Restorative justice refers to a way of responding to a crime or other types of misconduct, injustice or conflict that is primarily aimed at repairing the damage caused by the illegal act and restoring the well-being of all those involved. It reflects a more relational theory of justice because it emphasizes restoring respect, equality and dignity to relationships affected by misconduct. Restorative justice is called “restorative” because it uses restorative processes, that is, processes that restore power of action, ownership, and decision-making power to those directly affected by the adverse event – the victims, the perpetrators, their supporters, and the community at large. Instead of transferring all responsibility to the state or legal professionals, it aims to involve the immediate participants in the resolution of damages. The main reason why young offenders think family conferences are useful is because they realized that they were hurting their parents. This is remarkable considering that one of the objectives of restorative justice is to focus on the perpetrator of the human dimension of his crime and that others may be affected by the perpetrator`s behaviour. (Chan, 2013, p. 10) The definition of restorative justice cited in the key terms of this module includes a number of key values, such as “voluntary” participation, “truthful” discourse, creating a “safe and respectful” environment, a positive commitment to “repairing” and a concern to “clarify liability for damages”. This is not an exhaustive list of core values, but it does show how crucial relational values are to a restorative process. A major limitation in the field of restorative justice is that much of the academic research on restorative practices comes from and relates to the contexts of Europe, North America, and countries such as Australia and New Zealand. Therefore, it is often the programs in these countries that are known.
However, scientists have also highlighted the importance of advancing research on restorative practices that build on traditional or common restorative processes in regions such as Asia (Chan, 2013); and Africa (see e.B. Park, 2010, via Sierra Leone; Robins, 2009, on Uganda; and Kilekamajenga, 2018, on Tanzania) and countries like Pakistan (see e.B. Dzur, 2017 for an interview with Ali Gohar). A prominent advocate for restorative justice, Ali Gohar, has worked hard to highlight the complementarity of restorative justice and the indigenous jirga system (an approach to transforming communal conflicts in Pakistan`s Pukhtoon Belt) (see, for example, Dzur, 2017; Zehr and Gohar, 2003; and the Just Peace Initiatives website). While it is essential to acknowledge the harm caused to the victim(s), accountability also means taking responsibility for dealing with the consequences of one`s actions (Zehr and Gobar, 2003). When the criminal justice system holds someone accountable, it means that they must ensure that they receive the punishment they deserve, whether or not they take personal responsibility for what happened. In restorative justice, responsibility is much more demanding. It requires three things on the part of offenders: acceptance of personal guilt for inflicting harm; the willingness to witness first-hand the impact of their actions on the lives of those who have hurt them; and take active responsibility for doing everything in their power to rectify the situation (Zehr and Gobar, 2003). In addition to these guidelines, which have been extensively developed at the international and regional levels, it is equally important to note that traditional and local practices within communities are often based on restorative processes. In fact, the researchers found that effective restorative practices require a combination of important basic principles on community justice and broader mechanisms of conventional or restorative justice (see, for example, Robins, 2006, for Uganda; and Kilekamajenga, 2018, for Tanzania). Punishment is the main way in which society denounces a criminal act as a violation of the common norms on which society depends. The severity of the sentence should be proportionate to the gravity of the act committed, thus compensating for the moral imbalance caused by the offence.
Since punishment consists of inflicting pain or denying certain freedoms that must be applied with care and fairness, the criminal justice process has a number of integrated legal safeguards. To be considered “just”, the sentence must be both morally deserved and proportionate to the gravity of the crime. Empirical research on victim-abuse mediation in cases of partnered violence in Austria has shown a high level of victim satisfaction and the potential of restorative justice to empower women and strengthen processes of change in close relationships (Pelikan, 2000; Pelikan, 2010). 83% of women did not experience violence in the next 1.5 to two years. Most (80%) of these women felt that mediation between the perpetrator and the victim had helped prevent further violence (Pelikan, 2010). Other research in Austria showed that 84% of perpetrators had not relapsed 2.5 to 3.5 years after participating in victim-abuse mediation, with an even higher rate (89%) in cases of spousal violence (Hofinger and Neumann, 2008). Consider three main ideas: (1) Reparation: Crime causes harm and justice requires reparation for that damage; (2) Meeting: The best way to determine how to proceed is to let the parties decide together; and (3) Transformation: This can lead to fundamental changes in people, relationships and communities. The mechanism for distracting children from court or custody while being held accountable for their crime was the Family Group Conference (CGG). It is a meeting of family members, including young people, as well as justice and social service professionals, responsible for developing recommendations to meet the needs of the child in a rehabilitative manner. The meeting also takes into account the needs of victims invited to attend the conference, although the original intention behind this measure was to dispel any public concern that the process is becoming too lenient.
The EXCD is convened by an EXCD coordinator who has an independent legal role in this process. In fact, through this mechanism, the State transfers part of its decision-making power over the perpetrator to the aggressor`s immediate care community. Conventional criminal justice systems largely focus on law enforcement, guilt assessment and enforcement of sentences. Some acts are classified as “crimes” because they are considered crimes against society as a whole and not just against individual victims. They are perceived as public rather than private misconduct and, as a result, criminal justice systems respond on behalf of society as a whole. Conventional judicial responses to crimes typically focus on punishment, deterrence, denunciation, retaliation, and community safety for violations of the law, considerations that must be weighed by the court in the sentencing process. .