Models versus mechanisms: the need to crack the black box of restorative justice
| Author | Jennifer L. Lanterman |
| Position | University of Nevada, Reno |
| Pages | 60-77 |
60
British Journal of Community Justice
©2021 Manchester Metropolitan University
ISSN 1475-0279
Vol. 17 (1) 60 - 78
MODELS VERSUS MECHANISMS: THE NEED TO CRACK
THE BLACK BOX OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
Jennifer L. Lanterman University of Nevada, Reno, Contact details: jlanterman@unr.edu
Abstract
Restorative justice has increased in popularity as a response to crime that may prevent
some of the counterproductive outcomes of conventional criminal justice and juvenile
justice practices. Restorative justice may more effectively involve and respond to the needs
of victims than c onventional criminal justice and juvenile justice, and may confer benefits
to offenders and communities. Despite increased interest from government actors and
members of the public, there are no established evidence-based r estorative justice
practices. Significant gaps in knowledge remain in terms of program development,
facilitator training, and program implementation, which undoubtedly contribute to the
varied participant outcomes observed in the literature. These gaps in knowledge are
attributable to the reliance on theoretical m odels of restorative justice and outcomes
evaluations, without sufficient research examining the m echanisms that pr oduce positive
or negative outcomes for participants. This uncracked black box of r estorative justice
inhibits the identification of restorative practices that are beneficial to victims, offenders,
and other affected parties across offense types.
Keywords
Restorative justice, black box, models of practice, evidence-based practices
Models Versus Mechanisms: The Need to Crack the Black Box of Restorative Justice
61
Models Versus Mechanisms: The Need to Crack the Black Box of
Restorative Justice
Restorative justice is a response to crime that has increased in global popularity over the
last 30 years (Daly & Immarigeon, 1998; Daly, 2013). Proponents of restorative justice
advocate for its use, to more effectively address the needs of victims in a way that may
prevent some of the counterproductive outcomes that conventional criminal justice and
juvenile justice practices can cause for victims, offenders, and communities. Restorative
justice programs are most common in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom,
and the United States. Research on programs throughout these countries has yielded varied
outcomes. A significant contributing factor to these varied outcomes is the absence of
established evidence-based restorative justice practices. There are extensive gaps in
knowledge regarding the relative importance, of what are argued to be key components of
restorative justice, facilitator training, and how the varied methods and quality of
programme implementation influence the participant outcomes observed in the literature.
These gaps in knowledge are largely attributable to a continued reliance on theoretical
models of restorative justice without rigorous evaluation of the mechanisms that produce
positive or negative outcomes for participants. The causal mechanisms of restorative justice
are concealed in a black box that must be cracked in order to establish evidence-based
practices, develop efficacious facilitator training, and develop or modify restorative justice
practices and programmes to fulfil the promise of restorative justice.
Brief History of Restorative Justice
Restorative justice is a victim-centred response to crime that involves those most
impacted by a crime, including the victim, offender, and, depending on the format of the
encounter and the crime, restorative justice may also involve the victim’s and the
offender’s supportive others and community members (Umbreit, 2001). It ‘endorses a
collective ethos and collective responsibility…to address the offending and its
consequences’ (Morris & Young, 2000:14). Restorative justice is a utilitarian process that
aims to address the victim’s needs, to the extent feasible, which may also confer benefits
to the offender and community.
Contemporary restorative justice dates back to the 1970s, with restorative practices being
developed in Canada and the United States (McCold, 2006; Zehr, 2015). Scholars and
practitioners disagree about the history of restorative justice. Some assert that restorative
justice has deep roots in cultures and religions around the world (Benham & Barton, 1996;
Yazzie, 1997; Childs, 1998; Nielsen, 1998; Consedine & Bowen, 1999; Weitekamp, 1999;
Meyer, 2002; Pranis, 2005; Schoeman, 2013; Mang ena, 2015). Others counter that
restorative justice has no such explicit foundation (Blagg, 2001; Johnstone, 2001; Daly,
2002; Bottoms, 2003; Curtis-Fawley & Daly, 2005; Tauri, 2009, 2014; Wood & Suzuki, 2016).
While the history of restorative justice is contested, there is general agreement that
contemporary restorative justice bears some similarity to harm-resolution practices
observed in indigenous and religious groups around the world (Lanterman, 2019a).
Foci in the Restorative Justice Literature
The restorative justice literature primarily focuses on restorative philosophy, models of
To continue reading
Request your trial