Beyond Restorative Justice-Zwelethemba, a Future-Focused Model of Local Capacity Conflict Resolution

In : Mackay, R., Bošnjak, M., Deklerck, J., Pelikan, C., van Stokkom, B., & Wright, M. Eds. Images of Restorative Justice Theory, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, Verlag für Polizeiwissenschaft, 16-34, (2007)

20 Pages Posted: 6 Apr 2016

See all articles by Jan Froestad

Jan Froestad

Bergen University College

Clifford Shearing

Griffith Institute of Criminology; University of Cape Town; University of Montreal, School of Criminology; University of New South Wales

Date Written: 2007

Abstract

During the 1990s many countries around the world introduced statutory measures more supportive of restorative justice and restorative programmes received greater recognition by the formal justice system. Internationally, the restorative movement was widely acknowledged. With recognition it moved in many countries from the margins to the mainstream of criminal justice. As this process occurred many scholars became concerned with the need to specify core restorative values. An important mo- tivation for this was the fear of a corruption of restorative justice by the logic of pun- ishment (Crawford and Newburn, 2003). John Braithwaite (2002) was one of many scholars who now placed greater emphasis on the need to explicate the value base of restorative justice. He argued that the long list of values which restorative justice pro- moted were united by their emphasis on greater community self-determination, inclu- sion rather than exclusion, a focus on a better future rather than on guilt and retribu- tion and an experience that justice has been done. His analysis was helpful in distin- guishing between core and less significant values and desired outcomes. He placed ‘re- spectful dialogue’ (2002, 14-15) – a value that resonates with what he conceives as the key republican value of ‘non-domination’ – at the core of restorative justice, and val- ues such as forgiveness, mercy and remorse as values that, while not appropriate for direct pursuit, might be indirectly realised. He argued further that in thinking about how to realise values and objectives one should distinguish between values them- selves and the processes for realising them.

This distinction opens up conceptual space that enables one to explore how re- storative values may be realised differently in distinguishing between how these values are actualised in different places, both within criminal or restorative justice, and po- tentially within or across other fields, or nodes. Uncoupling values from processes al- lows one to scrutinise both the extent to which restorative (or punitive) values are re- alised within various ‘restorative’ programmes, and the extent to which other practic- es, which have not hitherto been regarded as ‘restorative’, might give expression to these values.

Suggested Citation

Froestad, Jan and Shearing, Clifford D, Beyond Restorative Justice-Zwelethemba, a Future-Focused Model of Local Capacity Conflict Resolution (2007). In : Mackay, R., Bošnjak, M., Deklerck, J., Pelikan, C., van Stokkom, B., & Wright, M. Eds. Images of Restorative Justice Theory, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, Verlag für Polizeiwissenschaft, 16-34, (2007), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2758279

Jan Froestad

Bergen University College ( email )

P.O. Box 7030
N-5020 Bergen
Norway

Clifford D Shearing (Contact Author)

Griffith Institute of Criminology ( email )

170 Kessels Road
Nathan, Queensland QLD 4111
Australia

HOME PAGE: http://https://experts.griffith.edu.au/academic/c.shearing

University of Cape Town ( email )

Private Bag X3
Rondebosch, Western Cape 7701
South Africa

HOME PAGE: http://www.publiclaw.uct.ac.za/pbl/staff/cshearing

University of Montreal, School of Criminology ( email )

C.P. 6128 succursale Centre-ville
Montreal, Quebec H3C 3J7
Canada

University of New South Wales ( email )

Sydney
Australia

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
30
Abstract Views
394
PlumX Metrics