Vol. 15 No.2 (February 2005), pp.139-142

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE, by Ruth Ann Strickland.  New York, NY:  Peter Lang, 2004.  143pp.  Paper.  €17.00 / £12.00 / $19.95.  ISBN:  0-8204-5758-2.

Reviewed by Andrew L. Giacomazzi, Department of Criminal Justice Administration, Boise State University.  Email: agiacom@boisestate.edu .

The philosophy of restorative justice has received wide attention over the last several years.  In a nutshell, restorative justice views crime as producing harm, which must be repaired.  It seeks to provide a balance among the needs of the victim, offender and community, each of which is involved in an active way in the justice process (Bazemore and Umbreit 1999).  At the heart of restorative justice are sanctioning practices that include such activities as victim-offender mediation, community decision-making, restorative community service, restitution, and victim and community impact statements (Bazemore and Umbreit 1999).  These activities promote accountability, competency and public safety in non-traditional ways.  For example, questions regarding who is guilty, what law was broken, and what punishment should be imposed are replaced in the restorative model with questions such as, what harm has resulted from the crime, how can harm be repaired, and who is responsible for the repair (Bazemore and Umbreit 1999; Zehr 1990).

Ruth Ann Strickland, in RESTORATIVE JUSTICE, embarks on a comprehensive examination of the movement.  Chapter 1 provides a brief history of restorative justice, as well as how the concept relates to other noted contemporary trends, such as community crime prevention, community policing/problem solving, and community prosecution.  The chapter ends with some common programs found within the rubric of restorative justice.

Chapter 2 addresses the role and nature of defendants in a restorative justice setting.  Strickland considers how dramatically different a restorative justice model views defendants when compared to an adversarial system.  Offenders in a restorative justice setting must take responsibility for their actions, while attempts are commonly made by defendants to deflect responsibility in an adversarial system.  Strickland also provides some substantiation of the potential effectiveness of restorative justice programs, despite the general paucity of evidence in this area. 

The role of the victim is explored in Chapter 3, presenting a list of victim programs commonly found in restorative justice models, including victim-offender panels, family group conferencing, victim-offender mediation, victim compensation and restitution, healing and sentencing circles, victim impact statements, and reparative boards.  The information found in this chapter highlights the expanded role of the victim in the justice process, particularly in comparison to the traditional role of the victim in our adversarial system. [*140]

Chapter 4 paints the broader picture of restorative justice, as Strickland examines the roles of police, prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges.  In essence, Strickland connects contemporary trends in policing, prosecution and court administration to the underlying objectives of restorative justice.  However, the brevity of the chapter precludes more detailed discussion of the difficulties in implementing what would amount to an overall “community justice model.”  For example, while two police programs, Citizen Police Academies and Police-Based Family Group Conferencing, are offered as examples of how community policing/restorative policing may be tied to the underlying goals of restorative justice, expanded consideration of how the police-community partnership model attempts to create a sense of “community” in areas most in need of effective responses to quality of life problems is lacking.  Moreover, Strickland’s comments regarding the ability of community prosecution to work more closely with other criminal justice agencies, the private sector, and citizens, construe community prosecution too broadly—in some localities, community prosecution equates to aggressive law enforcement.    

Of particular interest to scholars and practitioners alike is Strickland’s Chapter 5, “Restorative Justice and the Community.”  Here, Strickland delineates various definitions of community, relates the commonalities between a community justice model and a restorative justice model, and offers several sections on the notions of citizen responsibility, empowerment, and partnerships necessary for an effective restorative approach to justice.  My one and only criticism with this chapter—and it’s a big one—is that not enough attention is paid to the problems that plague many urban communities.  Given the need for community involvement in the justice process in a restorative model, how can this occur in those localities that are not only disorderly and disorganized, but also exhibit high levels of fear and low quality of life?  These are precisely the communities that could benefit the most from a restorative justice model, but they also are least likely to garner the interest and participation necessary for such an approach.  Inclusion of some of the social capital literature, prominently missing in this chapter, would have been beneficial here (e.g, Correia, 2000).  In addition, an exploration of the complexities accompanying involvement of lay persons in functions once solely reserved to justice officials, including recruiting and training volunteers, would have been fruitful for both academic and practitioner audiences.

Chapter 6 explores a controversial issue within the restorative justice field:  what is the purpose of corrections?  Strickland narrows this controversy by discussing the “three faces” of restorative justice as a correctional tool:  retributive accountability, rehabilitative healing, and deterrent crime prevention (p.111).  Ironically, the varied nature of the goals of corrections in a restorative justice model allow for a variety of traditional correctional programs to operate within this model.  In fact, Strickland spends a considerable portion of this chapter on the topic of revamping traditional community-based corrections with a restorative focus.  However, given the varied nature of the goals, many programs discussed in this chapter, [*141] including probation, parole, and home confinement, may not need to be revamped at all.

Strickland also presents an interesting discussion of victim-offender reconciliation efforts in Chapter 6, a set of programs often associated with restorative justice in the correctional setting.  Here, evidence is presented that such efforts may lead to positive outcomes both for offenders and victims alike.  The studies cited regarding victim-offender mediation (VOM), however, involve either juvenile offenders or relatively minor crimes.  Strickland’s discussion, therefore, leaves the door open regarding the question as to whether VOM successfully can be used in a restorative justice setting between offenders and victims of more serious crimes. 

In Strickland’s final chapter, she reiterates restorative justice theory, how it differs from the goals of our traditional criminal justice system, and briefly summarizes important ideas from the previous six chapters.  Strickland concludes her work with some important questions that may affect the future of restorative justice.  For example, how can a restorative justice approach flourish in an environmental context that continues to favor a “tough on crime” approach?  And in what Emile Durkheim characterizes as a “Gemeinschaft” society, is it possible to attain and sustain a level of community participation that ensures that restorative justice programs operate effectively?  The reader is left wondering what Strickland’s take is on these difficult questions.

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE would make an excellent supplemental text in undergraduate courses in criminal justice and juvenile justice.  However, students who already have a basic understanding of the restorative justice philosophy are unlikely to find much new here.  Beyond the academic audience, RESTORATIVE JUSTICE is a necessary read for justice officials and other key-stakeholders contemplating a launch of restorative justice principles within their jurisdictions.  But for this audience as well, those who already have a passing familiarity with the approach and its programs would be advised to read more analytical work in the field.

Ruth Ann Strickland should be commended for producing a very good, descriptive piece of work on an emerging paradigm of justice which attempts to move beyond the traditional goals of the American system of criminal justice by bringing balance to the needs of the offender, victim and community.  The book’s relatively short sections, broken up by subheadings, keeps the reader focused, but the abrupt endings to the sections oftentimes leave the reader wanting more analysis from Strickland.  And in many cases, the reader is left with more questions than answers about the implementation of restorative justice.  But, perhaps, this was precisely Strickland’s goal. 

REFERENCES:

Bazemore, Gordon and Mark Umbreit.  1999.  CONFERENCES, CIRCLES, BOARDS, AND MEDIATIONS:  RESTORATIVE JUSTICE AND CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN THE RESPONSE TO YOUTH CRIME.  Washington, DC:  Office of Juvenile [*142] Justice and Delinquency Prevention, United States Department of Justice. 

Correia, Mark.  2000.  “Social Capital and a Sense of Community Building:  Building Social Cohesion.”  In Ronald W. Glensor, Mark E. Correia, and Kenneth J. Peak (eds.), POLICING COMMUNITIES:  UNDERSTANDING CRIME AND SOLVING PROBLEMS:  AN ANTHOLOGY (75-82).  Los Angeles, CA:  Roxbury Publishing Co.

Zehr, Howard.  1990.  CHANGING LENSES:  A NEW FOCUS FOR CRIME AND JUSTICE.  Scottsdale, PA:  Herald Press.

************************************************************************
© Copyright 2005 by the author, Andrew L. Giacomazzi.