“Privatizing conflicts”. Concerns with restorative justice

Table of content

Introduction 2

1 The appeal of restorative justice 3

2 Privatizing conflicts 5

2.1 Legal sphere concerns with privatizing conflicts 5

2.2 Feministic concerns with privatizing conflicts 8

3 Underexplored pitfalls 11

Conclusion 12

References 14

Introduction

This paper is written within the framework of the master course ‘Restorative Justice’. It aims to be an academic reflection on some of the concepts educated throughout these classes.[1]
The literature on restorative justice is extensive and therefore the case for it will not be made again here. Basic notions will not be repeated in this paper. The majority of criminologists already accept the letdown of the current criminal justice system on certain accounts; problems have been solidly exposed and opponents of restorative justice have been constantly defending the need for their rationale. Perceived advantages are well-known and have been documented soundly. But this work attempts to look beyond the reform minded and optimistic spirit that most of the restorative body of thought (rightfully) carries. Certain less obvious aspects of the theory might be underconceptualized, overlooked or taken for granted.
Taking the concern of some more critical authors that restorative justice processes ‘privatize’ conflicts as a starting point, it will be explored whether or not this privatizing potential actually poses a danger. Especially feministic authors have written about this angle and provide some important insights. By evaluating some of the arguments, it will then be decided what consequences it has in practice and concerning the logic of restorative justice theory and its concepts. Exploring and commenting on possible hiatuses is only going to contribute to the total strength and potential of a theory in the end.
The text is divided in three main parts. The first chapter looks into the rise of restorative justice literature and its appeal on various groups and scholars. Some room is reserved for reflection on the why of restorative justice’s popularity. In the second chapter, the actual subject of this paper is introduced. It is clarified what is meant by ‘privatization of conflicts’. The first part of this chapter briefly sets out some concerns that legal scholars prompt. The last part of this chapter sheds a light on concerns from the feministic corner. The last chapter of this paper takes the insights gained throughout the previous chapters and explores if implications can be drawn for the totality of the body of thought.

1 The appeal of restorative justice

One thing that can be said about the literature on restorative justice is that it is very broad and divers; every work seems to hold its own typical nuances and specifications. Sometimes it is compared with an ever expanding river.[2] It has also been described as an unfinished product with a variety of different and sometimes contrasting waves, inspirations and quarrels.[3] Authors inspired by restorative justice’s notions find themselves in a field where there is no theoretical unanimity about essential elements, goals, definitions, practice methods, appropriateness of certain cases and the relationship towards the criminal justice system[4]. Some authors define as process-based, others define outcome-based. Some question whether definitions might not hamper theoretical advancements all together. Authors with a maximalist approach long for a justice system that distances itself from the customs in the current criminal justice system. More moderate observers aspire an incorporation of more restorative notions within the current criminal justice system.
In other words, restorative justice cannot be comprehended as a single unambiguous concept or theory. There is some agreement on a few basic ideas and principles, although how these are concretely filled in can vary (see for instance Johnstone and Van Ness’ “encounter”, “reparative” and “transformation”[5] and ‘voluntariness’ of the parties to participate. However, with state power always lurking in the shadow, various theorists accept various degrees of voluntariness). This flexibility and these plural understandings can certainly be a positive attribute, realities are complex. But, as will be discussed later on, this flexibility can hold some perils as well.
To assign the enormous rise and unmistakable popularity of restorative justice literature to a single reason would be unwise. Proponents of all different schools of thought feel attracted towards the ideas due to a combination of reasons. A widespread, global implementation and reach of restorative practices in several forms accompanies this collective attraction[6]. Recent European legislative initiatives further prove the acceptance. But it is perhaps precisely because of the lack of theoretical harmony and sophistication, that very different kinds of authors feel that they can incorporate restorative justice thoughts within their characteristic rationales. It appeals to a range of authors, from criminal justice professionals to prison abolitionists and more critical-criminology-inspired authors. Since restorative justice is multi-faced and comprehensive, it can serve most of the traditional goals of punishment, like deterrence and crime reduction, rehabilitation or incapacitation[7]. Neo-liberalistic thinkers might commend the focus on ‘active’ responsibility of individuals[8]. Criminal justice professionals might see it as an effective, cost-cutting measure. The appeal for victim support groups might be in the emphasis on victim empowerment. This is not to say that restorative justice is an hollow concept that can be used by all people in all meanings. But it is a reminder of the task of criminologists: getting a grasp on the different meanings and developments of a popular idea in their field.[9]
A trait that many contemporary criminological writings have in common, is a dissatisfaction with the current criminal justice system, that is seen as impersonal, ignoring victims, making crimes abstract, and so on. In Christie’s famous words: The State “steals” conflicts.[10] So a part of the great appeal of restorative justice theory can be attributed to it’s construction as a promising alternative to the failing criminal justice system. The failure of the current system is probably nowhere more apparent than in cases of gendered violence. The inability to offer adequate solutions is obvious in the low prosecution rates, low conviction rates, and procedures that easily cause secondary victimization.[11] There will be elaborated on the specific subject matter of gendered in the second part of the next chapter.
It surely is interesting to reflect on how it was possible for restorative justice to emerge as such an accepted way of “doing justice”.[12] It becomes clear that restorative justice can rely on broad support. Support that also manifests itself in political and judicial branches, even though it can aim to dismantle, or at least seriously criticize, the current criminal justice system. The next chapter will focus more on the relationship between them both.

2 Privatizing conflicts

The previous chapter introduced restorative justice as the multi-faced and multi interpretable discourse that it is. The next chapter will shed a light on a consequence of conflict resolution conform the restorative logic, namely that parties in a conflict themselves, and depending on the chosen practice model, other stakeholders too, treat their own conflict. They of course will receive the care and assistance of a trained neutral third party during the process, but this is still far from the public aspect that is so typical in the traditional criminal procedure. Precisely this “giving back of the conflict to the parties” is understood as the strength of restorative justice processes, since this suits certain needs of victims and offenders better. However, some authors question this self-evidence and put forward some questions. In the next two parts, the apprehension is explicated. The first part quickly looks at some concerns from the legal sphere, the second part concerns the feministic approach towards the matter.

2.1 Legal sphere concerns with privatizing conflicts

At first, restorative justice practices were often only seen as an acceptable way of dealing with minor offences between parties.[13] It’s been a long discussion over time to accomplish the belief that perhaps more can be gained from including serious offences, particularly in terms of victim benefits and prevention.[14] It is striking to see however how instinctively matters that mostly concern private parties were, and in legal circles often still are, seen as most appropriate for diversion towards restorative justice practices. This seems like an evident logic, but it could be asked why that’s supposed to be. In the next paragraph, the relationship between the criminal justice system and restorative justice will be considered, “one of the prominent concerns both within and outside restorative justice”.[15] The following paragraph briefly discusses the privatization trend more generally. The last part under this section then talks about concerns that can be put forward relating to the privatizing character of restorative justice practices.

In general, victim-offender mediation is the most commonly used restorative model in Europe[16] (other restorative models are family group conferences and healing and sentencing circles). In most countries, restorative justice practices are available at a variety of stages throughout the criminal justice process. This means the possibility of pre-court diversion, the possibility of conjunction with the criminal justice process (including at sentencing point), and the possibility of post sentencing practices in a prison-setting. The regulation of availability during all stages is included in the Council of Europe’s Recommendation No. R (99) 19 of the Committee of Ministers to member States concerning mediation in penal matters. Although the autonomy of mediation in the criminal justice system is also incorporated as a principle in this Recommendation[17], the matter is not as uncomplicated as it may seem. While it is articulated as a complaint against the criminal justice system, practices still largely are regulated by and shaped within this system. Some authors construct restorative justice as a paradigm shift, but in the vision lies a paradox: “the impulse to be both alternative and appendage” to state-based justice.[18] Programmes depend largely on the state for funding.[19] The fear that the judicial agencies with their own rationales and power might undermine or alter the restorative aims and logic is not entirely groundless. For this reason, some theorists have argued for completely separating the systems. It’s difficult however to envisage how two independent parallel systems would co-exist without interference, the influencing of each other in their tasks cannot be avoided.[20] And in the end, fact is that in most countries the intermingling of both is reality. Currently, restorative justice programmes depend on police sources to trace offenders, prosecutors and judges to refer cases, judges to sentence offenders who didn’t come to agreements, aren’t suitable for restorative processes or need additional sentencing and, prison systems when still incapacitation cannot be avoided.

Clearly, the role of the state in matters of criminal justice is changing. With the acceptance of restorative justice, there clearly is an outsourcing and delegation of functions going on that are normally performed by the state and are deemed to be public. There was a time where the ‘public interest’ in prosecuting crime was of most and undiscussable importance, which implies that it is in the public interest, not merely the victim’s interest, that those who commit a breach against the law are liable to punishment.[21] The phenomenon of outsourcing can be described as (partial) ‘privatization’.[22] This does not mean that the government cedes it’s responsibility however. Usually, the term refers to outsourcing to private companies. For instance in the United States it is not uncommon to appoint private contractors to fulfill some private police tasks or to work with private prisons. There is also a tradition to organize mediation and circle services within communities. This is not entirely the case for restorative justice. In Europe, the appointed bodies offering restorative services are often public bodies or a combination of private and public bodies. Some of these bodies only specialize in mediation, like in Denmark and the Czech Republic. In Greece, restorative justice programmes are offered trough the probation service. In other countries, the organization of restorative programmes lies with NGO’s, like it is the case in France. Other countries like Austria and Germany work with private bodies. In some countries, private individual mediators are appointed.[23] Still, the government appoints other parallel bodies than the traditional criminal justice system with a compound of its tasks. The amenability towards privatization is not a decisive critique in itself, as other bodies might possibly be a better provider. Amongst other reasons, because of the level of specialization and parties might entrust them better because of the relative distance from the state.[24] But are there dangers lurking as well? The following paragraph describes three concerns.

A first concern is the possibility that “the development of common law might be stunned and that important information may be kept from the public”.[25] “The role of the courts in establishing norms of behavior, the importance of transparency of laws in a participatory democracy, the public interest in the denunciation of criminals, and the therapeutic effect of airing disputes in a public form are also reasons asserted for keeping disputes within the public system”.[26] A second issue is the availability of recourses. When restorative justices are organized in other bodies, they are still depending on the state for funding.[27] This in term is subject to political goodwill and the availability of recourses at a given moment. A last type of apprehensions are concerns around human rights. It is feared that “the due-process safeguards for rights, equality and proportionality might be lost”.[28] But it can be argued that since the state has an important role in funding, it has leverage to ensure that mechanisms of accountability and transparency are installed.[29] Still, the formal guarantees of procedural fairness that courts provide are superior and the assumption of innocence is better preserved.[30]

2.2 Feministic concerns with privatizing conflicts

There are two parts to privatization: implications for the state and the organization of justice, and implications for parties undergoing restorative processes. The first kind of implications were largely described in the above section. The latter plays right into the field of feminists, which will be explained more in depth in this section. Restorative justice makes the relationship between victim and offender central again without the direct interference of the criminal justice system during the restorative process, in stead of a central relationship between offender and state like in the criminal justice system. The benefits of this shift have been evidently demonstrated in the literature. However, especially sexual (and racial) violence that pose difficulties to the restorative logic; two reasons why restorative justice can potentially be harmful will be further explicated.

First, power relationships are different in domestic, sexual and racial crime than in typical ‘economical’ offences. It is feared that restorative processes “reinforce power balances in relationships, rather than confronting the offender with the power of the state acting on behalf of the victim”. [31] Restorative justice is challenged to provide protection for victims and balancing power inequalities in relationships. For example, some restorative models use the community to treat domestic conflicts, however communities are often not capable to oppose to this behavior, and sometimes they are even the main support for male control over woman.[32] This means that restorative justice is challenged to change social attitudes from tolerance to disapproval.

Secondly, restorative justice theorists “presume an unproblematized distinction between public and private life”.[33] To clearly explain this, first must be looked at criminal law. It reflects a dominant white, affluent, adult and male subjectivity. This becomes most clear in the failure to protect women and racial minorities from crimes against them based on gender or ethnicity, and the discrimination and/or overpenalization based on the degree removed from the characteristics of white masculinity. [34] For example in sexual violence cases, woman must be seen as “ideal victims”[35] before their claims are believed and offenders sentenced; they must for instance not have provoked the offender in any way. Especially in cases of violence against woman, failings of the criminal justice system are well documented. Think about obsolete judicial attitudes, humiliating and intrusive interrogation of victims and the preference to allocate sources to cases that are more easily provable and where victims will less likely drop charges out of fear.[36] Because of criminal justice’s tendency to focus on what concerns white men, justice has not extended to the private sphere of home and family. This is in stereotypical sexist views the domain of the woman and interference it this sphere is seen as not appropriate[37]. Exactly this is why woman’s movements have resolutely battled for the past decades to establish violence against woman as a public crime.[38] The state’s condemnation as a sort of moral education is also of great symbolic value, as it reestablishes the societal norms and values again. But “restorative justice measures remove disputes from the public forum of the courtroom and into private conferencing often with guarantees of confidentiality”[39] and “private mechanisms may distort public perceptions of occurrences of violence”.[40] Nevertheless, considering the traumatizing potential courtrooms can have on victims of this type of violence, their interest should always be carefully weighed against the public interest in having it publicly recognized. “Women who find the courage to report and demand prosecution of the offender should be granted the right to prosecution leading to a criminal trial, alongside mediation or conferencing. A combination of trial and a restorative approach for victims who desire for it, could be a good measure of control against secondary victimization”[41]

The discussion on the appropriateness of cases of sexual violence for restorative justice will be a continued debate. Feministic and/or especially critical criminology’s ways of thinking can make other undertheorized aspects of restorative justice rise to the surface. An incentive to this will be the topic of the last chapter.

3 Underexplored pitfalls

There are a few issues in restorative justice that effortlessly pass through any critical reflection. But even if certain concept may seem very evident, sometimes they preserve covert meanings, or can be exploited by covert discourses to justify themselves. Because the room for discussion in this paper is limited, only two examples, but two distinct ones, will be treated next.

Feminists have exposed how state action is delayed in matters of violence and coercion in domestic context because of a public/private ideology that makes patriarchal families appear natural and inevitable.[42] Yet, as other critical feministic criminologists have pointed out, this analysis is incomplete. The male whiteness of criminal law has already been described, and makes that “the lives of poor women and women of colour are in fact under-privatized, they need privacy in other words.”[43] For instance, disproportionate numbers of children from poor (African-American) women are placed in the US foster care system because of suspicion about their abilities as mothers.[44] “The ways in which the state operates to control and disempower poor woman and woman of colour illustrates the value of restorative justice concerns with the state ‘stealing conflict’ from the community. Given a choice between the privatizing problems of community control versus the oppressive intervention of the state, some women will choose the former.”[45]

Another good example is ‘empowerment’, a concept that is often used but rarely put into question or reflect upon, although it is regularly used to justify restorative justice practices. Perhaps the reason why it is so easily accepted and rarely challenged is because it seems apolitical, all parties are deemed in need of ‘empowerment’. One of the perceived failures of the criminal justice system is that parties cannot be active participators in the resolution of their own conflict.[46] Also in cases of violence against woman, restorative justice is praised because its procedures make less woman feel like it is a continuation of the powerless and passive position the offender already but them in.[47] The procedures demand an active engagement of all the parties, which is supposed to be beneficiary to them. But the danger is that by constructing participants as ‘active bodies’, they become more susceptible to governance and responsibilisation, even if this is not restorative justice’s intent. This again holds consequences for especially marginalized families and individuals that aren’t affluent white males, because when they “resist empowerment”, they again will be further criminalized.

It becomes apparent that a pitfall of restorative justice might be that while working in the criminal justice system, it “fail[s] to challenge exclusionary processes of criminalization”[48]

Conclusion

This paper has mainly focused on dangers and concerns around restorative justice, because in my opinion, its potential is evident and does not need to be demonstrated again. In the past decades, restorative justice has known an enormous rise of literature and there has been a worldwide implementation of restorative practices. Part of its success lies in the fact that it can answer to some of the failings within the tradition criminal justice system. The fact that restorative practices ‘privatize’ conflicts again, out of the public eye of courtrooms, makes that victims and offenders can be the owner of their own conflicts again. Another part of its success lies in the flexibility of the theory and the appeal to thinkers of all different rationales. But since restorative justice practices are always shaped within the criminal justice system, it should be careful that this system will not use restorative discourses to counter its own legitimacy crisis. “Restorative justice must engage with political action directed at state inequalities; it must engage the state rather than ignore the state”.[49] Feministic and critical criminologists have shown that the privatizing characteristic of restorative justice might hold some dangers. The most important concern being that restorative justice could become, without intending to, “another penal strategy for those who are deserving, while the ‘undeserving’ poor, marginalized, homeless and non-white populations are left out.”[50]
While it was alright for restorative justice theory to just characterize itself as an alternative to legal justice in the early days, the need for explicating it’s grounds and internal contradictions grows.[51] Restorative justice theory will only become stronger if it would explore its taken for granted concepts more.

References

AERTSEN, I., ROBERT, M., PELIKAN, C., WILLEMSENS, J. & WRIGHT, M., “Rebuilding community connections – mediation and restorative justice in Europe”, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, 2004.

ASWORTH, A., “Responsibilities, rights and restorative justice”, Britisch Journal of Criminology, 42, 2002, 587-595.

BRAITHWAITE, J., “Assessing optimistic and pessimistic accounts”, in: TONRY, M., Crime and justice: A review of research, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1999, 1-127.

CHRISTIE, N., “Conflicts as Property”, British Journal of Criminology, 17, 1977, 1-15.

CHRISTIE, N., “The ideal victim” in: FATTAH, E., A. (eds.) From crime policy to victim policy: Reorienting the justice system, 1986.

COKER, D., “Transformative justice: anti-subordination processes in cases of domestic violence” in: STRANG, H., BRAITHWAITE, J. (eds.) Restorative justice & Family violence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002, 128-152.

CUNNEEN, C., “Understanding restorative justice trough the lens of critical criminology”, in: University of New South Wales Faculty of Law Research Series, 20, 2008, 290 – 302.

DIGNAN, J., Understanding victims and restorative justice. Open University Press, 2005.

DOBASH, R., E., & DOBASH, R., P., Woman, violence and social change, Routledge, New York.

ELIAERTS, C., & BITOUNE, R., “Herstelrecht voor minderjarigen. Theorie en praktijk”, in: DUPONT, L., & HUTSEBAUT, F., Herstelrecht tussen toekomst en verleden, Universitaire Pers Leuven, 2001, 225-245.

FAIRFAX, R., A., “Outsourcing criminal prosecution? The limits of criminal justice privatization”, GWU Legal Studies Research Paper 541, University of Chicago Legal Forum, 2010.

HUDSON, B., “Restorative justice: the callenge of sexual and racial violence”, Journal of Law and Society, 25, 2, 1998, 237-256.

JANTZI, V., ‘What is the role of the state in restorative justice programmes?’ ’ in ZEHR, H. & TOEWS, B., Critical Issues in Restorative Justice, Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, New York en Willan Publishing, Cullompton, Devon, 2004.

JOHNSTONE, G., & VAN NESS, D., W., Handbook of Restorative Justice, Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing, 2007.

KELLY, A.,K., “Working together to stop domestic violence: State-community partnerships and the changing meaning of public and private”, Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 31, 1, 2004, 27-47.

MARSHALL, T., F., “Restorative justice, an overview”, A report by the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate, 1999.

MIERS, D., & WILLEMSENS, J., Mapping restorative justice. Developments in 25 European countries. European forum for victim-offender mediation and restorative justice, Leuven, 2004.

PALI, B., & MADSEN, K.,S., “Dangerous liaisons?: A feminist and restorative approach to sexual assault”, TEMIDA, Journal of the Victimology Society of Serbia, 2011.

PAVLICH, G., C., “Critical policy anaysis, power and Restorative Justice”, Criminal Justice matters, 75, 1, 2009, 24-25.

PAVLICH, G., C., Governing paradoxes of Restorative Justice, GlassHouse Press, London, 2005.

RICHARDS, K., “Restorative justice and “empowerment”: producing and governing active subjects trough “empowering” practices”, Critical Criminology, 19, 2011, 91-105.

ROBERTS, D., E., “Punishing drug addicts who have babies: women of color, equality, and the right of privacy”, Harvard Legal Review, 104, 1991.

ROACH, K., “Changing punishment at the turn of the century: Restorative justice on the rise”, Canadian Journal of Criminology, 2000, 249-280

SCHROEDER, A., “Mediating sexual assault: justice for victims within and beyond the criminal justice system”, Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba, 2005.

SIMMONS, R., “Private criminal justice”, Wake Forest Law Review, 42, 944-990, 2007

VAN NESS, D., “An overview of restorative justice around the world”, in: Paper presented to the Eleventh United Nations Congress on crime prevention and criminal Justice, Bangkok, Thailand.

WALGRAVE, L., “Restorative Justice: an alternative for responding to crime?”, in: SHOHAM, S., G., & BECK, O., International handbook of penology and criminal justice. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2008.

WALGRAVE, L., “Restorative Justice: an alternative for responding to crime?”, in: SHOHAM, S., G., & BECK, O., International handbook of penology and criminal justice. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2008.

ZEHR, H., & TOEWS, B., Critical Issues in Restorative Justice, Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, New York and Willan Publishing, Cullompton, Devon, 2004.

ZEHR, H., The Little Book of Restorative Justice. Intercourse, PA, USA Good Books, 2002.
-----------------------
[1] I would like to express my firm believe in the need for a restorative approach. However, in this paper, it is attempted to maintain a critical outlook on some of its concepts and aspects.
[2] ZEHR, H., The Little Book of Restorative Justice. Intercourse, PA, USA Good Books, 2002.
[3]WALGRAVE, L., “Restorative Justice: an alternative for responding to crime?”, in: SHOHAM, S., G., & BECK, O., International handbook of penology and criminal justice. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2008.
[4] ELIAERTS, C., & BITOUNE, R., “Herstelrecht voor minderjarigen. Theorie en praktijk”, in: DUPONT, L., & HUTSEBAUT, F., Herstelrecht tussen toekomst en verleden, Universitaire Pers Leuven, 2001, 225-245.
[5] JOHNSTONE, G., & VAN NESS, D., W., Handbook of Restorative Justice, Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing, 2007.
[6] VAN NESS, D., “An overview of restorative justice around the world”, in: Paper presented to the Eleventh United Nations Congress on crime prevention and criminal Justice, Bangkok, Thailand.
[7] BRAITHWAITE, J., “Assessing optimistic and pessimistic accounts”, in: TONRY, M., Crime and justice: A review of research, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1999, 1-127.
[8] CUNNEEN, C., “Understanding restorative justice trough the lens of critical criminology”, in: University of New South Wales Faculty of Law Research Series, 20, 2008, 290 – 302.
[9] ROACH, K., “Changing punishment at the turn of the century: Restorative justice on the rise”, Canadian Journal of Criminology, 2000, 249-280.
[10] CHRISTIE, N., “Conflicts as Property”, British Journal of Criminology, 17, 1977, 1-15.
[11] DOBASH, R., E., & DOBASH, R., P., Woman, violence and social change, Routledge, New York.
[12] RICHARDS, K., “Restorative justice and “empowerment”: producing and governing active subjects trough “empowering” practices”, Critical Criminology, 19, 2011, 91-105.
[13] WALGRAVE, L., “Restorative Justice: an alternative for responding to crime?”, in: SHOHAM, S., G., & BECK, O., International handbook of penology and criminal justice. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2008.
[14] MARSHALL, T., F., “Restorative justice, an overview”, A report by the Home Office
Research Development and Statistics Directorate, 1999.
[15] MARSHALL, T., F., “Restorative justice, an overview”, A report by the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate, 1999.
[16] ZEHR, H., & TOEWS, B., Critical Issues in Restorative Justice, Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, New York and Willan Publishing, Cullompton, Devon, 2004.
[17] AERTSEN, I., ROBERT, M., PELIKAN, C., WILLEMSENS, J. & WRIGHT, M., “Rebuilding community connections – mediation and restorative justice in Europe”, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, 2004.
[18] PAVLICH, G., C., “Critical policy anaysis, power and Restorative Justice”, Criminal Justice matters, 75, 1, 2009, 24-25.
PAVLICH, G., C., Governing paradoxes of Restorative Justice, GlassHouse Press, London, 2005.
[19] JANTZI, V., ‘What is the role of the state in restorative justice programmes?’ ’ in ZEHR, H. & TOEWS, B., Critical Issues in Restorative Justice, Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, New York en Willan Publishing, Cullompton, Devon, 2004.
[20] SIMMONS, R., “Private criminal justice”, Wake Forest Law Review, 42, 944-990, 2007.
[21] ASWORTH, A., “Responsibilities, rights and restorative justice”, Britisch Journal of Criminology, 42, 2002, 587-595.
[22] FAIRFAX, R., A., “Outsourcing criminal prosecution? The limits of criminal justice privatization”, GWU Legal Studies Research Paper 541, University of Chicago Legal Forum, 2010.
[23] MIERS, D., & WILLEMSENS, J., Mapping restorative justice. Developments in 25 European countries. European forum for victim-offender mediation and restorative justice, Leuven, 2004.
[24] ROACH, K., “Changing punishment at the turn of the century: Restorative justice on the rise”, Canadian Journal of Criminology, 2000, 249-280.
[25] WEINSTEIN, J., “Some benefits and risks of privatization of justice trough ADR”, 11 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 241, 1996.
[26] WEINSTEIN, J., “Some benefits and risks of privatization of justice trough ADR”, 11 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 241, 1996. As paraphrased in: SCHROEDER, A., “Mediating sexual assault: justice for victims within and beyond the criminal justice system”, Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba, 2005.
[27] SIMMONS, R., “Private criminal justice”, Wake Forest Law Review, 42, 944-990, 2007
[28] MARSHALL, T., F., “Restorative justice, an overview”, A report by the Home Office
Research Development and Statistics Directorate, 1999.
[29] ROACH, K., “Changing punishment at the turn of the century: Restorative justice on the rise”, Canadian Journal of Criminology, 2000, 249-280
[30] MARSHALL, T., F., “Restorative justice, an overview”, A report by the Home Office
Research Development and Statistics Directorate, 1999.
[31] HUDSON, B., “Restorative justice: the callenge of sexual and racial violence”, Journal of Law and Society, 25, 2, 1998, 237-256.
[32] COKER, D., “Transformative justice: anti-subordination processes in cases of domestic violence” in: STRANG, H., BRAITHWAITE, J. (eds.) Restorative justice & Family violence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002, 128-152.
[33] COKER, D., “Transformative justice: anti-subordination processes in cases of domestic violence” in: STRANG, H., BRAITHWAITE, J. (eds.) Restorative justice & Family violence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002, 128-152.
[34] HUDSON, B., “Beyond white man’s justice. Race, gender and justice in late modernity”, Theoretical Criminology, 10, 1, 2006, 29-47.
[35] CHRISTIE, N., “The ideal victim” in: FATTAH, E., A. (eds.) From crime policy to victim policy: Reorienting the justice system, 1986.
[36] HUDSON, B., “Restorative justice: the callenge of sexual and racial violence”, Journal of Law and Society, 25, 2, 1998, 237-256.
[37] KELLY, A.,K., “Working together to stop domestic violence: State-community partnerships and the changing meaning of public and private”, Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 31, 1, 2004, 27-47.
[38] PALI, B., & MADSEN, K.,S., “Dangerous liaisons?: A feminist and restorative approach to sexual assault”, TEMIDA, Journal of the Victimology Society of Serbia, 2011.
[39] SCHROEDER, A., “Mediating sexual assault: justice for victims within and beyond the criminal justice system”, Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba, 2005.
[40] SCHROEDER, A., “Mediating sexual assault: justice for victims within and beyond the criminal justice system”, Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba, 2005.
[41] PALI, B., & MADSEN, K.,S., “Dangerous liaisons?: A feminist and restorative approach to sexual assault”, TEMIDA, Journal of the Victimology Society of Serbia, 2011.
[42] COKER, D., “Transformative justice: anti-subordination processes in cases of domestic violence” in: STRANG, H., BRAITHWAITE, J. (eds.) Restorative justice & Family violence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002, 128-152.
[43] ROBERTS, D., E., “Punishing drug addicts who have babies: women of color, equality, and the right of privacy”, Harvard Legal Review, 104, 1991.
[44] ROBERTS, D., E., “Punishing drug addicts who have babies: women of color, equality, and the right of privacy”, Harvard Legal Review, 104, 1991.
[45] COKER, D., “Transformative justice: anti-subordination processes in cases of domestic violence” in: STRANG, H., BRAITHWAITE, J. (eds.) Restorative justice & Family violence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002, 128-152.
[46] RICHARDS, K., “Restorative justice and “empowerment”: producing and governing active subjects trough “empowering” practices”, Critical Criminology, 19, 2011, 91-105.
[47] [48] PALI, B., & MADSEN, K.,S., “Dangerous liaisons?: A feminist and restorative approach to sexual assault”, TEMIDA, Journal of the Victimology Society of Serbia, 2011.
[49] CUNNEEN, C., “Understanding restorative justice trough the lens of critical criminology”, in: University of New South Wales Faculty of Law Research Series, 20, 2008, 290 – 302.
[50] COKER, D., “Transformative justice: anti-subordination processes in cases of domestic violence” in: STRANG, H., BRAITHWAITE, J. (eds.) Restorative justice & Family violence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002, 128-152.
[51] CUNNEEN, C., “Understanding restorative justice trough the lens of critical criminology”, in: University of New South Wales Faculty of Law Research Series, 20, 2008, 290 – 302.
[52] DIGNAN, J., Understanding victims and restorative justice. Open University Press, 2005.

-----------------------

Faculteit Rechtsgeleerdheid

Restorative Justice

Academiejaar 2011 - 2012