Year: 2014
Type: editorial
Abstract: In an essay published in 2003, Paul H. Robinson commends restorative processes, but argues that for all their benefits these processes do not deliver justice in the aftermath of crime (Robinson, 2003).To achieve justice, he claims, it is necessary to inflict upon offenders the punishment they deserve.Hence, he concludes, restorative processes should be seen and used as a useful supplement to, but not as a substitute for, punishment of the guilty (ibid.: 377).Robinson then presents a scathing critique of 'leaders of the restorative justice movement' for whom, he contends, giving offenders the punishment they deserve is never an appropriate goal of interventions in the aftermath of crime.By seeking to abolish or marginalise punishment and to replace it with restorative processes, these leaders are -according to Robinson -pursuing an 'anti-justice agenda' which is objectionable, odd and dangerous (ibid.: 378).This is a serious challenge to the restorative justice movement and demands a response.2 There are, however, a number of different ways in which advocates of restorative justice might reply.Hence, in this editorial, I will outline and seek to clarify two quite different ways in which restorative justice advocates could -and to some extent haveanswered such challenges.These represent fundamentally different ways of positioning restorative justice with regard to more traditional conceptions of criminal justice.I want to draw attention to this difference and encourage debate, in this journal, about which stance the restorative justice movement should adopt.At the moment, the second of these responses seems to be the preferred one amongst leading restorative justice scholars and personalities.However, I will go on to suggest that there is something lacking in it, before indicating -very briefly -a third response that might be fruitful.1 I am grateful to Lode Walgrave for his comments on an earlier draft.Whilst I very much doubt that I've responded satisfactorily to all of the issues he raised, the piece has improved significantly as a result of his advice.2 John Braithwaite, who is clearly one of the leaders Robinson has in mind, does respond to some of Robinson's claims in the same issue of the Utah Law Review (Braithwaite, 2003).
Source: Restorative Justice
Author: Gerry Johnstone
Institution: University of Hull
Language: English
Subfield: Law
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W1998315670