NCJ Number
196411
Journal
British Journal of Criminology Volume: 42 Issue: 3 Dated: Summer 2002 Pages: 563-577
Date Published
2002
Length
15 pages
Annotation
This article identifies and profiles three types of restorative justice standards -- "limiting," "maximizing," and "enabling" -- and develops them as multidimensional criteria for evaluating restorative justice programs.
Abstract
The author cautions that the regulation of restorative justice efforts through standards must be carefully done, since standards that are too restrictive suppress innovation. On the other hand, there must be standards that distinguish effective restorative justice programs from poor imitations. He argues that open-textured restorative justice standards can be crafted to allow space for cultural differences and innovation while screening out clearly bad practice. The author distinguishes "limiting" standards, which specify precise rights and limits that must be observed in restorative justice applications, and "maximizing" standards, which foster restorative justice outcomes that should be maximized. Limiting standards might focus on non-domination, empowerment, and the honoring of legally specific upper limits on sanctions. Maximizing standards might emphasize the restorations of human dignity, property loss, damaged human relationships, and compassion or caring. Another category of standards, "enabling" standards, focus on emergent properties of a successful restorative justice process, such as remorse over injustice, an apology, censure of the act, forgiveness of the person, and mercy. In conclusion, the author advises that a "top-down" set of standards for restorative justice programs, based on United Nations Human Rights agreements and generally accepted principles of restorative justice developed by its vocal advocates, is important for supplying a provisional, revisable agenda for "bottom-up" deliberation on restorative justice standards appropriate for particular jurisdictions. This article outlines a method for moving "bottom-up" from standards citizens develop for evaluating their local programs to an aggregation of these standards into national and international standards. 32 references