourages the government to provide greater equality and
human dignity to citizens (Roach & Sharpe, 2013). Restorative justice is compatible with the
principles espoused by the Canadian Charter of Human Rights (Restorative justice is the law,
4

5. 2012). Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982), states, “Everyone has
the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except
in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” Restorative justice gives offenders,
victims, and community members an opportunity to openly communicate in the circle process.
This approach embodies the principles of equality and respect for human dignity. The Canadian
Charter affects all areas of Canadian criminal law. Section 718(d)(e) of the Purpose and
Principles of Sentencing states that the purpose of sentencing is to provide reparations for harm
done to victims or to the community and to assist in rehabilitating offenders. Stigmatization
caused by the harsh punishments of the retributive justice system impairs the reparation process.
The harsh methods of the retributive justice system cause offenders to feel anger and seek
revenge against society. However, restorative justice is a humane process. The aim is to educate
offenders and encourage them to take responsibility for their actions. Connecting offenders,
victims, and community members through open dialogue can activate and awake some internal
values to cultivate moral development (Elliott, 2011). In my opinion, moral development and
positive internal change are successful rehabilitation outcomes. The philosophy of restorative
justice on the healing perfect matches the purpose of sentencing on repatriation.
The Value of Restorative Justice
Restorative justice is intended to fix relationships and focuses on reparation, healing,
taking responsibility, remorse, apology, and forgiveness to achieve better justice (Braithwaite,
2002). Values have the power to shape the way that people relate to and interact with others.
Remorse, guilt, shame, and empathy are some of the key emotions that restorative justice
encourages offenders to feel, while fear, anger and humiliation are emotions that the restorative
justice system avoids. Individuals are respected and treated as subjects rather than objects in the
5

6. restorative justice system (Elliot, 2011). This implies that restorative justice does not give up on
any participants because every individual’s rights are being respected.
Empathy is one of the core values that restorative justice focuses on. Empathy is an
important tool for building healthy relationships to generate safety from personal violence
(Elliot, 2011). People are more likely to trust people who are empathetic. Compassion shows that
someone is an active listener and sincerely cares for others, which leads people to better
understand each other. The experience of genuinely understanding one another engages people to
share more personal stories and build more trust. Developing empathy for others can help
reconnect relationships and develop better relationships, while compassion represents kindness
and encourages individuals to see beauty in others’ hearts (Tippett, 2011). Restorative justice
adopts a humane approach and encourages caring and compassion between offenders, victims,
and community members. This approach has a positive healing function, as it transforms
emotions from anger and frustration to calmness and peace.
Offenders are primarily responsible for restoring offenders and victims relationships.
Offenders providing a genuine apology for the wrongdoing might reduce the victim’s anger and
help them develop empathy toward the offender (Allan, Beesley, Attwood, & Mckilop, 2012).
Restorative justice provides offenders with guidance on how to apologize, such as writing an
apology letter and using the three-steps-to-apology technique. This technique involves taking
responsibility for one’s actions and apologizing, explaining the motivation for the actions, and
ultimately showing empathy. Offenders in the retributive justice system are simply punished,
whereas offenders in the restorative justice system gain a better understanding of their actions
and what influenced them to behave that way in the first place. Offenders’ sense of autonomy is
strengthened because their compensatory actions are a result of their own decisions, rather than a
6

7. product of the forced regret that is common in retributive justice. In other words, offenders
develop empathy for their victims and apologize to them due to their own determination to do so,
not because someone has told them that they should.
An offender’s apology and a victim’s forgiveness are both voluntary. These actions only
have meaning if they are genuine (Braithwaite, 2002). Forgiveness and apologies are precious
gifts in restorative justice. Forgiveness must not be expected. Similarly, if remorse is forced out
of offenders, there will be lack of emotional involvement with others. There is no true restorative
power to mend damaged relationships. Forgiveness and apologies are a way for people to release
themselves from the hurts of the past and to bring hope that moving on is possible. If a person
died, there will be no ways for bringing the person back to life. People should not live in the rest
of life with full of anger and revenge; these negative emotions will bring people to unhealthy
lifestyles, such as addiction to drugs and alcohol. A restorative justice approach that involves
apology and forgiveness gives individuals closure and the ability to resume a normal life.
Restorative justice encourages people to challenge unfair and cruel authority and to do
the right thing because it highly values empathy. Elliott (2011) mentions the example of Mr.
Fishes, who taught his students the importance of standing up against oppression by
pretending to humiliate a student and then pointing out that no one in the class tried to
stop him. Thus, adopting restorative justice improves communication among different
social classes and encourages different classes to follow their hearts to what they really
believe in.
Shame, Labeling Theory, and Social Identity Theory
Shame is one of the key components in the rehabilitation process that improves
collaboration processes and offender-victim relationships (Elliot, 2011). Restorative justice
7

8. focuses on conflict resolution processes. Participants in the conflict resolution process must
understand and recognize emotions, such as shame, and then release these emotions in order to
move into the final step of the resolution process. It is important to understand what shame is.
People use the words “shame” and “guilt” interchangeably, but they have different meanings.
Shame focuses on people and how they feel ashamed and sorry for the mistakes they made.
Guilt, however, is related to behaviour. People feel guilt when admitting that they made a
mistake (Brown, 2012). Shame is a more intense emotion than guilt because shame is internal
rather than external. Shame is part of a family of emotions that include humiliation and
embarrassment and it is an “affective response to a social situation” (Elliot, 2011, p. 155). The
ability to feel shame shows that people have empathy and feel connected to others. People who
do not feel shame lack this sense of empathy and connection with others. Restorative justice aims
to repair relationships between offenders and victims and offenders and the community, and
shame is a catalyst for improving relationships.
Research indicates that societies have lower crime rates if they communicate shame
effectively (Braithwaite, 2000). The relationship between shame and crime rates indicates that it
is important to understand and manage shaming appropriately. Reintegrative shaming and
stigmatizing shaming are two types of shaming that have completely opposite results. Retributive
justice focuses on harsh punishment that turns shame into a way of responding to disrespect and
dishonour (Elliot, 2011). Stigmatizing shaming is disrespectful shaming that motivates people to
act in violent ways. This type of shame threatens the offenders’ identities and forces them to give
up moral values. Restorative justice focuses on rehabilitation and treating offenders with love
and care. Reintegrative shaming has a positive influence on offenders, encouraging them to take
responsibility for their actions and apologize to victims. Reintegrative shaming is a process
8

9. through which offenders are supported by the community; as a result, offenders can decide to
change themselves to do the right thing.
In retributive justice, shaming is stigmatizing rather than integrative (Elliot, 2011).
Labeling theory is important for understanding the function of shaming. According to labeling
theory, meaning and the conception of “self” are socially constructed. People’s identities are
formed based on social interaction (Braithwaite, 2000). People behave well if they feel
respected; however, stigmatizing makes people behave poorly. In addition, secondary
deviance is caused by others stigmatizing and stereotyping an individual makes the stigmatized
individual likely to develop a deviant self-concept (Winter, 1996). Offenders suffer
psychological and physical pain during imprisonment and are more likely to behave in a deviant
way. Since the goal of retributive justice is to balance the benefits between offenders and
victims, shaming is used as a tool to humiliate offenders and thus creates a secondary form of
trauma. Retributive justice uses the negative power of shame to punish offenders and steal their
rights to self-ruling and freedom. Punishing goal action has been defined as “reeks of curtly”
because it is not about justice but rather about ensuring that the wrongdoers suffer (Kutz, 2004,
p. 732). Punishment turns offenders into tools for general social control instead of viewing them
as real human beings. Some offenders commit crimes due to previous traumatic experiences and
stigmatization, and shaming can actually increase their feelings of fear and helplessness. These
feelings can encourage offenders to engage in further criminal behaviour.
China and the US state of Arizona dole out harsh punishments to offenders, stigmatizing
and shaming them in order to prevent them from further criminal wrongdoing (Wildon, 2002).
The “Three Strikes Law” in Arizona reflects the belief that strong punishment is necessary for
crime prevention. The government believes that tough criminal law is suited for tough people
9

10. and that there is no room for sympathy for offenders. Prison inmates receive two cold meals a
day, and male offenders are forced to wear pink underwear and socks (Smith, 2006). This
humiliating and stigmatizing treatment causes inmates to feel anger and actually provokes them
to seek revenge and act more violently if they ever have the chance to go back to regular society.
Meanwhile, China also believes in strict punishment of offenders. The Chinese police are
eager to arrest and torture suspects until they confess to crimes. Offenders are locked up in
highly supervised prisons where they must follow strict rules under the governance of wardens
and guards. Isolation makes prisoners afraid of losing touch with reality, and many offenders
believe that prisons are a form of psychological torture (Wildon, 2002). Offenders are treated as
objects and are labeled as bad people who do not deserve to have normal lives. The unsupported
individuals around them further diminish their moral standards, and this stigmatizing shaming is
more likely to lead to the rejection of those who disapprove. As a result, offenders feel less
connected to society and may end up doing something that will further damage their social
relations. Offenders are more favourable to crime and fall down to the criminal subcultures
categories under stigmatizing shaming.
Reintegrative shaming theory (RST) provides a theoretical explanation for restorative
justice’s effectiveness in reducing crimes. Reintegrative shaming, which does not label the
person as evil, is respectful of the person (Harris, 2006). Restorative justice focuses on
rehabilitation by providing victim-offender conferences, family group conferences, and the circle
approach to engage stakeholders’ interactions through respectful dialogue (Braithwaite, 2000).
Some expectations that disapproval might bring shame related emotion, which is an important
quality for interactions (Harris, 2006). In the restorative justice approach, reintegrative shaming
is an effective deterrent for offenders committing future crimes. Engaging in crime poses a threat
10

11. to relationships that the offender values, such as family relationships. Reintegrative shaming
causes offenders to feel afraid of losing face in front of people they care about and can help
offenders realize that certain behaviours are wrong. Offenders build internalized controls and
gain empathy through listening to stories and interacting with different groups of people (Harris,
2006).
Japan and Finland utilize reintegrative shaming in the rehabilitation process. Both
countries have the lowest crime rates in the world (Wildon, 2002). Reintegrative shaming is
more widespread in societies where communities are strong (Braithwaite, 2000). Group
association is one of the most important core values in Japanese culture (Terrill, 2013). Social
cohesiveness and a harmonious relationship between individuals are highly important in Japan.
For instance, every employee spends an hour a day cleaning the street in front of his or her
business. If they do not clean the street, they are embarrassed because the dirty street causes
shame to their families and communities (Wildon, 2002). Instead of being sent to prison, first-
time criminal offenders are brought in front of the community, including the offenders’ friends,
families, and employees. Offenders have to show remorse for their actions and make a public
apology, promising not to commit further crimes (Wildon, 2002). This method of reintegrative
shaming is an effective deterrent to offenders committing further crimes. Community values are
important in Japan. Offenders do not want to disappoint their family or be seen as untrustworthy
in the eyes of the community. Invoking emotions of shame and guilt encourages offenders to
behave lawfully in the future in order to maintain strong social ties with families and
communities. Finland also focuses on reintegrative shaming through restorative justice. The
Finnish government believes that treating offenders gently and humanely can encourage
offenders to behave in a gentle and humane way as well (Wildon, 2002). Offenders are allowed
11

12. to live with their children, and no fences separate prisons and communities. Community
members are prepared to welcome prisoners back to the community, and offenders hope to return
to society as better citizens (Wildon, 2002). The examples provided above illustrate how
reintegrative shaming helps offenders learn the error of their ways and deters them from
committing further offenses.
Trauma, Brain Development and Restorative Justice
Recent neurochemical studies show long-term histories of abuse, and trauma can
influence people’s brain chemicals by decreasing their dopamine and serotonin levels (National
Institute on Drug Abuse, 2014). These two chemical compounds impact happiness. When
dopamine and serotonin levels decrease, people are likely to feel negative emotions such as
sadness and sorrow. They are also more likely to have low self-control and behave impulsively,
which increases their chances of acting in an anti-social manner. Illegal drugs are one way to
increase dopamine and serotonin levels, and counselling therapy and meditation are other ways.
However, the effect of the latter two is apparently not as effective as illegal drugs. Based on this
type of thinking, offenders and victims are connected to each other because they have likely
experienced similar types of trauma at different times. Practicing restorative justice enables
victims to reduce the fear and anger they feel toward offenders, as they get to know their
offenders on a personal level. This connection can make them work as a team to overcome the
difficult situation they are now both facing. Research also indicates that the amygdala is key to
the experience of empathy and that the brain is capable of changing (Reisel, 2014). How to
change one’s mindset and the amygdala have important meanings for the criminal justice system
because emotions are related to brain functions, which influence people’s behaviour. Brains are
sensitive to stress, and high stress levels correspond to lower levels of brain development (Reisel,
12

13. 2014). This implies that the need of restorative justice is because the structure of restorative
justice involves caring and rehabilitations create a less stressful environment, which are more
benefits for offender’s brain development.
A Transformative of definition: Restorative justice
Restorative justice is a transformative form of justice that focuses on how individuals live
and relate to each other in daily life (Johnstone, 2009). This definition implies that restorative
justice can benefit societal institutions such as schools and non-profit organizations, as the
essence of restorative justice is improving relationships. Restorative justice benefits community
development overall, and active participation by community members is necessary to the
restorative justice process. Community-based restorative justice approaches address social justice
issues and inequality in societies (Dzur, 2003). Restorative justice advocates believe that
individual and group behaviours are regulated by informal social control systems, such as
families, neighbours, and community social organizations (Elliott, 2011). Restorative justice
produces a valuable approach to return responsibility for conflict resolution to communities.
Therefore, the community has an important role in offering avenues for reintegrating into the
norm-abiding life of society. Restorative justice addresses social capital, which refers to “a way
of defining the benefits of relationships to general well-being (Elliott, 2011, p. 192). Social
capital is important for community development and can make lives more productive. Social
capital promotes social responsibilities, mutual respect, and support through enforcing the
collective value (Faulkner, 2003).
Communities and Groups
Human action is generated in a context of shared social expectations. Community-based
restorative justice promotes action on behalf of the common good (Elliott, 2011). Restorative
13

14. justice encourages community participation and facilitates caring, encouraging victims and
offenders to form a strong social bond. Strong social bonds can encourage people to behave
appropriately in order to fit in with the group. In contrast, retributive justice focuses on harsh
punishment with no community involvement. Offenders are isolated in prison and are pushed
away from the social group of their community. Their social bonds become weaker, and people
would start to think that there is nothing important and behave immorally. Imprisonment
encourages offenders to associate with other people who have violated the law. Deviant groups
might form in prison, and people could continue to engage in illegal behaviour because they
believe this illegal behaviour is “normal” within the context of their group (Smith, 2006). For
example, the fighting and drug dealing that regularly occurs in prisons are a result of constantly
being surrounded by a bad group.
From my personal experience, I understand that group behaviour has a tremendous
influence on an individual’s thoughts and actions. When I transferred to SFU in my second year,
one of my friends introduced some of his friends to me. They did not study and just got drunk
everyday. As a result of being around them, I did not feel any pressure to succeed in school—I
thought that as long as I could pass all of my courses, I would be fine. I socialized with the group
every day. Whenever I was working on course assignments, my friends told me to finish quickly
so that I could party with them. They did not spend any time on studying, and they did not
understand why I wanted to study so seriously. I knew that they were all waiting for me at the
party, so I wrote my assignments as quickly as I could and produced assignments that were of
poor quality. This particular group of students believed that students were supposed to be party
animals and should drink everyday to express that they were young and energetic. I did not want
them to be disappointed in me, so I tried to fit in with the group by doing what they normally did.
14

15. I eventually stopped coming to school and partied excessively with the group. I was put on
academic probation at the end of that semester, and I realized that I had to change myself and
find a new group of people to associate with. Shortly after, I found a new group that took
studying seriously and enjoyed healthy activities. The more I hung out with them, the more we
encouraged and supported each other to work hard. This new group facilitated a healthy and
positive environment and encouraged me to work hard. My grades improved significantly, and I
even started to volunteer in the community. After comparing the two groups I associated with, I
now understand that having a healthy and positive group can change one’s mind and behaviours.
In my opinion, a community is just a big group. Restorative justice encourages community
participation, which gives offenders the opportunity to listen to community members and try to
make their community a healthy and positive place.
Restorative Justice in Education
Due to restorative justice’s focus on improving relationships, the practice of restorative
justice can apply to many areas outside of the criminal justice system. Autonomy, order, and
relatedness are the three pillars of human need, and students may do extreme things to fulfill
those needs (Evans & Lester, 2013). Restorative justice can help people understand that unmet
needs can cause conflict and violence (Evans & Lester, 2013). For example, restorative justice in
the school system addresses the drug and alcohol problem in schools by strengthening social ties
and restoring relationships (Stinchcomb et al., 2006). The restorative approach encourages
school officials to meet students’ needs rather than punish them.
Traditional zero tolerance policies in schools promote accountability without compassion
(Stinchcomb et al., 2006). Instead of focusing on punishing students, restorative practices
promote accountability within a supportive and compassionate learning environment. This makes
15

16. students more likely to take responsibility for their actions and has more educational impact than
zero tolerance policies. The most important goal of restorative justice in the school system is to
provide open conversations between students, teachers, and administrators. All three groups can
collaborate to come up with solutions that bring healing and restoration to the school community
(Suvall, 2009). Restorative justice views conflicts as a learning opportunity. Students and
teachers both learn and grow from the open conversation approach. Social interaction not only
influences cognitive development, but also creates the cognitive structure and thinking process
(Suvall, 2009). Social interaction stimulates students’ moral thoughts, and the ability to think
morally may continue to grow during the period of social interaction. Restorative practice in the
school system provides a great opportunity to maximize social interaction, which has benefits for
the development of students with moral thoughts.
In my opinion, implementing restorative justice approaches can supply retributive
justice with a sense of humanity, community, and the importance of treating humans with
respect. People are complicated, and there are no perfectly evil or good people. There are reasons
behind people’s behaviours, whether their behaviours are good or bad. The butterfly effect,
which stipulates that all actions are the result of a complicated pattern of chain reactions, makes
situations even more complex. Retributive justice ignores this complexity and simply assumes
that individuals who do immoral things must be inherently immoral. This mode of thinking ends
up favouring the authorities and the powerful because those who have power experience fewer
traumas than those who are poor and of low socio-economic status. Retributive justice only
serves as a control method by the people in charge at the top against all those below them; thus,
it often does not actually solve social problems but merely suppresses them.
This paper focused on examining restorative justice’s relationship to law and values. The
16

17. paper provided readers with a comprehensive understanding of the definition of restorative
justice from the process, values, and transformative points of view. Restorative justice’s
emphasis on the value of respect has important meanings for rehabilitation purposes. Labeling
theory and reintegrative shaming theory provide evidence as to why the restorative justice
approach is effective in crime prevention. Community involvement is also a necessary
component of the restorative justice approach. Shared values and the formation of strong social
ties in communities alter offenders’ thoughts and behaviours. Lastly, restorative practice should
be incorporated not just in the criminal justice system. Restorative justice’s emphasis on open
dialogue promotes social justice and ensures equal rights among different types of groups.
References
17

18. Allan, A., Beesley, S. M., Attwood, B., & Mckillop, D. (2013). Apology in restorative and
juvenile justice. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 21(2), 176-190.
Braithwaite, J. (2000). Shame and Criminal justice. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42(3),
281-298.
Braithwaite, J. (2002). Setting standards for restorative justice. British Journal of Criminology,
42(1), 563-577.
Brown, B. (2012). Listening to shame [video file]. Retrieved from
http://www.ted.com/talks/brene_brown_listening_to_shame?language=en#t-
27976
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, s 7, Part 1 of the Constitution Act 1982, being
schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, C11.
Dzur, A. W. (2003). Civic implications of restorative justice theory: Citizen participation and
criminal justice policy. Policy Sciences, 36(2), 279-306.
Elliott, E. M. (2011). Security With Care: Restorative Justice and Healthy Communities. Black
Point, NS: Fernwood Books.
Evans, K. R., & Lester, J. N. (2013). Restorative justice in education: What we know so far.
Middle School Journal, 44(5), 57-63.
Faulkner, D. (2003). Taking citizenship seriously: Social capital and criminal justice in a
changing world. Criminal Justice, 3(3), 287-315.
Harris, N. (2006). Reintegrative shaming, shame, and criminal justice. Journal of Social Issues,
62(2), 327-246.
Heartspeak (producer). (2012). Restorative Justice is The Law [video file]. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OGgm_U96D8
18

19. Johnstone, G. (2009). Talking Justice [video file]. Retried from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylnjvIbRbWM
Morrison, B. (2015). Restorative Justice: Values and Processes [lecture slide], Simon Fraser
University.
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2014, September). The Science of Drug Abuse and Addiction:
The Basics. Retrieved from http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/media-
guide/science-drug-abuse-addiction-basics
Reisel, D. (2014). The neuroscience of restorative justice [video file]. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzJYY2p0QIc
Roach, K., & Sharpe, R. J. (2009). The Charter of Rights and Freedoms (4th
ed.). Toronto, ON:
Irwin Law.
Sherman, L. W. (2003). Reasons for emotion: Reinventing justice with theories, innovations, and
research. The American Society of Criminology 2002 Presidential
Address. Criminology, 41(1), 1-38.
Smith, D. R. (Producer/Director). (2006). Lockdown: Total Control [Video recording]. USA:
National Geographic Channel.
Stinchcomb, J. B., Bazemore, G., & Riestenberg, N. (2006). Beyond zero tolerance: Restoring
justice in secondary schools. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4(2), 123-147.
Suvall, C. (2009). Restorative justice in schools: Learning from Jena High School. Harvard Civil
Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 44(1), 547-569.
Terrill, R. J. (2013). World criminal justice systems: A comparative survey. Waltham, MA:
Anderson Publishing.
Tippett, K. (2011). Reconnecting with compassion [video file]. Retrieved from
19

20. https://www.ted.com/talks/krista_tippett_reconnecting_with_compassion?
language=en#t-138009
Wildon, S. (Producer), Freed, J. (Director), & Kalina, J. (Director). (2002). To Kill or To Cure
[Video recording]. Canada: Galafilm Productions.
Winter, M. F. (1996). Societal reaction, labeling and social control: the contribution of Edwin M.
Lemert. History of The Human Sciences, 9(2), 53-77.
Zerh, H. (2002). The Little Book of Restorative Justice. Good Books.
20