Restorative justice

AO1

• Rehabilitative approach to offending behaviour that focuses on repairing the harm caused by crime rather than being punitive

• It involves bringing the offender and the victim together, often through a structured meeting with a mediator to allow the victim to express the impact of the crime and the offender to apologize & take responsibility for their actions

• Victims play an active role in the process & feel empowered where they can express feelings, ask questions, and seek closure, which can reduce anxiety and distress

• Helps offender’s understand that their actions have consequences & they can choose their actions to avoid further crime & reduce recidivism rates

• Five Rs: relationship, responsibility, repair, respect & reintegration

• Can also include financial restitution to compensate victim for losses caused by crime & community service

• May be used alongside custodial sentencing or as a form of sentencing

Strengths AO3

• P - effective form of rehabilitation

• E - research consistently shows that offenders who participate in RJ programs are less likely to commit further crimes compared to those processed through traditional criminal justice methods. For example, Sherman and Strang conducted a systematic review of RJ programs across multiple countries and found that participants had significantly lower recidivism rates, particularly for violent and property crimes. RJ has also been shown to increase victim satisfaction, as victims feel their experiences are acknowledged and they have a voice in the process. These findings suggest that RJ not only benefits offenders by encouraging accountability and empathy, but also provides real, measurable advantages for victims and communities.

• T - the combination of empirical evidence, reduction in reoffending, and improved victim outcomes demonstrates that RJ is a practical and effective alternative to traditional punitive approaches, making it highly credible as a rehabilitation strategy in forensic settings

• P - aligns with the concept of free will.

• E - Rather than viewing offenders as being driven solely by biological, psychological or environmental factors, restorative justice encourages them to take personal responsibility for their actions. Offenders are required to acknowledge the harm they have caused, engage with victims and actively participate in repairing that harm. This treats offenders as capable of making choices and changing their behaviour, rather than as passive victims of circumstance.

• T - prevents causing any ethical issues & aligns with principle of legal system based on accountability & responsibility

Limitations AO3

• P - not suitable for all types of offenders which restricts its generalisability

• E - relies on voluntary participation from both the victim and the offender, so if either party refuses—often the case in serious violent crimes, sexual offences, or crimes involving intimidation—the program cannot take place. Furthermore, some offenders, particularly those with psychopathic traits or antisocial personality disorders, may lack empathy or genuine remorse, meaning that participation is likely to be superficial and fails to achieve the intended moral or behavioural change. Even when the program is implemented, there is a risk that it may only be effective for low- to medium-risk offenders, limiting its impact on serious or repeat offenders, who are often the most socially harmful.

• T - This limitation demonstrates that while RJ can be highly effective in certain cases, it is not a universal alternative to the criminal justice system, and must be carefully targeted and integrated with other interventions to ensure safety, fairness, and meaningful outcomes for both victims and offenders

• P - time-consuming and expensive

• E - requires extensive preparation, such as ensuring both the victim and offender are willing to participate and providing trained facilitators to manage the process safely and fairly. Facilitators must spend time preparing each participant emotionally, organising meetings, and managing any risks, particularly in sensitive cases. This level of planning and supervision demands significant financial resources, staffing, and training, which may not be available in overcrowded prisons. As a result, RJ may only be implemented in a limited number of cases, often prioritising less serious offences where resources can be justified

• T - this limitation suggests that, despite its effectiveness, RJ is not always practical on a large scale, reducing its impact as a mainstream alternative to traditional justice approaches

a