Abstract
Ross London provides this text via an impressive accumulation of experience both in the field and in the academia. His resume boasts a wealth of experience as an attorney, both in defense and in prosecutorial roles, and the many years where he worked as a municipal court judge. After 25 years of practicing law, he began his graduate education in criminology searching for answers to the questions that he had developed during his work. In Chapter 1, he points out the most obvious question he had developed “Is this really the best we can do?” (p. 1). The basis of this text is his response to this question, arguing that with an introduction of restorative justice into mainstream criminology it is not only possible to do better but practical as well.
The theme of the first chapter is the restoration of trust and this concept emerges as the hallmark of London’s argument. Crime is a breach of personal trust and in Chapter 2, restorative practices are discussed and London suggests that they offer a more beneficial method for dealing with the harm that has been created by a criminal offense. In fact, London notes that this is possible even with issues of serious and violent crime and provides practical examples on how this may be accomplished in Chapter 3.
In Chapters 4 and 5, London provides a very effective synopsis on the philosophical issues of trust while engaging the reader into envisioning how social trust may be restored. Another emerging theme is that the text seems to offer a victim-centered approach to restorative justice that may be less holistic than that envisioned by many restorative justice advocates.
Chapter 6 provides an extensive examination on the utility of restorative practices to meet the needs of the victim, while also providing analysis on how current criminal proceedings may be integrated with restorative concepts, emerging to provide a more responsive system to the needs of the victim. Chapter 7 focuses on offenders and their need to take responsibility for the harms they have created and their role in “restoring” justice, although their practical needs were not adequately addressed, almost as if they did not exist. In fact, there was little discussed in way of offender’s needs, any harm that may have been present which led to the offending behavior, and any restoration that could be considered in way of the offenders practical needs. Chapter 8 examined Criminal Sentencing Theory and Policy and Chapter 9 focuses on the community’s role in restorative practices. Information on inclusion of community members as key stakeholders was somewhat limited and could also have been broadened. Chapter 10 highlights a workshop on restorative justice and again provides examples for practical applications of restorative justice programming.
Chapter 11, Addressing the Concerns of Minorities, delved into some social structural concerns relevant to restorative practices, yet, I wondered why more information from this chapter had not been located in the earlier chapter, Chapter 7, The Pathway Back for Offenders. For instance, the information on concerns about disparities in drug sentencing was located in Chapter 11. Yet, I would think that the disparity in sentencing might be just as upsetting and perceived as egregious for White crack-cocaine offenders as that of Black offenders. Although this may be particularly important because of disparities in arrest and incarceration rates, when dealing with restorative justice programming these concerns should be considered for all offenders.
Chapter 12 provides a discussion of the Problems in Paradigms, a debate that has developed among both academics and practitioners. Chapters 13 and 14 provide an extensive examination of practical applications for restorative justice programming in the criminal justice system and lays the foundation for understanding how these changes may be initiated. The text provides a conception of restorative justice that is primarily victim-centered and offers a useful analysis of more restorative applications in mainstream criminal justice. While it is a conservative interpretation of restorative justice it will surely find a place as a reader for graduate students and may be particularly useful with students in upper level coursework focusing on law and policing and/or courts and corrections.