Abstract
Albeit with some periods of decline, during the past decades, society generally has witnessed a sizeable increase in the number of criminal offenses and victimizations. Often violent in nature, these crimes led to an increase in the severity, and at times an uncertain length, of punishment meted out. As a result, there was a dramatic increase in the prison population. Despite a decline in the past few years, the number of people incarcerated at the end of 2012 remained at 7.1 million (Glaze, 2011). The punishment was largely supported by law enforcement officials and the public in general. Some voices, however, held that sentencing an offender to an indeterminate term in a correctional institution was a restriction of liberty akin to a form of cruel punishment (Szasz, 2007).
As attempts were made to deal with crime, to improve offender treatment, and to help the victims of crime, the restorative justice approach evolved. Albert Eglash (1977) and Howard Zehr (1990) were among its pioneers. Eglash was primarily concerned with the offender (restorative justice and restitution) and Zehr with victim–offender reconciliation. Even though with ups and downs, this philosophical approach to punishment, based on healing and the reconciliation of the victim and the offender, generated a deep interest among sociocriminological scholars and laid the foundation for what has become a restorative justice movement throughout the world. Approximately 80 countries are reported to have such programs (Van Ness, 2005). The implementation of the programs is usually conditioned by the culture and traditions of the country where it is employed.
Maruna (2013) aptly wrote that the philosophy of restorative justice is based on “ancient principles that accord with hard-wired human intuition about fairness and morality” (p. xiv). That may be why Chinese scholars have easily accepted and implemented it: Restorative justice practices are compatible with Chinese culture (Liu & Palermo, 2009; Wong, 2013). In that regard, the congruity between traditional Confucian Chinese philosophy and the values of restorative justice has been noted (Braithwaite, 2002).
The restorative justice approach has been found to be particularly useful with juvenile offenders, and they were among the first to benefit from it. The ancient Romans said, In puer est homo, and in this way, scholars hope to nip in the bud the problem of crime and recidivism. It is well-known that incarcerating juvenile offenders does not reduce their recidivism and a more balanced approach to delinquent behavior, such as that proposed by restorative justice, is not only more humane and understanding but also more rewarding for all involved. Basically, for offenders, restorative justice is about understanding the pain of the harm done, working through feelings of guilt, and attempting to redress the hurt and reconcile with the victim or victim’s family; for victims, it is about healing. This does not mean that the offenders, juvenile or adult, should not be held accountable for what they have done wrong. On the contrary, the process above described will help them to assume their responsibility while undergoing intensive rehabilitation, ideally with the support of their families and of the community at large.
The criminological arena for the beneficial intervention of restorative justice ranges from offenses such as school bullying to domestic abuse, from serious nonviolent crimes to violent crimes. It includes offenders pre- and post-sentencing, and some incarcerated individuals. In this issue, Kathleen Bergseth and Jeffrey Bouffard, in an extensive and well-referenced analysis, examine the effectiveness of restorative justice programs for various types of juvenile offenders. With their thorough analysis of the works of many scholars, they appraise whether the programs will keep these young offenders from future offending once they terminate their attendance in an restorative justice program and, if they do reoffend, how long will it be before they recidivate. The readers will be absorbed by the interesting progression of Bergseth and Bouffard’s inquiry.
The restorative justice philosophy has also been a catalyst for therapeutic jurisprudence, an attempt to humanize the laws by “incorporating insights from psychology, criminology and social work into the law and its administration” (Wexler, 2013, p. 27). Both approaches attempt to create a humanistic atmosphere, where until now has reigned a distant, cold, and highly punitive approach. In so doing, they are able to take into consideration the uniqueness of each offender (Palermo, 2002), addressing their individual characteristics on their way to justice and recovery.