FIGURE 1 - uploaded by Shannon Sliva
Content may be subject to copyright.
Map of states with statutory support for restorative justice by census region.
Source publication
Restorative justice is a relatively new approach to crime response, developing in the U.S. since the 1970s. Over the past three decades, these practices have been incorporated into legislation. Using content analysis of statutes in state criminal and juvenile codes, this study asks how restorative justice has been translated into law. The authors f...
Context in source publication
Similar publications
Purpose
Despite the existence of minimum age laws for juvenile justice jurisdiction in 18 US states, California has no explicit law that protects children (i.e. youth less than 12 years old) from being processed in the juvenile justice system. In the absence of a minimum age law, California lags behind other states and international practice and st...
The article assays on overcrowding prison and its presence in the United Nation’s sustainable development to the 2015-2030 period. There will be indicated the international documents and resolutions adopted by the United Nations, focusing on the abusive detention and the demands to the improvement of criminal justice system. Amongst the instruments...
In the course of the 16th-century, after centuries of preparation, criminal law obtained the status of an autonomous subject: though still rarely studied at the academic level, the subject experienced an extraordinary development in practice. This was the golden age of criminal proceedings, which followed the evolution of trials step by step, even...
Citations
... The most recurring and important principle of restorative justice is accepting accountability and repairing harms (Table 1).Restorative justice focuses on repairing harm which crime causes to individuals, relationships and society by attempting to heal the victims and assisting to rehabilitate and reintegrate the offenders (Sliva & Lambert, 2015;Council of Europe, 2018). ...
... Restorative justice must be concerned and committed to the needs of the victims, offenders, and the community (Beck, Kropf, & Leonard, 2011:42;Braithwaite, 2002:567;2003:10;Das et al., 2019:355). The needs mainly include the restoration of the victims, offenders, and community by attempting to heal the victim, assisting to rehabilitate and reintegrate the offender and contributing to building and maintaining peace in the community (Aitchison, 2020:7;Sliva & Lambert, 2015). The most crucial characteristic of the restorative justice process is that it empowers the key stakeholders to make and complete a decision to their satisfaction in order to repair the harm. ...
Due to the absence of a universally accepted definition, process, or
theory of restorative justice, the principles and values-based
approach to restorative justice is highly recognised by proponents
as pivotal in its practice in criminal settings. Praxis in the name of
restorative justice might not be restorative and may even be
destructive if an appropriate set of principles and values compatible
with its ethos are not effectively maintained. These principles and
values, however, are still fuzzy and vaguely identified. This study
comprises a content analysis of texts to identify the most common
principles and values of restorative justice and focuses on analysing
the most frequently recurring principles and values aligned to
strategies for implementing restorative justice in practice. It found
a total of 21 restorative justice principles and 32 values from the
selected 51 texts. Among them, nine principles and six values which
frequently and consistently recurred in the literature suggest
a clearer approach to best practice.
... While it is difficult to estimate the prevalence of victim offender dialogues, over a decade ago, M. S. Umbreit et al. (2004) counted more than 300 programs in the U.S., collectively serving thousands of cases each year, and many more around the globe. Trends in legislative adoptions supporting victim offender mediation and other restorative justice practices suggest that use of restorative approaches continues to grow (González, 2020;Sliva & Lambert, 2015). ...
This study examines the impact of Victim Offender Dialogue (VOD) on victims and survivors of violent crime. We apply a mixed methods approach to compare the experiences of survivors participating in VOD with a group of survivors who chose not to participate at three points in time. The analysis uses validated psychometric measures as well as in-depth qualitative interviews to understand the effects of VOD on victim participants’ mental health and trauma appraisals and on their satisfaction with the justice process. In this study, victim participants of VOD experienced less fear and less anger after the dialogue, as well as fewer symptoms of PTSD and depression. Further, the changes experienced by the treatment group were more significant than those in the comparison group over a similar period of time. We discuss implications for access to restorative encounters within or alongside the criminal legal process.
... Researchers then employed an explanatory sequential design to assess the legal provisions identified (see Bachman & Schutt, 2019;Sliva & Lambert, 2015). This design involves applying a quantitative content analysis approach to initially explore how many states included specific language related to restorative justice in their juvenile and public educational statutes, followed by qualitative content analytical techniques to identify common themes in the selected legal provisions. ...
Restorative justice practices are popular alternatives for youth conflict resolutions in the juvenile justice system and in schools. However, we do not know the extent to which states have formalized the use of restorative justice. This study reviews state legislation to identify whether restorative justice has been codified in juvenile justice and public education statutes. Through a content analysis of relevant statutory provisions, we find considerable variation in how restorative justice is defined and implemented in the juvenile justice and public‐school systems. We conclude with policy implications aimed at standardizing the understanding and application of restorative justice.
... In the United States, there is no federal legislation around restorative justice, but there are different laws and rules that vary from state to state. In Indiana, there are three statutes, and restorative justice is available diversionary/ pre-trial, as intermediate sanction, and also post-sentencing (Sliva & Lambert, 2015). It is recommended for the juvenile population but is also available for the general population. ...
Restorative justice practices are used in a wide array of criminal offence cases globally as it puts the need of victims and the community at the centre of the proceedings and focuses on repair and rehabilitation rather than judgement and punishment.
This study focuses on the different experiences of mediators in Hungary and in Bloomington, Indiana, United States. Two local government offices in Hungary and a non-profit organization, called Community Justice and Mediation Center (CJAM) were selected for this study. Six Hungarian and five American mediators from the local government offices and CJAM were interviewed in person and online.
Analyzing the interviews, we find that there are fundamental differences between the definitions, legislation, and the practices used in the two jurisdictions. The training of mediators is found to be similar in both countries but the way restorative practices are used is different. The system in Bloomington allows the process to be more flexible whilst in Hungary, the high caseloads and strict timeframes of the prosecutor’s office demand that cases be very quick and efficient. This is likely the reason why at CJAM, co-mediation is the norm, with at least two but sometimes three or four facilitators working on a case, while in Hungary co-mediation only happens in the most complex cases.
However, it is apparent that the goal of mediation and restorative justice meetings is the same in both Hungary and Bloomington: to repair the harms and to help build a better community.
... The overall growth and availability of RJ in most countries has depended in large part on its integration within youth and adult justice systems. While legislation directing the use of RJ remains less common, legislation allowing for the use of RJ at national, state, or municipal levels has grown significantly in the last three decades (Gavrielides, 2016;Larsen, 2014;Sliva & Lambert, 2015;Tomporowski, 2014). Many jurisdictions have also implemented RJ as part of diversionary or victim-service programs, even in cases where they may be no existing directive legislation. ...
Restorative justice is an innovative justice response to crime and offending that takes many forms such as victim-offender meetings, family group conferencing and youth justice conferencing, and sentencing or peacemaking circles. While restorative practices are used in a wide variety of contexts such as schools and workplaces to respond to and resolve conflict, restorative justice practices are predominantly used within criminal and youth justice. Key goals of restorative justice include (a) meeting victim needs of participation in justice processes and redress for harms caused to them, (b) asking wrongdoers to be accountable and actively responsible for making amends to victims and other they have harmed, and (c) involving primary and community stakeholders in restorative practices that repair harms to victims, promote offender reintegration, and enhance community safety and well-being. Existing research shows that restorative justice consistently meets most of these goals better than conventional court practices. However, restorative justice also appears to work better in some cases than in others, and also faces several limitations and challenges within its use in criminal justice systems. Limitations include dependence of restorative justice on state justice apparatuses for definitions of harm, and lack of fact-finding mechanisms that render most uses of restorative justice as diversionary or postadjudicative responses to offending. Challenges include lack of agreement on the aims and goals of restorative justice theoretically and in practice, administrative dilution and co-option of restorative aims and goals within increased institutionalization in criminal justice agencies, and uncertainty about the ability of restorative justice to redress harms situated within social-structural forms of violence and oppression such as gendered violence and systemic racism.
... Nationally, restorative justice remains a marginally supported justice practice at the level of state policy. 10 We can do much to address and prevent it; however, the United States has not yet fully measured the size of the task and has not designed and utilized all the tools to carry it out. Bearing witness to the aftermath of visible and invisible violence results in survivors connecting these to larger issues of systemic dynamics and to the adoption of appropriate prevention strategies rooted in conscious values of equity and justice. ...
As a victim/cosurvivor, my experiences with the criminal justice system have called me to confront hard truths and the brutal facts of coming to terms with death, life, meaning, responsibility, and healing in innumerable ways. The real and tangible balance as a practitioner, victim, and healer are oftentimes disconnected from theory, practice, and life and death experiences. What does it mean to be human in the processes of restoration and reconciliation while hosting complexities, contradictions, and complacencies that all too often reduce victims/cosurvivors to being forgotten, dismissed, and neglected within the criminal justice system? Why do communities of people who long for and deserve trauma-informed interconnectedness, restoration, healing, and reconciliation continue to suffer from the absence of them? My multidimensional perspective as a victim and advocate grapples with my role as a practitioner as it relates to bodies of evidence, theories, best practices, and justice policies.
... Positioning itself in opposition to retributive or punitive forms of justice, restorative justice generally aims to (1) elevate the perspectives and voice of victims, (2) define accountability as a form of responsibility to harmed parties as opposed to punishment meted out by the state, and (3) leverage stakeholder and broader community relationships toward accountability and restoration for those impacted by harm (Silva & Lambert, 2015). While these goals intersect with those of transformative justice, contemporary practices of restorative justice tend to operate within the context of professionalized, law enforcement-involved programs in distinct contrast to transformative justice. ...
... Despite the public recognition of restorative justice, legal integration remains limited and marginal to the overarching dominance of the retributive legal system. A recent study of U.S. restorative justice-based legislation revealed that as of March 2014, 32 states had legislation identifying restorative justice practices in the areas of criminal or juvenile justice (Silva & Lambert, 2015). According to the study, the definition of restorative justice and the specifics regarding implementation were often vague, and measures to include structural support for implementation were largely missing. ...
History reveals that the pathway toward carceral feminism was fraught with contradictions. Feminist reform strategies that appeared progressive devolved into mandates contributing to the policies of mass incarceration; frameworks meant to disavow racist myths of violence inherent to communities of color fueled color-blind narratives that cloaked white, middle-class-defined social movement priorities; safety strategies protecting survivors of violence entrapped them into set options violating the right to self-determination. Today’s account of carceral feminism reveals well-intentioned choices leading to often ill-fated outcomes. As the critique of carceral feminism seeps into the discourse of the feminist anti-violence movement, a shift toward new values, policies, and practices holds the possibility of radical new directions. However, there is no reason to assume that this new pathway will be so straightforward. This article centers the dynamic of contradiction to synthesize insights of post-Marxist thought in application to contemporary anti-carceral feminist trends represented by transformative justice options. It also reflects on the recent ascendance of restorative justice and a renewed potential for carceral co-optation. The aim is to illuminate troubled areas of revision and radical alternatives and better navigate inevitable ethical and pragmatic tensions that may define future social movement trajectories.
... Despite continued debate about the utility of restorative practices at a sys- tem level, many states have begun to support their use via legislation. Thirty- two states adopted 165 statutes providing support for the use of restorative justice strategies in criminal justice settings between 1988(Sliva & Lambert, 2015. The number of statutes within each state range from a single mention to dozens of references. ...
... rjclearinghouse.org. See Sliva and Lambert (2015) for a detailed description of the statutory database used in this study. ...
This article presents a mixed methods study exploring a legislative trend toward the use of restorative justice practices in correctional settings. Results indicate that the percentage of Black residents in a state, the percentage of female legislators in a state legislature, and a state’s incarceration rates are predictive of more supportive restorative justice policy adoptions at the state level, while controlling for other explanations. The study weighs political and economic considerations in the adoption of policies with the potential to reduce overincarceration and suggests that at least some contemporary criminal justice police making is motivated by changing constructions of justice.
... While restorative justice is a state-supported response to criminal matters in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and many European countries, the U.S. has been slow to formally integrate restorative justice options into law. However, between 1988 and 2014, 32 U.S. state legislatures quietly adopted some form of statutory support for restorative justice in their criminal codes (Sliva & Lambert, 2015). National organizations including the American Bar Association, the National Organization for Victims Assistance, and Dignity in Schools have endorsed restorative justice practices. ...
... Over the past two and half decades, 32 U.S. states have adopted legislation supporting the use of restorative justice in criminal settings at some level (Sliva & Lambert, 2015). Support ranges from the inclusion of restorative justice or indicated practices in lists of available sanctions to (far fewer) funded mandates to implement restorative justice as a sentencing approach. ...
This paper explores recent state legislative processes in Colorado and Texas related to bills proposing support for restorative justice as a juvenile diversion tool for criminal courts. It uses two maximum variation case studies to explore issue statements related to theoretically-supported factors likely to influence the adoption of restorative justice legislation, and draws conclusions about the importance of political partisanship, economic strain, and key figures such as policy entrepreneurs, advocacy coalitions, and interest groups in legislative decision-making. Emerging themes suggest that support for restorative justice policies is at least sometimes bipartisan and is unlikely to be motivated by economic interests. Collaborative processes within a traditionally adversarial system distinguished successful restorative justice decision-making in Colorado.
... In 2002, 29 states had legislation that supported victim-offender mediation programs (Lightfoot & Umbreit, 2004). A new study by Sliva and Lambert (2015) reviewed state-level legislation that supports RJ in juvenile and adult criminal justice. Based on their findings, Figure 3 reveals that in 2014, 32 states had RJ legislation: 20 states have legislation that specifically encourages RJ, providing some or extensive structure for funding and implementation. ...
The problems of mass incarceration and other criminal justice system failures in the United States—such as racial disparities, wrongful convictions, and high recidivism rates—have reached a tipping point. For the first time in decades, coalitions of politicians on the left and right are seeking criminal justice reform. What is the place of restorative justice in these efforts? What is the depth and breadth of restorative justice implementation? How familiar is the American public with restorative justice? How successful is the restorative justice movement? In this article, we seek answers to these questions as we try to assess the future of restorative justice in the United States.
