Editorial Restorative Community Justice
| Author | Paul Senior |
| Pages | 1-7 |
EDITORIAL
RESTORATIVE COMMUNITY JUSTICE
Restorative Justice and Community Justice are two different concepts, although they
overlap in certain respects. Advocates of each have tried to argue either that restorative
justice is just one among many types of community justice, or conversely that community
justice is an umbrella term which fails to recognise the unique contribution which
restorative justice has to offer (McCold, 2004). Far be it from me to add to the confusion,
but another issue is perhaps more pressing. With the rise of state sponsored forms of
restorative justice, there is a danger that community and victim involvement may become
tokenistic or marginalised. Restorative justice is an attractive idea to many people for a
wide range of different reasons, and it could easily be co-opted by governments which are
keen to deal with the legitimacy crises facing their statutory criminal justice systems, using
its terminology and concepts without embracing its principles. Rather than getting unduly
enmeshed in semantic arguments about the distinctions between community justice and
restorative justice, there is an important debate to be had about the need for community
involvement (and meaningful victim involvement) in restorative justice.
Much of the literature on restorative justice asserts, or at least implies, that restorative
justice has potential to assist in rebuilding demoralised communities (Braithwaite, 2002,
pp. 67-9 cites both anecdotal and research evidence). Where non-governmental
organisations have employed restorative justice methods as part of an attempt to
strengthen their communities, however, this has not always been welcomed by the state.
For example community restorative justice agencies in Northern Ireland, which mediate
between alleged offenders and paramilitary informal ‘justice’ agents to avoid the infliction
of brutal punishments, have been characterised almost as puppets of the terrorist
organisations, not least because in some cases their active volunteers include ex-
paramilitaries who have served long prison sentences. This is at odds with the image they
promote of themselves, of community leaders and ex-combatants engaging in a
consultation process in search of alternatives to paramilitary policing and punishment
attacks (Schrag, 2005). In the case of Northern Ireland, the Review of the Criminal Justice
System concluded that:
coercion or threat, real or implied, are ever-present dangers which cannot be
ignored, even with well-intentioned schemes which on the face of it include
safeguards for the rights of offenders and victims
(Northern Ireland Office, 2000, p. 215).
A more recent consultation document on draft guidelines for community-based restorative
justice schemes acknowledged their potential usefulness, but laid down a number of
apparently non-negotiable conditions for their continuing involvement in delivering
restorative interventions (Northern Ireland Office, 2005; 2005a). The criminal justice
minister spoke of the absolute requirement of police involvement in community
restorative justice schemes (despite continuing widespread mistrust of the Police Service
1
To continue reading
Request your trial