UPI Study › Courses › Criminology › Free lessons › Lesson 8.3 Free with a free account
Restorative Justice: Principles, Community Practices, and Case Pathways
Criminology · Chapter 8: Conflict Theories and Restorative JusticeSection 8.3 · lesson 33 of 91video coming soon
← Realistic Conflict Theory, Discrimination, and Critical CriminologyNext lesson: Evaluating Conflict Theories and Their Applications in Contemporary Criminology →
In this lesson
Repairing harm, and the safeguards that keep the process legitimate.
- State the principles of restorative justice and how they differ from retributive aims.
- Describe the principal restorative practices.
- Locate each practice in a case pathway.
- Assess when a restorative process is appropriate.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,566 words). Read along, or search it.
Opening Case
Marcus and a New Referral
A coordinator named Marcus has a new referral on his desk: a case of harm, and a choice about how to respond. Before he decides anything, he asks a question, and it isn't the one the courts usually ask.
Lesson Roadmap
From Conflict Theory to Restorative Practice
This lesson moves from conflict theory to one of its most practical descendants, restorative justice. Restorative justice begins by asking a different question from the conventional criminal process. You will learn its four principles, and how they differ from retributive aims. You will meet the main restorative practices, from mediation to community boards. You will see where each practice can enter a case, from before charge to after sentencing. And you will learn the safeguards that make a restorative process legitimate. Just as important are the conditions under which a restorative process should not go ahead. By the end, you should be able to assess whether a given case is suitable, and why.
Core Question
Restorative Versus Retributive Questions
Restorative justice is defined by the question it asks. What harm was done, who is responsible for repairing it, and who needs to be part of that decision? Most of the conventional criminal process is organized around a different, retributive question. What rule was broken, and what penalty does the offender deserve? These are not two phrasings of the same inquiry, because they direct attention toward different parties. The retributive question looks mainly at the offender and the state, while the restorative one widens the circle. They also call for different evidence, since harm and rule-breaking are not measured the same way. And they define success differently, as repair in one case and a deserved penalty in the other. Keep both questions in mind, because the rest of the lesson keeps returning to the contrast.
Key Parties
Three Parties Share Repair
The conventional criminal process treats the state as the injured party. Subchapter five point two examined that framing. Restorative justice instead recognizes three parties directly involved. The first is the person harmed, and the second is the person responsible for the harm. The third is the affected community, the people surrounding both of them. Repair is negotiated among these three parties. It is not resolved solely between the state and the person responsible, as in a conventional prosecution. That shift is what gives the person harmed a real role, rather than the role of a witness.
Four Principles
What Makes a Process Legitimate
Four principles define a legitimate restorative process. The first is voluntariness: every party, including the person harmed, must choose to participate without coercion. The second is acknowledgment of responsibility by the person responsible. That acknowledgment is a precondition for the process, not an outcome to be negotiated during it. A process that tries to extract an admission halfway through has already gone wrong. The third principle is repair rather than punishment. The aim is addressing the harm, not imposing suffering proportional to the offense. The fourth is inclusion. Those affected have a genuine voice in shaping what repair requires, rather than having an outcome imposed on them.
Main Practices
From Mediation to Reparative Boards
Several practices put these principles to work. Victim-offender mediation brings the person harmed and the person responsible together, typically with a trained facilitator. They have a direct conversation about the harm, and about what repair would require. Family group conferencing widens the circle to family members and other supporters of both parties. More people are then involved in reaching, and supporting, an outcome. Circle processes involve a broader community group. They often follow a structured format that gives each participant an uninterrupted opportunity to speak. Community reparative boards use a panel of trained community members, rather than the harmed party directly. The panel negotiates an agreement with the person responsible. That makes boards useful where direct contact is not appropriate, or the harmed party does not wish to take part.
Entry Points
Where Restorative Processes Join a Case
Restorative processes can enter a case at several points. Diversion before charge substitutes a restorative process for formal prosecution entirely. Post-charge referral runs a restorative process alongside a pending charge. It often influences whether, or how, that charge goes forward. Post-conviction and pre-sentence processes inform a sentencing decision, after guilt has already been established. Post-sentence processes happen within corrections, after sentencing, and they aim at repair and reintegration, rather than at the sentence itself. Here is the practical point: each pathway can achieve some outcomes and not others. Diversion can prevent a criminal record, but it is unavailable once a case has moved further along. Post-sentence processes cannot affect the sentence already imposed. So choosing the entry point is partly a choice about which outcomes remain possible.
Case Pathway
Pairing Each Stage With a Safeguard
Here are the four entry points, laid along a single case pathway. Each one is paired with the safeguard most relevant at that stage. Before charge, at diversion, the safeguard is that the charge is held pending the outcome. At post-charge referral, the key safeguard is that declining carries no penalty. At the pre-sentence stage, where the process feeds into sentencing, informed consent must be confirmed. Within corrections, after sentencing, trained facilitation is required. Every safeguard applies throughout, of course. The pathway simply marks the stage where each one is most relevant, and most worth checking.
Comparison
Four Practices Side by Side
Here are the four practices side by side. Victim-offender mediation involves both parties with a facilitator, and can occur at any point. Its aim is direct acknowledgment and negotiated repair. Family group conferencing adds family and supporters, and most often happens before charge or after charge. It aims at a repair plan, with family accountability for following through. Circle processes bring a wider community group alongside both parties. They can occur at any point, are often used after conviction, and aim at a community-endorsed repair plan. Community reparative boards pair a trained panel with the person responsible, usually after charge or before sentencing. They aim at an agreed set of reparative actions, without requiring the harmed party's direct presence.
Safeguards
Conditions for a Legitimate Process
A restorative process is legitimate only where several safeguards are actively maintained. Every party gives informed consent, and no pressure is placed on the person harmed to participate. Declining carries no penalty. Both parties are adequately prepared before any meeting, and the facilitator is trained for the role. And everyone has a genuine option to withdraw at any point, without consequence.
Warning Signs
When Not to Proceed
Some conditions weigh against proceeding at all. These include ongoing risk to the person harmed, or a coercive relationship between the parties. They also include denial of responsibility, and a power imbalance that preparation cannot correct. Domestic and sexual offenses require specialist assessment before any restorative process is considered. The risk of coercion and re-traumatization is heightened in these cases. Subchapter ten point five and Chapter twelve develop that point further.
Evidence and Critiques
Satisfaction, Mixed Reoffending, and Standing Critiques
The most consistent research finding is relatively high victim satisfaction, where safeguards are properly maintained. That contrasts with the conventional process, which offers victims little direct participation. Findings on reoffending are more modest, and mixed. They vary considerably with how faithfully a program implements the safeguards and principles. There is no single, consistent effect size to quote. Restorative justice also draws several standing critiques. Net-widening occurs when a restorative option reaches cases that would otherwise have had no formal response. The system then expands its reach, rather than replacing part of itself. Outcomes can also vary inconsistently between similar cases, depending on the facilitator and process. The informality that makes it flexible also means less procedural protection than a formal hearing. And where safeguards are weak, a poor process can re-traumatize the person it was meant to serve.
Systemic Tension
Restorative Aims in an Adversarial System
Restorative practices operate alongside, and often uneasily within, an adversarial justice system. That system assumes opposing parties and a formal determination of guilt. The tension is persistent. Restorative principles depend on voluntary acknowledgment of responsibility. The adversarial system gives the accused strong incentives to contest responsibility until the last possible moment. That tension shapes how and when restorative options are realistically available.
Case Resolution
Marcus Tests Voluntariness
Now back to Marcus, who is assessing his referral. The responsible party has readily agreed to participate. But the person harmed seems to be taking part out of a felt obligation, not a genuine wish. Marcus must talk with the person harmed separately, to judge whether the voluntariness safeguard is truly met. If it is not, he must be prepared to decline, however willing the responsible party may be.
Quick Check
An Untrained Circle Facilitator
Quick check. A different case: after sentencing, a staff member who has never run a restorative meeting is asked to lead a circle. Which safeguard is in doubt? Pause, and decide. Trained facilitation. Within corrections, after sentencing, that's the safeguard most worth checking, and a circle needs a prepared facilitator.
Quick Check
Proportional Penalty as Retributive Aim
One more. A penalty proportional to the seriousness of the offense: is that a restorative or a retributive objective? Pause, and decide. Retributive. A penalty proportional to the offense's seriousness is a retributive aim; restorative justice aims at repair instead.
Work Backward
Spotting Absent Safeguards After a Meeting
Now work backward. After a meeting, a participant says she felt she had to agree, and that nobody told her what to expect. Your task is to identify which safeguards were absent. Informed consent, and preparation. Pressure undermines voluntariness, and an unprepared participant can't engage safely.
Key Takeaways
Repair, Consent, and Knowing Limits
To recap. Restorative justice asks what harm was done and who repairs it. Four principles, four practices, and four entry points, each with its own safeguard. It works only with real consent, and some cases should not go ahead. Subchapter eight point four closes the chapter by evaluating the conflict tradition as a whole. It treats restorative justice as one of that tradition's most successful institutional exports.
About Criminology at UPI Study
Criminology (Criminology 150) is a self-paced online course of 91 video lessons in 21 chapters, from classical criminology and crime data to theories of crime, victims, policing, courts and corrections. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus Every course with PRO →
Why take it here
Why students take Criminology with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Criminology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Restorative Justice: Principles, Community Practices, and Case Pathways
What is the difference between restorative justice and retributive justice?
What are the main restorative justice practices?
At what points in a criminal case can a restorative process be used?
When is a restorative justice process not appropriate?
About the Criminology course
How many college credits is Criminology?
How much does Criminology cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Criminology take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Criminology.
91 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →