Science for Everybody

Restorative justice is an approach to dealing with offending behaviour that focuses on repairing the harm caused by crime. Instead of treating crime only as an offence against the state, it gives victims, offenders and sometimes the wider community an active role in deciding how the harm can be addressed.

The approach is important because it changes both the purpose and experience of justice. The offender is encouraged to take responsibility, while the victim can explain the impact of the offence, ask questions and contribute to an agreed way forward.

What is restorative justice?

Restorative justice treats crime as harm done to people and relationships, not only as a breach of criminal law. The Restorative Justice Council describes restorative justice as bringing together those harmed by crime or conflict and those responsible for the harm so that everyone affected can take part in repairing that harm and finding a positive way forward.

The current AQA A-level Psychology specification includes restorative justice programmes within the forensic psychology topic on dealing with offending behaviour. Students therefore need to understand what restorative justice involves, how it differs from more punitive responses, and how effectively it may reduce reoffending or improve outcomes for victims.

How restorative justice changes the emphasis

Traditional criminal justice usually places the state at the centre. The key questions are whether a law has been broken, whether the defendant is guilty and what sentence should follow. The victim may provide evidence or a victim personal statement, but the process is largely controlled by legal professionals.

Restorative justice changes this emphasis in several important ways.

From punishment to repairing harm. The main aim is not simply to make the offender suffer a penalty. Instead, the process asks what harm was caused and what can realistically be done to repair it.

From the offence to the people affected. The process explores the emotional, practical and social consequences of the crime. This can include fear, financial loss, damaged relationships and changes in everyday behaviour.

From passive punishment to active responsibility. A prison sentence or fine can be imposed on an offender without requiring them to understand the victim’s experience. Restorative justice requires greater engagement because the offender may have to listen directly to the impact of their actions and respond to it.

From excluding the victim to giving the victim a voice. Victims can ask questions, explain the impact of the crime and contribute to decisions about reparation. This may provide information or emotional closure that a court process does not always provide.

From stigmatisation to reintegration. Restorative approaches try to condemn the harmful behaviour while allowing the offender to make amends and return to the community in a more constructive way. The focus is therefore on accountability without defining the whole person by the offence.

This change in emphasis does not mean that restorative justice simply replaces punishment. It may be used alongside cautions, community sentences or custody, depending on the offence, the participants and the stage of the criminal justice process.

The restorative justice process

Although programmes vary, a well-managed restorative process usually includes several stages.

1. Referral and suitability assessment. A case is referred to a restorative service. Practitioners decide whether restorative work is appropriate, considering the nature of the offence, the needs of the victim, the offender’s willingness to accept responsibility and any safeguarding concerns.

2. Initial contact and informed consent. The victim and offender are contacted separately. The facilitator explains what restorative justice involves, possible benefits and risks, confidentiality arrangements and the right to withdraw. Participation must be voluntary.

3. Preparation and risk assessment. The facilitator meets participants separately before any direct communication. They explore what each person wants from the process, identify risks, establish boundaries and decide whether direct or indirect communication is safest.

4. Communication or conference. If a face-to-face meeting takes place, the facilitator creates a structured and controlled discussion. The victim can describe the impact of the offence and ask questions. The offender can explain what happened, acknowledge responsibility and respond to the harm caused.

5. Agreement about reparation. Participants may agree actions that could repair harm. Examples include an apology, repayment, replacing damaged property, completing work for the community or taking steps to address behaviour linked to the offence. Any agreement should be realistic and voluntary.

6. Follow-up. Practitioners may monitor whether the agreement is completed and check the welfare of participants. Follow-up also helps services evaluate whether the process was safe and useful.

The current RJC Practitioner Registration Framework reflects this sequence by including initial engagement, risk and safety assessment, preparation, delivery, monitoring agreed outcomes and follow-up support as core areas of competent practice.

Key features of restorative justice

Voluntary participation. Both parties should enter freely. Restorative work is unlikely to be genuinely restorative if a victim feels pressured to meet an offender or if an offender participates only to obtain a perceived sentencing advantage.

Acceptance of responsibility. The offender normally needs to acknowledge responsibility for the harm caused. Restorative justice is not designed to become another trial about whether the offence happened.

Victim involvement. The victim’s needs and questions are central. This may include wanting an explanation, an apology, reassurance that the behaviour will not happen again or practical reparation.

Dialogue. Communication allows the offence to be understood as a human event with consequences. Hearing directly about the impact can make the harm harder for the offender to minimise.

Impartial facilitation. A trained practitioner manages the process. Their role is not to take sides but to create conditions for safe, respectful and purposeful communication.

Preparation and safeguarding. A restorative meeting should not be arranged casually. Risk assessment, preparation and appropriate support reduce the chance of intimidation, retraumatisation or further harm.

Reparation. The process should move beyond discussion towards repairing harm where possible. However, reparation should be agreed rather than imposed by one participant on another.

Reintegration. The approach aims to support offenders in making constructive changes after accepting responsibility. This may reduce shame-based withdrawal and encourage a more prosocial identity.

Variations in restorative justice programmes

Restorative justice is not a single fixed procedure. Programmes vary according to the offence, the participants, the level of risk and the stage of the criminal justice process.

Face-to-face restorative conferences. The victim and offender meet directly with a trained facilitator. Supporters, relatives or community representatives may also attend. This form can create powerful dialogue because the offender hears the victim’s experience directly.

Victim-offender mediation. A facilitator supports communication between the victim and offender. This may be a direct meeting, but mediation can also be more tightly structured than a larger conference.

Indirect or shuttle communication. The victim and offender do not meet. The facilitator carries messages, letters, recorded statements or questions between them. This can be appropriate when face-to-face contact would be unsafe or unwanted.

Written communication. Letters of apology, questions and answers can form part of a restorative process. However, written contact still needs careful preparation because an apparently apologetic letter could cause distress if it minimises responsibility.

Community conferencing or circles. Wider groups affected by an incident may take part. These approaches are particularly relevant when offending has harmed relationships within a family, school, workplace or neighbourhood.

Different points in the justice process. Restorative justice can occur before sentence, alongside a sentence or after sentence. For example, it may be used with a community disposal, during a custodial sentence or after release.

The variation is a strength because restorative justice can be adapted to individual needs. However, it also makes evaluation difficult because studies may be comparing programmes that differ greatly in intensity, participant selection and timing.

The Restorative Justice Council (RJC)

The Restorative Justice Council is a UK organisation that supports the development of safe, effective and high-quality restorative practice. It promotes restorative principles, provides professional standards and maintains registration frameworks for practitioners and service providers.

The RJC is important because restorative justice can involve vulnerable people and emotionally difficult conversations. Poorly facilitated contact could increase distress rather than repair harm. Therefore, professional standards are central to ethical practice.

Current RJC frameworks place emphasis on:

• appropriate training and knowledge;
• initial engagement with participants;
• risk and safety assessment;
• careful preparation;
• competent delivery of restorative practice;
• monitoring agreed outcomes;
• follow-up support and evaluation;
• supervision, continuing professional development and adherence to codes of practice.

The RJC’s codes also emphasise free and informed consent, impartial information, participant safety and the need for practitioners not to undertake complex cases beyond their competence.

Reflection question: If restorative justice gives victims more control and encourages offenders to take responsibility, should it be available for every type of offence, or are there circumstances where the risk of further harm is too great?

Why might restorative justice change offending behaviour?

Restorative justice may reduce reoffending through several psychological mechanisms.

First, it can challenge minimisation. An offender who tells themselves that “nobody was really hurt” may find that belief harder to maintain after hearing the victim describe fear, financial loss or long-term consequences.

Second, restorative justice may increase empathy. The victim becomes a real person rather than an abstract target. This may make future offending less psychologically easy to justify.

Third, it creates active accountability. The offender does not simply complete a sentence imposed by a court. They may have to explain themselves, apologise and carry out agreed reparation.

Finally, successful reparation may support reintegration. If an offender can recognise the harm, make amends and rebuild relationships, they may be more able to develop a prosocial identity.

Research evidence: Sherman and Strang (2007)

Researcher and year: Lawrence Sherman and Heather Strang, 2007.

Aim: To review the available evidence on restorative justice and assess its effects on victims, offenders and reoffending.

Procedure or method: Sherman and Strang reviewed a wide range of restorative justice research from the UK and other countries. The review considered studies of restorative conferences and related approaches, including outcomes such as repeat offending and victim experiences.

Findings: The review concluded that restorative justice frequently produced high victim satisfaction and could reduce repeat offending in a number of contexts. Benefits appeared particularly promising for some serious and violent offences, although effects were not identical across all programmes or offender groups.

Conclusion: Restorative justice can provide meaningful benefits beyond conventional criminal justice alone, but its effectiveness depends on the type of programme, the participants and the quality of implementation.

Research evidence: Shapland et al. (2008)

Researcher and year: Joanna Shapland and colleagues, 2008.

Aim: To evaluate whether restorative justice conferencing affected reconviction and to examine participants’ experiences within three UK restorative justice schemes.

Procedure or method: The researchers evaluated government-funded restorative justice schemes involving adult offenders. The programme included randomised comparisons in some parts of the evaluation and followed offenders after participation to examine subsequent offending. Victim experiences were also investigated across the wider evaluation programme.

Findings: The evaluation reported high victim satisfaction. Government summaries of the programme reported that restorative justice reduced the frequency of reoffending by about 14%, although effects on the simple likelihood of reconviction were less clear and some individual comparisons were not statistically significant.

Conclusion: Restorative justice may reduce the amount of subsequent offending and can produce positive victim outcomes, but it should not be interpreted as a guaranteed way to prevent every participant from reoffending.

Research evidence: Strang et al. (2013)

Researcher and year: Heather Strang, Lawrence Sherman, Evan Mayo-Wilson, Daniel Woods and Barak Ariel, 2013.

Aim: To systematically assess whether face-to-face restorative justice conferences reduce repeat offending and improve victim satisfaction compared with conventional criminal justice alone.

Procedure or method: The researchers conducted a systematic review of 10 eligible studies that compared restorative justice conferencing with standard criminal justice. The review focused on repeat offending and victim outcomes.

Findings: Across the included studies, offenders assigned to face-to-face restorative conferences committed significantly less subsequent crime on average. Victims were also more satisfied, more likely to receive an apology they regarded as sincere, less likely to want revenge and showed fewer post-traumatic stress symptoms.

Conclusion: Well-delivered face-to-face restorative conferencing can improve victim experiences and may reduce repeat offending, supporting the view that restorative justice can complement conventional justice.

Evaluation

Strengths

Restorative justice gives victims a more active role. A major strength is that the process responds to needs that conventional sentencing may overlook. Victims can explain the impact of the offence, ask questions and sometimes receive an apology or practical reparation. This matters because justice is not only about reducing reoffending; it is also about how people harmed by crime experience the response. Shapland’s evaluation and later systematic review evidence found high levels of victim satisfaction. Therefore, restorative justice has a broader measure of success than approaches that focus only on the offender.

There is evidence that restorative justice can reduce repeat offending. Shapland et al. reported a reduction in the frequency of reoffending across the evaluated schemes, while Strang et al.’s systematic review found significantly less subsequent offending among participants in face-to-face conferences than among comparison groups. This supports the claim that confronting the consequences of offending and making reparation may influence future behaviour. Therefore, restorative justice has potential value for rehabilitation as well as victim recovery.

The approach may tackle cognitive processes linked to offending. Restorative dialogue can challenge minimisation because offenders hear directly how their actions affected another person. It may also encourage empathy and personal responsibility. This creates a useful psychological link between explanations of offending and interventions. For example, an offender who previously justified theft as “victimless” may struggle to maintain that distortion after hearing how the victim became fearful or financially insecure. As a result, restorative justice may address thinking patterns that punishment alone leaves unchanged.

Restorative justice can be flexible and individualised. Programmes can use face-to-face conferences, indirect communication, letters, mediation or community-based approaches. This means practitioners can adapt the intervention to the needs and safety of participants. The RJC’s professional framework also recognises the importance of risk assessment, preparation and practitioner competence. Therefore, variation does not necessarily mean inconsistency; when properly governed, it can allow a more person-centred intervention.

Restorative justice can be cost-effective. Government evaluations have suggested that reductions in reoffending can generate savings for the criminal justice system. If an intervention lowers the frequency of future offences, the benefits extend beyond the individual case to policing, courts, prisons and victims who are not subsequently harmed. Therefore, even though high-quality restorative work requires trained staff and preparation time, it may still provide good value when it prevents further offending.

Weaknesses

Participation creates a self-selection problem. Restorative justice is normally voluntary, so offenders who agree to take part may already be more motivated to change, more remorseful or more cooperative than those who refuse. Similarly, victims who participate may differ from those who decline. This reduces the certainty that restorative justice itself caused better outcomes. Some randomised studies reduce this problem, but voluntary consent can never be removed entirely without undermining the restorative principle. Therefore, causal conclusions require caution.

Restorative justice may place emotional pressure on victims. A face-to-face meeting can be distressing, especially when offences involve severe harm, coercion or unequal power. A victim could feel pressure to forgive, accept an apology or agree to an outcome they do not genuinely want. This creates ethical concerns about psychological harm and informed consent. RJC standards address these risks through preparation, risk assessment and the right to withdraw, but safeguards cannot eliminate every possible negative experience. Therefore, restorative justice must remain victim-led rather than offender-centred.

The quality of programmes can vary. Restorative justice is an umbrella term rather than one standardised treatment. A brief letter exchange is very different from a carefully prepared conference involving trained facilitators and follow-up. This variation creates methodological problems because research may combine interventions that differ in content, timing and intensity. If outcomes vary, it can be difficult to know whether restorative justice itself is ineffective or whether a particular programme was poorly implemented. Therefore, conclusions should consider treatment fidelity and practitioner standards.

Evidence may not generalise equally across groups and cultures. Some restorative justice research has involved particular offender populations, legal systems and cultural contexts. Meta-analytic work has also included samples dominated by males and younger offenders. In addition, ideas about apology, shame, family involvement and community responsibility differ across cultures. As a result, findings may show sample bias or cultural bias if they are generalised too widely. Programmes should therefore adapt sensitively without assuming that one model suits every community. Earlier meta-analytic work, for example, contained samples heavily weighted towards young and male offenders.

There are limits to when restorative justice is appropriate. Some offenders deny responsibility, manipulate others or present a continuing risk. In cases involving domestic abuse, coercive control or severe power imbalance, direct contact can reproduce the dynamics of harm. Restorative justice may still be possible in carefully selected cases, but it requires specialist assessment and experienced practitioners. Therefore, it should not be presented as a universal alternative to custody or other protective measures.

Temporal validity and changing practice matter. Early restorative justice research helped establish the approach, but professional standards, safeguarding expectations and criminal justice policy have continued to develop. Findings from older programmes may not perfectly represent current practice. Conversely, older positive evidence should not be dismissed simply because it is older if the core psychological processes remain similar. Therefore, students should evaluate both the quality of the original evidence and how closely it matches modern restorative services.

---

Quick Questions

How does restorative justice change the emphasis of the response to crime?

It shifts the emphasis from punishment and the offence alone towards the harm caused, victim needs, offender responsibility and reparation.

Why is voluntary participation an important feature of restorative justice?

Participation must be freely chosen so that victims are not pressured and offenders genuinely engage with responsibility and reparation.

What is the role of a restorative justice facilitator?

The facilitator prepares participants, assesses risk, supports safe and impartial communication and helps monitor agreed outcomes.

Give two ways in which restorative justice programmes can vary.

Examples include face-to-face conferencing, victim-offender mediation, indirect or shuttle communication, written communication and community conferencing.

What is the role of the Restorative Justice Council?

The RJC promotes high-quality restorative practice and provides principles, professional standards, codes of practice and registration frameworks for practitioners and services.

---

Key Terms

Restorative justice: An approach that brings together people harmed by an offence and those responsible for it so they can communicate, repair harm and agree a constructive way forward.

Reparation: Action taken to repair, as far as possible, the harm caused by an offence. This may involve an apology, financial repayment, practical work or another agreed action.

Restitution: Returning or replacing something that was lost or damaged, or providing financial compensation.

Victim-offender mediation: A restorative process in which communication between the victim and offender is supported by a trained, impartial facilitator.

Restorative conference: A structured meeting involving the victim and offender and, where appropriate, supporters or members of the wider community.

Voluntary participation: The principle that nobody should be forced to take part in restorative justice and that consent can be withdrawn.

Active responsibility: The offender accepts responsibility for the harm caused and takes steps to repair it rather than simply receiving a punishment.

Facilitator: A trained, impartial practitioner who prepares participants, manages risk and supports safe communication.

Outcome agreement: A voluntary agreement setting out what the offender will do to repair harm or address the consequences of the offence.

Restorative Justice Council (RJC): The UK professional body that promotes high-quality restorative practice and publishes principles, registration frameworks and codes of practice for practitioners and services.