Review Essay: Themes and Issues in Restorative Justice

• Author: Rick Sarre
• DOI: 10.1177/0734016807300498
• Date: 01 June 2007
• Published date: 01 June 2007
• Subject Matter: Articles

Criminal Justice Review
Review Essay
Volume 32 Number 2
June 2007 156-162
© 2007 Georgia State University
Themes and Issues in
Research Foundation, Inc.
10.1177/0734016807300498
http://cjr.sagepub.com
Restorative Justice
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
Dignan, J. (2005). Understanding Victims and Restorative Justice.
Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Sullivan, D., & Tifft, L. (2005). Restorative Justice:
Healing the Foundations of Our Everyday Lives (2nd ed.). Monsey, NY:
Willow Tree Press.
Strickland, R. A. (2004). Restorative Justice. New York: Peter Lang.
The current Western criminal justice system, with its emphasis on maintaining a balance
between offenders’ rights (in their defense) and governmental power (represented by the
prosecutorial process) throughout the arrest phase, trial process, and sentencing exercise,
has largely ignored restorative justice critiques that have called for a greater emphasis on
recognizing emotions, healing injuries, and repairing damage caused by criminal activity.
These critiques have come from a number of sources, for example, theological (e.g., Hadley,
2001; Sherman, 2001; Townsend, 1994), legal (e.g., Braithwaite & Pettit, 1990; Christie,
1977; Sarre, 1999), criminological (e.g., Bianchi, 1994; Friedrichs, 2006), psychological
(e.g., Eglash, 1977), philosophical (e.g., Mead, 1917/1964), political (e.g., Elias,
1994, 1996), ethical (e.g., Moore, 1993), and historical (e.g., Carr, 1961; Morriss, 2001)
sources.
These three new books have emerged amid a flurry of contemporary writing on the sub-
ject of restorative justice, complementing and adding to the range of critiques mentioned
above. Each is quite different. The first one concentrates on the consequences of a more
“victim-focused” agenda for justice systems. The second delves into human relations
and moral philosophy. The third provides a concise review of the key players and theories
in the field. All three admirably succeed in their own right and place renewed pressure on
justice policy-maker recalcitrants to take seriously the possibilities offered by restorative
justice.
Understanding Victims and Restorative Justice
Professor of criminology and restorative justice at Sheffield University, England, James
Dignan sets out to determine the issues confronting any criminal justice system that pays
lip service to alleviating the pain of victims while not losing sight of the importance of pro-
tecting offenders’ rights. It is not an easy balancing act and requires a shift from a justice
mindset that has been set in stone for more than 800 years. When formally organized
governments began to assert their authority after the 12th century, victims lost the central
role in the justice process that they previously enjoyed. Crime became crime against the state,
156

---

Sarre / Review Essay
157
the key features of punishment became deterrence and retribution, and victims were referred
to the civil courts, not the criminal courts, for their grievances to be heard (Sarre, 1998).
Not much has changed since.
The author poses for readers the questions that need to be asked for the right “balance” to
be restored. Should victims take a role in justice processes? If so, to what extent should they
be able to contribute? Should there be any restrictions on the type or degree of victim partici-
pation? Are forms of dialogue other than face-to-face encounters acceptable? Professor Dignan
sets out, in the first chapter, a series of what he refers to as victim sensitive criteria against
which it should be possible to assess restorative justice initiatives and compare them with alter-
native approaches. Then, having reviewed other means of seeking to “put right” harms caused
by offending, he presents an array of victim-focused reforms. Finally, having summarized the
research base (not only on processes but on outcomes), he sets out to assess the evidence.
Although he does not reach firm conclusions—which is not surprising, given the array
of contingencies that the book tosses up—he nevertheless does conclude that we need to
question whether it is realistic to expect that the identified restorative justice processes
could ever be equally beneficial for all victims regardless of their attributes, attitudes, and
experiences (p. 167). This realization may be one of the reasons why, despite years of dia-
logue and commitments of governments all over the world, information and services for
victims remain, generally, in a parlous state.
It is true that victims are better informed than they once were, but the...