The latest issue of Harvard Magazine has this lengthy feature article on restorative justice titled "Restoring Justice:Exploring an alternative to crime and punishment." The piece is worth making time to read in full, and here are some excerpts:
To date, 45 states have passed laws permitting the use of restorative justice in at least some criminal cases. Programs typically function in one of three ways: as a form of diversion from the criminal process, allowing offenders — especially young or first-time offenders — to avoid charges and a conviction; as a form of alternative sentencing; or, in more serious cases, as a way to reduce a criminal sentence. The program [Armand] Coleman and [Emmanual] Williams took part in was a fourth kind: initiated years after their convictions, it did not influence the men’s sentences or release dates, but its deeper purpose was the same — to help participants take responsibility for their wrongdoing and understand themselves better, and, to the extent possible, “make things right,” as Coleman put it....
In recent decades, numerous restorative-justice programs have sprung into existence. A few operate entirely outside the legal system, without ever involving any authorities; others work with local police departments and district attorneys’ offices. Methodologies vary from place to place, too — making it more difficult to assess the effectiveness of the underlying concept: most analyses have focused on juvenile and first-time offenders. But recent rigorous, randomized studies find that restorative justice typically does a modestly better job at reducing recidivism than the court system — resulting in anywhere from 7 percent to 45 percent fewer repeat arrests or convictions, depending on the study parameters. One 2015 analysis found that this effect was actually most pronounced for violent offenses and adult offenders.
Crime victims also consistently appear to be more satisfied after a restorative-justice process than after a traditional criminal one — sometimes dramatically so (in a 2017 study of its own work, Impact Justice found that 91 percent of victims said they’d recommend the process to a friend and 88 percent said the repair plan adopted by the group addressed their needs). Surveys show that while people who have survived a crime want to feel safe, many of them also prefer rehabilitation for the perpetrators, rather than long periods of incarceration. Researchers find that victims often perceive restorative dialogues to be fairer and more responsive to their needs and wishes. One 2013 study of face-to-face meetings between victims and offenders found a marked decrease in victims’ post-traumatic stress symptoms and in their desire for revenge. A multiyear randomized study in Australia found that victims of violent crime who went to court were five times more likely to believe they would be re-victimized by the offender, while those who went through a restorative process felt more secure and achieved a greater sense of closure.
Adriaan Lanni points to such findings in her argument in favor of restorative justice, but says even they fall short of the full picture. For several years, she has volunteered as a case coordinator for a Concord-based program, and has seen firsthand what happens in those conversations. “I think you lose a lot if you just look at the quantitative analysis, like, ‘Give me the recidivism number,’” she says. “It’s sort of a magical experience. I was skeptical about restorative justice until I started sitting in circles. But it’s really transformative, in a way that’s hard to measure.”
Comments
Post a Comment