Accountability in Restorative Justice.

• Author: Ferrall, Bard R.
• Position: Book Review

DECLAN ROCHE, ACCOUNTABILITY IN RESTORATIVE JUSTICE (New York: Oxford Univ. Press 2003). 316 PP.

The term "restorative justice" applies to many different alternatives to established systems of criminal law enforcement and has not yet been precisely defined. However, the author states that the most attention has been directed to alternatives which center around meetings that bring together the victim, the offender, and of other persons affected by the crime. At these meetings, the offender is usually required to admit to his offense and to tell the others what he did. Victims have the opportunity to speak, to describe the impact of the offense and to seek some explanation from the offender, with an apology as the hoped-for response. Others attending the meeting may also speak. These meetings usually conclude with all parties negotiating a plan by which the offender can try to repair the harm, or "restore" the victim and the community. This plan may also include ways to reintegrate the offender into the community. Communities around the world, from the villages of New Zealand to the inner cities of America are using this method.

Supporters state that this kind of community-based approach to criminal justice existed before the implementation of the modern administrative state and "impersonal" criminal justice. They argue that today's state-administered criminal law enforcement usually marginalizes the victim and fails to repair the harm. Furthermore, supporters point to recent studies of restorative justice methods that show greater satisfaction by the victim, as well as the offender and other interested parties. The author argues, however, that there are risks in restorative justice and that accountability, (understood here as an explanation of the reasons for a decision and the availability of those reasons for review by an independent agent,) is the best way to manage these risks. Case studies of twenty-five programs in six countries, sponsored by a variety of community groups, identified which accountability procedures would best assist the restorative justice process and avoid its risks using seven different criteria. The primary risk, the author argues, is domination of the meeting by a few participants. Other risks include the burdening the victim with numerous, sometimes traumatic or intimidating meetings, and failure of the offender to fulfill the negotiated plan. On the other hand, the victim may dominate the meeting and place...