This document provides an overview of restorative justice and restorative practices. It discusses: 1. The differences between restorative practice, which aims to build relationships proactively, and restorative justice, which repairs relationships reactively following harm. 2. A range of restorative practices like circles, questions, and conferences that can be used proactively or reactively. 3. The development of restorative justice as an alternative to punitive criminal justice systems that view crimes as offenses against society rather than individuals. Restorative approaches seek to involve victims and negotiate restitution.

1. 1
7. Restoration (Restorative Justice)(
28 slides)
John Clark

2. 2
Restorative Practice or Restorative Justice?
 Practice is a pro-active model of restoration,
building relationships in order to reduce the
likelihood of harm
 Justice is re-active, repairing relationships
following harm being caused
John Clark 2010

3. A range of restorative practices
 Proactive and Reactive Circles
 Restorative language
 Restorative questions & conversations
 Restorative Conferences including mediation
& FGC’s
3

4. 4
Truth, right & wrong
 Retributive system & the truth
Evidence & proof beyond all reasonable doubt
 Rehabilitative system and the truth
Establishing antecedents & developing treatment
 Restoration and truths
The Six Blind Men & the Elephant.
John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887)

5. 5
A BRIEF SUMMARY & BACKGROUND TO
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
 A brief summary & background to Restorative Justice
 Western legal tradition since the 11th century has increasingly viewed crime as an offence
against the public at large and against society rather than against the individual victim.
 The obvious response resulting from this is state prosecution, punishment and the
development of a system of justice, which is both retributive and adversarial. One of the
results being that the individual victim is marginalised in the process.
 A number of western cultures prior to the eleventh century and many non-western cultures
today view an offence as a violation of social bonds and respond to it through a process
of negotiation, restitution and reconciliation.
 In the UK recently rediscovered restorative practices among Quaker and Mennonite
communities and indigenous communities in North America / Canada, New Zealand,
Australia and South Africa have been incorporated into the Youth Justice System
 The law becomes a mediating process designed to reconcile not a process to allocate
blame and punishment.
 Developing practices include Victim Offender Mediation, Restorative Conferences, Family
Group Conferences, Scottish Hearing Panels and Referral Order Panels. These and other
interventions have come to be known as Restorative Justice and or Restorative
Approaches.
 Restorative approaches are also used outside the justice systems to resolve conflicts in
schools, in the community, neighbour conflicts, in the workplace and also in family
disputes.
John Clark 2010

6. Theory
 While there is a body of theory which describes restorative
behaviours, there is not a single Restorative Practice
“theory”.
 Instead it is a WAY OF BEING … it describes ways of
communicating, developing relationships and resolving
difficulties.

7. Restorative Practice draws on many theories
RestorativeRestorative
PracticePractice
A WAY OFA WAY OF
BEINGBEING
Resilience
Conversations
Family Group
Conferencing
Solution
Focussed
Therapy
Restorative
Justice
Cognitive
Behavioural
Therapy
Transactional
Analysis
Neuro
Linguistic
Programming

8. Some characteristics of Restorative Practice
 Being explicit in your practice
 Working with people
 Ensuring the process is fair
 Applying the above to your language &
behaviours
John Clark 2013
8

9. 9
Restorative system
 In Restorative Justice the process through which
decisions are made and the future planned is
essential.
 A restorative processA restorative process seeks to include all the
people effected by an incident
 It encourages and facilitates opportunities for
communication
 RJ Seeks to agree mutually acceptable
outcomes
 It is respectful and attempts to strengthen all
participants
 John Clark 2010

10. 10
Restorative Justice is:
 An inclusive process for those who are victims and those
who have offended
 Provides an expanded role for victims to be able to
regain personal power, speak about feelings and to be
involved and make decisions about how their needs can
be met.
 The person who has offended is enabled to take
personal responsibility for their actions, actively work to
repair harm caused to victims, learn about personal
harm caused to victims and work to make amends to the
victim and to the community

11. 11
RJ is inclusive and should always includes
those who have been harmed (victims)
 People who have been victims of crime or of
harmful behaviours can display a variety of
needs
 Providers of services or interventions need to be
aware of those needs in order to ensure
inclusion and avoid re-victimising
John Clark 2009

12. 12
“Traditional”
“What happened?”,
“Who’s to blame?”
“What rule has been
broken”?
“What punishment is
appropriate to the rule
that has been broken?”
.

13. Restorative
“What happened?”,
“What harm has resulted?”
“Who has been affected”?
“What needs to happen next?”
What support do you need for this to
happen?
What will it look like when it improves?
13

14. 14
Victims & loss, common reactions
4 Stage Model
1) Initial Reaction –
Shock / Denial
4) Adjustment
3) Reconstruction
Acceptance
2) Disorganisation
Depression
ESTEEM TIME

15. 15
Reactions to Crime
PSYCHOLOGICAL
PHYSIOLOGICAL
BEHAVIOURAL
o Fear
o Anger
o Upset
o Shock
o Guilt
o Nausea
o Tearfulness
o Trembling
o Social withdrawal
o Increased drinking / smoking

16. 16
Factors Affecting Recovery
o Having been a previous victim of crime
o Recent Bereavement
o Lack of Support
o Nature of the crime
o Psychiatric history

17. 17
Ripple effect of crime
It is important to remember that others who surround the Direct victim of crime may
also be affected e.g. family Members, children, friends, witnesses. They may experience
Concern for the victim, fear, guilt that they couldn’t help, or increased vulnerability.
You may find yourself coming into contact with some of these people and supporting
More people than the victim
Secondary victimisation
This is the term given to victimisation which occurs through the responses of institutions And individuals to the victim.
Not only is the victim trying to recover from the crime itself, They may also experience great distress from the way they
are dealt with by hospital Personnel, criminal justice agencies or victim compensation schemes. Additionally, family,
Friends and colleagues may not take a supportive attitude but instead may want to distance Themselves from the
crime by blaming the victim or urging them to ‘put it behind them’. Your support is particularly needed in such
situations as such reactions can make recovery harder
Post traumatic stress disorder
Whilst a great majority of victims of crime will recover from their experience, a small
Number will become ‘stuck’ in the recovery process and may develop PTSD (post
traumatic stress disorder). This is a specific medical diagnosis which only applies in
rare cases. If after three months a victim is unable to deal with normal life – constantly
re-experiencing the event – and early symptoms of shock are not alleviated they may be
Suffering PTSD and should immediately be referred to their GP or a Stress Clinic for
professional help
Effect of this work on you
The ripple effect may also spread out past the victim’s family and friends to you, as a supporter.
When you are closely involved with victims, you may find yourself becoming overwhelmed with
Similar feelings to those that victims are expressing. If you find yourself becoming inexplicably
Depressed, feeling helpless, fearful or tired, you should talk this through with your co-ordinator.

18. ChallengeChallenge
ToTo WithWith
NotNot ForFor
Adapted from: Wachtel T & McCold P in Strang H & Braithwaite J (eds), (2001),
Restorative Justice and Civil Society, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
SupportSupport
Four ways…

19. 19
SOCIAL DISCIPLINE WINDOW
LOW HIGH
HIGH
Care / support (Encouragement, nurture)
Challenge/control(limitsetting,discipline)
TO
punitive
NOT
neglectful
WITH
restorative
FOR
permissive
Adapted from IIRP 2011

20. 20
 Engaging participants in the process
 Explaining & building a shared understanding
 Building a clarity of expectation and vision for
change
20
Fairness of process

21. 21
Applying restorative principles to questioning in
response to an incident
 Questions would be neutral, non-judgmental, about the behaviour and its effect upon
others
 Open questions which require an answer rather than a yes/no response
 They would take everyone from the past to the future (repairing harm) & actually
allow people to tell their story
 They would require people to reflect on who has been affected and help the
wrongdoer develop empathy
 They would seek to build understanding rather than blame
 The person asking is likely to be seen as objective and respectful and are more likely
to promote responsibility
 They would be fair and able to be applied in every situation
 They would be thinking questions, but more likely to get 'feeling‘ responses.

22. 22
 What happened?
 What were you thinking about at the time?
 What have your thoughts been since?
 Who has been affected by what you did?
 In what way have they been affected?
 What do you think needs to happen next?
Thames Valley Police 2000
22
Restorative Questions

23. 23
 What happened?
 What were your thoughts at the time?
 What have your thoughts been since?
 How has this affected you and others?
 What has been the hardest thing for you?
 What do you think needs to happen next?
Thames Valley Police 2000
23
Restorative Questions

24. 24
SOME UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES FOR
RESTORATIVE INTERVENTIONS
 Restoration rather than retribution as a method of resolving conflict
 Voluntarism so that participation is not the result of duress
 Self-determination so that participants resolve their own conflict
 Openness regarding feelings and opinions
 Collaboration so that people work with rather than against each other
 Flexibility in seeking creative solutions
 Equality& inclusion in terms of access and power ensuring that the
particular needs of different interests are properly addressed to avoid
oppressive practices
John Clark 2008

25. 25
SCALE OF INTERVENTION
 LEAST INTERVENTIONIST
 Avoidance
 Negotiation
 Mediation
 Arbitration
 Litigation
 Aggression
 MOST INTERVENTIONIST
John clark 2008

26. 26
DEFINITIONS
 NEGOTIATION is a general term for the process of disputants working
out an agreement between themselves.
 MEDIATION is a process by which an impartial third party helps two or
more disputants work out how to resolve a conflict. The disputants, not
the mediators, decide the terms of any agreement reached.Mediation
usually focuses on future rather than past behaviour.
 ARBITRATION is a process in which an impartial third party (after
hearing from both sides) makes a final, usually binding decision.The
discussion and decision, while structured, may not be as regulated as
formal procedures and rules of evidence as is courtroom procedure.
 LITIGATION is the process of settling a dispute in court according to
legal statutes, with advocates presenting evidence on behalf of the
parties. Litigation is an adversarial process, in which a judge (or jury)
adjudicates in favour of one party after hearing both sides
John Clark 2008

27. 27
Skills
 Being able to allow uninterrupted time
 To be encouraging & prompting without
dominating the process
 Listening skills, hearing as well as listening
 Making use of silence
 Being able to sum up
 Knowing when to take time out
 Taking cognisance of safety of participants
 Ensuring that (in a Conference) the script follows
the process rather than the process following the
script
John Clark 2010

28. 28
Restorative Justice interventions
 Mediation
A process in which an impartial third party helps two (or more)
disputants to reach an agreement. The disputants, not the mediator,
work out the terms of the agreement.
 Victim-offender mediation
In which an impartial third party helps the victim(s) and offender(s) to
communicate either directly or indirectly. The process can lead to a
greater understanding for both parties and sometimes to reparation
 Reparation
Action taken by the offender (or person causing harm) to put right the
harm caused (in response to victim’s wishes.
 JC/08

29. 29
RJ interventions 2
 Restorative Conferencing
Similar in principle to V/O mediation but follows a script and can include
family members. Focus on outcome
 Family Group Conference
Similar to above but includes private time for the ‘offenders’ family to
come up with a viable plan for repairing harm & for the future. Also used
in welfare/child protection
 Referral Order Panel
Youth Court Order which mandates a panel including victim, offender,
volunteers and staff to agree a contract of work to repair harm
JC.08

30. 30
The Woolf Within

31. Circles
 Circles can build equality, trust
& responsibility
31

32. 32
Navajo restorative justice: the law of
equality & justice - peacemaking
 Navajo justice has a healing component
 State justice appoints judges on the basis of education to
hear facts, apply the law and make decisions
 The above is alien to Navajo concepts of freedom &
individuality, where one person cannot impose a
decision on another
 Navajos are their own judges in an egalitarian process
 A wronged person demands that of the perpetrator that
things be put right, a demand to readjust the relationship
that the proper thing be done
 Relatives can act on the wronged persons behalf

33. 33
Cree justice as healing
 “………………in the non-Indian community, a
crime seems to mean that the individual is a
bad person and therefore must be
punished……………..”
 “The Indian communities view a wrongdoing
as a misbehaviour which requires teaching or
an illness which requires healing”

34. 34
Maori restorative tradition
 Lost or parallel system
 Maori justice – healing for all
 Set up to meet the victims needs, not about
humiliating the offender
 Recognition that it is an individual who is hurt
not society
 Hearing and helping the victim, helping &
healing the perpetrator, healing the
families/community and restoring balance

35. Types of circle
 Sequential
Specific question
Done in order
Participation expected
 Non Sequential, can be:
Structured
Loosely Structured
No order
Participation voluntary
 Fishbowl
Sequential or non-sequential
Empty chair
Feedback 35

36. Uses for circles
 Go around
 Check in /check outs
 Problem solving
 Dealing with conflict
 Teaching and learning
 Staff meetings
 Decision making
 Staff handovers
 Just about anything!
36

37. 37
Canadian & European RJ
 VORP.
Victim offender reconciliation programme in Kitchener,
Ontario (1974)
 Spread to other parts of Canada & North America
 England in1985 Home office projects set up in Cumbria,
West Midlands (2), West Yorkshire
 Austria 1989 Juvenile Justice legislation provides for
referral to mediation
 Mediation used in Balkan wars and incorporated as
domestic practice in Croatia
 European Union encourages RJ as a recommended
form of Justice

38. 38
Case study - Tracy
 Offence of violence Sec 47 assault
 Tracy is 13yrs old and lives in a Residential
Children’s Home.
After an upsetting phone conversation with her
mother she is very angry and causes some damage
in her room kicking and damaging doors, breaking a
window and tearing some of her clothes. A worker
confronts T as she leaves her room and T pushes
past her in an attempt to leave. The worker sustains
minor bruising from the door post & scratches from
a ring Tracy was wearing. The Police are called.

39. 39
Case study - Tracy
 What do you think would happen to Tracy
employing the following processes?
1. Retributive justice process
2. Rehabilitative or welfare system
3. Restorative approach to justice

40. 40
Resolving serious harm in the international
arena
 Rwanda
 Bosnia
 South Africa
The Truth & Reconciliation Committee.

41. 41
Measuring results
 How do we evaluate conventional methods
of justice administration?
 British Crime Survey
 Police & Home Office statistics & reports
 Public opinion as reflected by politicians
 Media reports
 Letters/opinion from public as selected &
reported by the press
 Complaints to criminal justice agencies

42. 42
Measuring results 2
 Measuring restorative approaches to justice
 Home Office/Youth Justice Board measures
 Professional organisations
 Academic research
 International studies
 Customer satisfaction surveys
John Clark/RJ/07

43. 43
 Behaving in ways which are consistent with
what you say
 If you are not modeling what you are
teaching, then you are teaching something
different
Restorative behaviours

44. 44
If you always do what you’ve always done then
you’ll always get what you’ve always got
Change require energy-

45. 45
Some Restorative Justice research
findings
 Government research: A Gov’t Crime Reduction Programme –
What works in reducing crime
Four reports:
 RJ: the views of victims & offenders (2007)
http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/Restorative-Justice.pdf
 Restorative Justice in Practice, Findings from the second
phase of the 3 scheme evaluation (2006)
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/r274.pdf
 Implementing RJ schemes, a report on the first year(2004)
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr3204.pdf
 Restorative Justice: The Evidence 2007
Lawrence W Sherman and Heather Strang
http:/www.smith-institute.org.uk

46. 46
Restorative Justice: The Evidence
Lawrence W Sherman & Heather Strang
RCTs = randomised controlled trials
CJ = conventional criminal justice. RJ = restorative justice
 Violent crimes reduced recidivism after adult & youth violence
Property crimes reduced recidivism in adult & youth cases
 Victim benefits
1. RCTs show a reduction in post traumatic stress;
2. RCTs RJ reduces desire for violent revenge;
3. RCTs victims prefer RJ
 RJ v Prison
In America & Canada restitution the same or better & re-
conviction down
 Offences brought to justice RTCs in America & Australia show
that RJ as diversion from the CJS produced rates of between 100
& 400% higher acceptance of responsibility

47. 47
Further reading
 An Exploratory Evaluation of Restorative Justice Schemes.
Ed. Barry Webb. Home Office 2001
 A Restorative Justice Reader, Texts, sources, context.
Ed Gerry Johnstone. Willan Publishing 2003.
 Restorative Justice (How it Works), Marian Liebmann. Jessica
Kingsley Publishers 2007
 Restorative Justice. Ideas, values & debates.
Gerry Johnstone. Willan Publishing 2002
 Youth Offending and Restorative Justice.
Adam Crawford & Tim Newburn. Willan Publishing 2003
 40 Cases, Restorative Justice and Victim-Offender Mediation.
Ed. Paul Crosland & Marian Liebmann. Mediation UK 2003.
 Just Schools, a Whole School Approach to Restorative Justice,
Belinda Hopkins. Jessica Kingsley Publishers 2006