What is Restorative Justice?
Restorative Justice is a process to involve, to the extent possible, those who have a stake in a specific offense and to collectively identify and address harms, needs, and obligations, in order to heal and put things as right as possible. Instead of viewing a criminal act as simply a violation of a rule or statute, restorative justice sees this action as a violation of people and relationships. It is a philosophical approach to wrongdoing that focuses on the needs of the victim and the offender, as well as the involved community.
The framework operates on three core principles: identifying and addressing victims’ needs related to harm; holding offenders accountable to right those wrongs; and involving victims, offenders, and potentially the community in the restoration process. Retributive justice essentially refers to the repair of justice through unilateral imposition of punishment, whereas restorative justice means the repair of justice through reaffirming a shared value-consensus in a bilateral process.
Origins & lineage
Restorative justice as a field developed in the 1970s. The modern Western movement emerged from several converging concerns: the neglect and re-traumatization of crime victims, the ineffectiveness of punishment as accountability, and the exclusion of communities from justice processes. The Elmira Church Vandalism case of 1974 was a landmark case in the development of restorative justice and demonstrated the potential of restorative justice to address criminal behavior in a more humane and effective manner.
Howard Zehr, a criminologist and professor at Eastern Mennonite University, gave the movement its theoretical backbone. His 1990 book Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice is widely credited as the first work to systematically articulate a theory of restorative justice and contrast it with the retributive model. Widely known as “the grandfather of restorative justice,” Zehr began as a practitioner and theorist in restorative justice in the late 1970s at the foundational stage of the field. This practice continued to evolve through the development of Victim-Offender Reconciliation Programs (VORP) in Kitchener, Ontario in the late 1970s which was later adapted in Elkhart, Indiana.
The relationship between modern restorative justice and Indigenous practices is both significant and contested. The assertion that modern restorative justice conferences have Indigenous origins is a common belief and often references traditional Māori practices and First Nations’ circles. The link between restorative justice and Indigenous practices is frequently touted as a historical fact in many mainstream restorative justice resources. Nevertheless, while some Indigenous peoples themselves advocate this association, a more detailed reflection highlights the complexity of this purported lineage. While certain similarities do exist, and practices of Indigenous peoples have indeed inspired many contemporary practitioners, the idea that modern restorative justice is an extension of Indigenous traditions is contested by researchers employing a decolonising lens.
Restorative justice exhibits significant parallels with various Indigenous peoples’ practices and historical dispute resolution practices across the globe. To name a few, the southern African concept of Ubuntu and the Mi’kmaq First Nations’ focus on community restoration all emphasise interconnectedness and relationality.
How it’s practiced
Restorative justice practices take multiple forms, all centered on facilitated dialogue and accountability. Restorative justice practices such as circles of accountability, victim-offender dialogue, and victim-offender mediation became more widely used in criminal justice proceedings. These practices provide a space for victims and offenders to come together to discuss the offense and work towards a resolution.
Restorative circles, first used by Indigenous cultures, includes offenders and victims, as well as their family and community members. Facilitators direct conversations to repairing harm from offenders’ conduct and addressing victims’ needs. In circle processes, participants sit in a circle formation, often passing a talking piece that grants speaking authority. The circle creates physical and symbolic equality among participants.
One of the common procedures offered to victims is the possibility of exchanging their impressions with a mediator, in a program known as the Victim-Offender Mediation (VOM) program. Given the sensitive nature of the cases, the process consists initially of a set of individual encounters, where each party involved (i.e., victim or offender) attends an interview or meeting with a mediator to analyze the problem in depth.
Family group conferences involve a family in the decision-making process and restorative practices. Community reparative boards see community members interact with offenders to identify reparative actions, including community service, apologies, and restitution. The facilitator role is essential—trained practitioners create safe space, guide difficult conversations, and ensure voluntary participation while preventing domination by any party.
Offenders are provided opportunities and encouragement to understand the harm they have caused to victims and the community and to develop plans for taking appropriate responsibility. Voluntary participation by offenders is maximized; coercion and exclusion are minimized.
Restorative Justice today
Today, restorative justice is a key component of the criminal justice system in many countries. It is used in a variety of settings, including the court system, schools, and the community. The field has expanded far beyond criminal justice into education, workplace conflicts, and healthcare settings.
Restorative justice principles are increasingly being applied in non-criminal contexts, such as in schools, workplaces, and community disputes. This expansion reflects the growing recognition of restorative justice principles as a valuable tool for conflict resolution and relationship building across various sectors. The most used RP in school are circles (n = 26), followed by restorative conferences (n = 17), peer mediation (n = 10), restorative conversations (n = 8). RP can improve the school climate, discipline, positive conflict management through actions that aim at preventing suspensions, exclusions, conflicts, and misbehaviours (e.g., bullying).
One notable trend is the use of technology to facilitate virtual restorative justice processes, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Virtual platforms have enabled victims and offenders to engage in restorative dialogue remotely, expanding access to restorative justice for individuals who may not be able to participate in person.
Seeekers today can encounter restorative justice through community mediation centers, school-based programs, court-mandated diversion programs, and specialized training institutes. Organizations like the Zehr Institute for Restorative Justice at Eastern Mennonite University offer practitioner training, while local nonprofits implement community-based programs.
Common misconceptions
Restorative justice is not “soft on crime” or lenient on offenders. The restorative justice model insists that crime is much deeper than simply breaking a law. It is breaking relationships and shattering the lives of human beings and of the entire community. Justice therefore requires that these relationships be restored and that these lives be healed. That is not being “soft on crime.” That is being “tough on crime.” That is getting at the roots of crime.
It is not a replacement for all forms of criminal justice. In many cases, it is used as an alternative to traditional criminal justice in order to avoid the punitive costs of incarceration. Restorative justice requires genuine accountability—offenders must acknowledge harm, take responsibility, and make amends. This can be more demanding than passive acceptance of a sentence.
The framework is not universally Indigenous in origin, despite common claims. While drawing inspiration from diverse traditions including Māori, First Nations, and southern African practices, modern restorative justice emerged from 1970s Western reform movements and subsequent cross-cultural dialogue.
Restorative justice is not appropriate for all situations. It requires voluntary participation, relative power balance between parties, and genuine willingness to engage. Cases involving severe power imbalances, ongoing threats, or unwilling participants may not be suitable for restorative processes.
How to begin
For those new to restorative justice, Howard Zehr’s The Little Book of Restorative Justice (2002) provides an accessible introduction from the field’s most recognized theorist. The book concisely outlines principles, practices, and philosophical foundations.
Practical entry points include:
- Contact local community mediation centers to observe or participate in circle processes
- Explore school-based restorative practices programs if working in education
- Attend introductory trainings offered by organizations like the Zehr Institute for Restorative Justice or local restorative justice coalitions
- Read Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice by Howard Zehr for deeper theoretical grounding
- Volunteer with victim-offender reconciliation programs to understand the practice firsthand
- Investigate whether your local court system offers restorative diversion programs
Many communities have restorative justice practitioners who offer circle facilitation training. These multi-day intensives teach the listening skills, conflict de-escalation techniques, and cultural awareness necessary for effective facilitation. Meaningful engagement requires commitment to ongoing learning, cultural humility, and recognition that restorative processes demand different skills than conventional adversarial approaches.