When restorative justice meets the Good Lives Model: Contributing to a criminology of trust
| Author | Estelle Zinsstag,Tony Ward,Lode Walgrave |
| DOI | 10.1177/1477370819854174 |
| Published date | 01 May 2021 |
| Date | 01 May 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2019
Article
European Journal of Criminology
2021, Vol. 18(3) 444 –460
When restorative justice
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
meets the Good Lives
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370819854174
DOI: 10.1177/1477370819854174
journals.sagepub.com/home/euc
Model: Contributing to a
criminology of trust
Lode Walgrave
University of Leuven, Belgium
Tony Ward
Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
Estelle Zinsstag
University of Leuven, Belgium
Abstract
The Good Lives Model and restorative justice, although both innovative practices with a number
of common traits, interests and aims, have been developing in parallel or even at odds with each
other for a number of years. As a consequence, they have rarely been examined as possibly
complementary and of use to each other. In this article we aim to explore these innovative
practices individually and to look at how they might work together to address the harm in a
positive and constructive way for all stakeholders. We examine the possibilities of how a new
approach to criminology, a criminology of trust, could be further developed through their lens
and their possible complementarity.
Keywords
Criminology, Good Lives Model, restorative justice
Introduction
Within a few decades, restorative justice (RJ) has found its place as an inspiration for
innovating justice practices, a central issue in scientific research and in juridical and
Corresponding author:
Estelle Zinsstag, Senior Researcher, Leuven Institute of Criminology (LINC), University of Leuven, Herbert
Hooverplein 10, Leuven 3000, Belgium.
Email: estelle.zinsstag@kuleuven.be
Walgrave et al.
445
socio-ethical debates, and a ubiquitous theme in justice reforms worldwide. The Good
Lives Model (GLM) was designed originally in the early 2000s as a response to sexual
offending behaviour, but its reach extended rapidly and it has gained credibility as a
constructive turn in the rehabilitation of individuals who have committed all types of
crime (Ward and Maruna, 2007).1 Recent years have seen several publications presenting
both RJ and GLM as mutually complementary approaches (Walgrave, 2008; Ward et al.,
2014; Ward and Langlands, 2009). In this article, we explore their common ground and
mutual complementarity. This article reflects on the possibility of opening prospects for
a sequential use of both models in responding to concrete crimes, which can improve
their efficacy considerably. The final section argues our view that both models contribute
to the development of a wider ‘criminology of trust’.
Restorative justice
In RJ philosophy, an offence is primarily an act that causes suffering and harm to the
victim, to social life and to the individual who committed the offence. Hence, the priority
of any interventions following the occurrence of an offence is to attempt to repair as
much as possible the suffering and harm caused. The most important, but not unique, tool
for achieving this is a voluntary, open and respectful dialogue among the stakeholders in
the aftermath of the offence (Zinsstag and Keenan, 2017; Zinsstag and Vanfraechem,
2012). Basically, RJ views individuals as moral acquaintances of equal status who share
common interests. RJ advocates believe that, if the right conditions are fulfilled, the
majority of victims and offenders are willing and able to come to a dialogue and reach
satisfying outcomes.
Several visions of RJ exist. Most consider the voluntary dialogue between the stake-
holders in the aftermath of an offence to be the key characteristic. According to these
‘purist’ or ‘diversionist’ approaches, RJ has reached its limits when coercion is needed
(Hoyle, 2010; McCold, 2000). The ‘maximalist’ version, in contrast, advances the aim of
repairing the crime-caused harms and suffering as the decisive feature of RJ. Like ‘diver-
sionists’, ‘maximalists’ also prioritize the direct encounter, because it offers more chances
to reach a higher calibre of restorativeness. However, if such a dialogue appears not to be
possible, or cannot reach a satisfying outcome, they can also include (juridical) coercion
with a view of reparation in the RJ option. In that line of thinking, Walgrave has defined
RJ as ‘an option for doing justice after the occurrence of an offence that is primarily
oriented towards repairing the individual, relational, and social harm caused by that
offence’ (Walgrave, 2008: 21).
Zehr and Mika (1998) outline three core principles that underpin RJ initiatives that
resonate with the core ideas in this definition. First, criminal conduct violates both peo-
ple and their relationships with one another. Such violation harms all of the key stake-
holders in crime – victims, offenders and communities – whose needs therefore ought to
be actively addressed through a restorative process of some kind. Second, crime results
in both obligations and liabilities for offenders. The offender is encouraged, pressured or,
in the maximalist option, obliged to take active responsibility for the crime and attempt
to repair the harm caused (Braithwaite and Roche, 2001). This is different from what
happens in the criminal justice procedure, where the offender is discouraged from taking
446
European Journal of Criminology 18(3)
active responsibility and passively submits to the responsibility to undergo punishment
only if proven guilty. Additionally, the community is obliged to support both the victim
and the offender in dealing with the effects of the crime. Third, the purpose of RJ is to
facilitate community healing by repairing the harm that results from crime, more specifi-
cally, the fractures within relationships between victims, offenders and the community
that inevitably occur following offending.
It is not possible in this article to expand on the ample evidence that supports RJ as a
very promising pathway in the response to offending. A number of studies are available
to this effect (see, for example, Bonta et al., 2006; Van Camp, 2014; Walgrave, 2011;
Ward et al., 2014). Roughly, they show that, depending on a range of variables, the
majority of victims and offenders are willing to participate in restorative encounters. The
satisfaction of most participating victims and offenders is a stable positive finding (see,
for example, Angel et al., 2014). But the results are more complicated regarding reoff-
ending. Although it must be remembered that RJ is not a new treatment programme, and
that reducing reoffending is therefore not its first concern, the impact on reoffending is
nevertheless a crucial issue for the credibility and acceptability of RJ. Moreover, a
decrease in reoffending would be an indication that the harm to the offender him/herself
has also been repaired.
Several theoretical constructs, such as the reintegrative shaming theory (Braithwaite,
1989), the procedural justice theory (Tyler, 2006) and the interaction ritual change theory
(Collins, 2004), advance suggestions as to why and how mediation or RJ conferencing
should affect reoffending positively. However, these expectations are not always con-
firmed in the outcomes measured. Although the observed effect on recidivism is basi-
cally positive, it does vary and is not always significant (see, for example Maruna et al.,
2006).
One of the possible explanations for this may be the varying intrinsic quality of the
examined restorative processes. Most of the evaluation research explores RJ practices as
one homogeneous category, whereas important differences exist in focus groups, in
offences addressed, in institutional context, in methods used and even in the intrinsic
technical quality of the practice. One should not be surprised then that the outcomes are
different and sometimes even contradictory (Walgrave, 2011).
Another more fundamental reason may be the profound contradiction between RJ and
the risk-oriented nature of most outcome-focused evaluation projects in the criminal
justice area. The dominant rehabilitation model in the correctional domain, the Risk-
Need-Responsivity Model (RNR; Bonta and Andrews, 2017), is primarily oriented
towards reducing risk to the community and is only secondarily concerned with address-
ing the core interests of individuals who have committed crimes. It sees the offender as
a bearer of risks and as a passive object of the intervention, just as the machine to be
repaired is viewed by the engineer. Current correctional and probation programmes pre-
dominantly focus on replacing or modifying ‘criminogenic’ beliefs, behaviours or con-
texts. This preoccupation is also evident in the research on the outcomes of RJ
interventions (Bonta et al., 2006). Whereas RJ views the offender as a moral agent, capa-
ble of choosing responsible and constructive options if adequate conditions are fulfilled,
the ‘what works’ approach does not. It neglects the need for promoting prosocial motiva-
tions through open, mutually respectful dialogues with people who have been convicted
Walgrave et al.
447
of crimes. Furthermore, a difficulty with recent work on incorporating dynamic risk
factors into explanations of (re)offending, risk assessment and/or forensic case formula-
tions is that it is assumed that they are coherent constructs (for example, Hart et al.,
2011). In our view this is not the case, and dynamic risk factors are better conceptualized
as red flags (that is,...
To continue reading
Request your trial