Content uploaded by Theo Gavrielides
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Theo Gavrielides on Jun 05, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Bringing Race Relations Into the Restorative Justice Debate: An Alternative and Personalized Vision of "the Other"
Abstract and Figures
Restorative justice was reborn in the 1970s with a promise to provide a better sense and experience of justice, especially for those who are let down the most by the criminal justice system. And yet, despite well-evidenced disproportionality and race inequality issues within criminal justice institutions, restorative justice research and practice within the context of race are almost nonexistent. This article aims to unravel this paradox while looking at the scant extant literature to explore the alternative and more personalized restorative justice vision of “the other” and cultural differences. An expansive conceptual model that is aligned with the integrative nature of restorative justice is then posited for further pilots and research. The article warns that if restorative justice continues to ignore the challenges raised within a race equality context, the power structures inherent within our current structural framework of criminal justice will lead to its demise.
Figures - uploaded by Theo Gavrielides
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Theo Gavrielides
Content may be subject to copyright.
... to acknowledge historical lessons and comprehend the profound implications of various systems and policies in shaping our current societal norms. Howard Zehr, widely recognized as "the grandfather of restorative justice," posits that transformative social change will be realized by establishing a new societal paradigm characterized by compassion and safety (Gavrielides, 2014). Zehr's "alternative vision" concept underscores the potential for actionable change by adopting RJ practices and principles. ...
... Grounded in its indigenous origins, RJ permits the recognition of pervasive institutional and societal influences that have shaped the African American experience. Research indicates that incorporating RJ practices can be advantageous at the intersection of race and restorative justice, as they foster a deeper understanding of divergent perspectives, as observed by Gavrielides (2014). Furthermore, Gavrielides (2014) emphasizes that RJ can facilitate harmonious coexistence among diverse groups, nurturing collaborative and effective integration based on mutual trust. ...
... Research indicates that incorporating RJ practices can be advantageous at the intersection of race and restorative justice, as they foster a deeper understanding of divergent perspectives, as observed by Gavrielides (2014). Furthermore, Gavrielides (2014) emphasizes that RJ can facilitate harmonious coexistence among diverse groups, nurturing collaborative and effective integration based on mutual trust. ...
This conceptual paper delves into the intricate landscape of restorative justice within African American communities. In addition to addressing immediate conflicts, the paper sheds light on the broader context of historical and systemic injustices that have significantly impacted African Americans and their communities. By examining various restorative justice modalities, the paper seeks to clarify their effectiveness in promoting accountability, driving social transformation, reshaping power dynamics, and advancing equity and justice within the African American community. Through this inquiry, the paper contributes to a deeper understanding of how restorative justice practices can effectively confront longstanding grievances and facilitate comprehensive community healing and empowerment.
... The literature also demonstrates generic applications (e.g. Gavrielides, 2014;Chakraborti et al, 2014) ...
... Vigianni, 2022; Walters et al, 2021), and race (Gavrielides, 2014;Davis, 2020;Kaplan and Inguanzo, 2020). ...
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to consider what safeguarding responses to discriminatory abuse and hate crime might learn from existing research on restorative justice and to drive practice development based on available evidence.
Design/methodology/approach
This paper is based on a scoping review of literature using four academic databases and reference harvesting. This comprised a critical appraisal of 30 articles, which were thematically analysed to appreciate the benefits and challenges of restorative justice responses to hate crime and how this might inform safeguarding responses to discriminatory abuse and hate crime.
Findings
The analysis identifies four domains where learning can be drawn. These relate to theory on restorative justice; restorative justice practices; perspectives from lived experience of restorative justice and hate crime; and an appraisal of critiques about restorative justice.
Originality/value
This paper connects the emerging evidence on restorative criminal justice responses to hate crime to the “turn” towards strengths-based practices in adult safeguarding. Although this provides a fertile environment for embedding restorative practices, the authors argue certain precautions are required based on evidence from existing research on hate crime and restorative justice.
... Concentrated disadvantage, including both economic and racial inequalities, reduces collective efficacy (Sampson et al. 1997) and would seemingly reduce the likelihood of community implementation of RJ programs. This implies that the current patchwork of community-by-community RJ program implementation may actually exacerbate rather than reduce structural inequalities in criminal justice adjudication (see also : Gavrielides 2014). The communities most in need of this type of reform are some of the least likely to receive it. ...
The American criminal justice system is criticized for its reliance on mass incarceration and its limited success in reducing recidivism rates, prompting widespread calls for reform. Restorative Justice (RJ) is a compelling alternative framework. This scoping review examines the role of the under-researched 'community' element of RJ programs, addressing the overarching question: How does the surrounding community serve as a liability or asset to further implementation of RJ programs? The review highlights the pivotal role of community support, public awareness, and cooperation in facilitating RJ initiatives. Challenges for further implementation include cultural norms, public misconceptions, and power differentials, emphasizing the need for nuanced approaches to enhance the inclusivity and efficacy of RJ programs. To fully realize the transformative potential of RJ, the paper calls for continued advocacy, education, and strategic communication efforts to reshape public perceptions and promote broader criminal justice reform.
... Initiated after the extrajudicial killing of Trayvon Martin in 2012, #BlackLivesMatter reached international prominence. It triggered an extensive use of the hashtags #Black-LivesMatter or #BLM on social media in which individuals shared personal reasons regarding why Black Lives Matter and counter-movement sentiments (Garza, 2020). Among these personal frames, anti-Black harassment and police violence were often highlighted, while other frames also incorporated the quality of life in the Black community, as well as gender, racial, and LGBTQ + identities (Jackson, 2016;Tillery, 2019). ...
While the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement was proliferating in the United States, the movement did not gain similar degrees of support in Taiwan. Instead, on social media there is even a term, 'Black Self-serve,' meaning that Black people always use race as an 'excuse' to demand whatever they want. Analyzing computer-mediated communication about blackness from the largest bulletin board system in Taiwan-PTT, this article highlights how and why Taiwanese netizens used the term 'Black self-serve' to accuse Black people of fighting for rights. Centering cultural processes of racialized vision and division, this article shows that the depreciation of blackness is deeply connected to Taiwanese navigation of its tenuous status along the racial hierarchy, sense of inferiority, colonization experience, cultural alienation, and the image of Black people as accomplices of anti-Asian racism-all are deeply embedded in systemic racism. ARTICLE HISTORY
... And we do not need scientific evidence to conclude that the criminal justice system has flaws. We have been experiencing these flaws for many decades through its performance, overt or hidden biases, costs and the absence of a feeling of safety that is meant to be felt by everyone, independently of their background (Gavrielides, 2014). Although the majority of the public do not engage in readings about facts and figures on wealth distribution, their living reality is what drives their fear and anxiety about justice and its current system of delivery. ...
The author considers that the Penal Sciences face a wide range of human pathogenic issues, ranging from terrorism and human trafficking to corruption and the use of substances and are, thus, the ideal discipline for investigating the various scientific issues and the implementation of the scientific findings arising from such investigations. He also believes that the Penal Sciences, being inextricably linked to human values and constitutional rights, are, by their nature, beneficial towards the promotion and consolidation of values, such as freedom, solidarity and, especially, Social Justice. The latter concept is perceived by the author not only as a form of justice, which provides everyone with their due of proportion to their value, according to the famous saying of Ulpian “suum cuique tribuere”, but rather as a form of restitution from social injustices and as a treatment for social needs, particularly for our fellow human beings who are marginalized by society in conditions of poverty and degradation. It is interesting, at this point, to emphasize that the United Nations, in an important report from 2006 entitled “Social Justice in an Open World. The Role of the United Nations”, defines Social Justice as the fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth (“Social Justice in an Open World. The Role of the United Nations”, edited by the International Forum for Social Development, New York: United Nations, 2006, p. 7, available online).
The vision, therefore, of a society focused on goals such as combating socio-economic disparities and providing effective assistance for the weaker members of society signifies, especially in this period of Crisis, is a primary objective worthy, according to the author, of captivating us. Perhaps, indeed, the new target for Criminal Policy, following that of Restorative Justice, should now be that of Social Justice and, in fact, with a double project and aim: first for a fairer distribution of social goods and, also, for greater solidarity towards the weaker members of society.
Indeed, it is a known fact to those involved with the Penal Sciences, that a dominant contemporaneous trend is that of Restorative Justice, in the sense that Criminal Law and Criminology finally have to address the needs of the victim of a criminal act and to advocate for relevant methods for extrajudicial settlements and for the conciliation of the offender and the victim. Restorative Justice is, hence, based on the triptych of the perpetrator assuming responsibilities for their actions, of restoring, as far as possible, the effects of the injurious actions against the victim and, also, of actively expressing the desire for conciliation with the victim.
Certainly it would be greatly desirable if these ideas were to be consolidated within Greek legislation, albeit within the, always progressive, Greek Law for Minors there is a provision for the reformatory conciliation measure, pursuant to article 122 case e of the Greek Penal Code. However, the author believes that in this period of time, a time of profound crisis at all levels, there is need for more than simple offender-victim conciliation. There is a need for this spirit of reconciliation and solidarity to be extended to benefit all those who are experiencing hard times and may, therefore, in their deprivation and frustration, are led to committing crime. The author, at this point, refers to all the socially weak and often marginalized groups of people, who are scientifically characterized as "weak" or "vulnerable" and who try, with great courage, to survive without breaching the threshold of breaking the law.
It is apparent here, according to the author, that if Criminal Policy actually aims to provide solutions to the problems of crime, it should not solely be limited to repairing the damage and conciliating the victim and perpetrator, but it should strike against the causative factors of crime and the primarily socio-economic inequalities and other forms of injustice which cause, according to Aristotle in his "Politics" (V. 1301b27, 1301a32 et seq., 1266b40), social reactions, attitudes and – Ι would add - a sequence of serious criminal acts. In other words, another kind of Justice is required in addition to Restorative, so that it may become the mission of our Criminal Policy to eliminate the injustices and inequalities that lead to crime. In view of this direction certain introductory thoughts are developed in this article.
Restorative practice was first introduced to higher education as an alternative to traditional disciplinary processes. While this philosophical shift in student conduct was beneficial to the field, one unintended consequence has been restorative processes have become, in the minds of many in higher education, indelibly tied to specific offices and practitioners responsible for discipline. Restorative practice as a set of principles and processes has the most impact when supported as foundational to the work of the institution as a whole. We envision a higher education environment that emphasizes restorative practice as a comprehensive, proactive, and preventive approach to building and maintaining campus community as well as developing a healthy and productive approach to conflict resolution. To this end, we invite practitioners across the field of higher education to shift how restorative practice is implemented in four specific ways: from primarily responsive to primarily proactive; from an individual to a collective focus; from a compartmentalized to a comprehensive approach; and from a singular learning experience to an immersive learning experience.
While there are many cultural norms that serve as barriers to Women of Color reporting sexual assault on college campuses, there are also several institutional and systemic barriers. This paper explores some of these barriers and argues for Title IX, a policy that addresses issues of sexual assault on college campuses, to encompass and protect more than a person's sex alone. In addition to the legal system, institutions of higher education have a long-standing history of discrimination against racial and ethnic minority groups, in particular with addressing sexual assault crimes. This paper argues that specific measures need to be outlined in Title IX that acknowledge and redress the effects of institutional harms on the BIPOC community. This paper also discusses how adopting a restorative justice and intersectional approach to policy reform will aid in building a supportive relationship between survivors and their educational institutions.
Persistent racial disparities in students’ disciplinary outcomes have been one of the most concerning educational policy and equity topics for decades. Despite the hypervisibility of Black students in school discipline conversations, research and practice evade a focus on anti-Black racism. In this essay, we draw from Black Critical Theory (BlackCrit) to present a theoretical framework that researchers and educational stakeholders can use to specify, study, and understand antiblackness in school discipline. We outline and discuss six interrelated theoretical constructs of the Antiblackness in School Discipline framework: (a) “Trading Away the Black,” (b) “Whites as Propertied,” (c) Intersecting Blackness, (d) Racial Neoliberalism, (e) La Petite Misère, and (f) Internalized Racism. Examples of studies providing empirical support for these theoretical tenets are also discussed, and suggestions for utilizing this framework in scholarship, policy, and practice are also offered.
This chapter argues that the UK, the U.S., Canadian, and Australian criminal justice systems continue perennially victimizing large swaths of Indigenous and Black people. As such, there is a need to untether the respective systems from their settler colonialism roots in favor of a system that centers the knowledge, values, and lived experiences of those purposely marginalized as culturally inferior, namely, Indigenous peoples as the rightful owners of the land, and Black people as racialized assimilated descendants of involuntary inhabitants of the land by way of enslavement and later immigration. Finally, the chapter describes examples of current efforts to untether the systems. It also offers other interventions and policy recommendations that might fully untether the respective systems from their settler colonial roots.KeywordsDecolonizeTribal/indigenous courtsRestorative justiceTruth commissionReconciliationLaw enforcement practicesLegal pluralismCommunity courts
This is the 2nd edition of Gavrielides’ 2007 monograph “Restorative Justice Theory & Practice: Addressing the Discrepancy”, a ground-breaking book that examines the harmful gap between the restorative justice theory and its application covering the UK, the U.S., Europe, and internationally.
Data were obtained from four international surveys with over 300 restorative justice practitioners, using a combination of qualitative methodologies, including questionnaires, interviews and focus groups. The 2nd edition provides critical updates for restorative justice research, policy and practice.
Restorative justice projects strive to restore peace after a crime has been committed by involving victims, offenders and community representatives in dialogue. Previous studies reviewed by Dr. Gavrielides have credited these programmes with such benefits as lower recidivism, and higher levels of satisfaction with outcomes among victims, offenders and community representatives, compared to the traditional criminal justice system. However, the author’s seven-year research programme uncovered a pervasive gap between restorative justice principles and current restorative justice operations. This gap is blamed for widespread difficulties such as insufficient funding for restorative justice, inadequate training and accreditation of practitioners, lack of faith and commitment among staff, and a tendency for restorative justice over time to become increasingly similar to the standard criminal justice system. Dr. Gavrielides warns that if these problems are not corrected, the original values and benefits of restorative justice may never be realised.
Book Reviews
“In a time when restorative justice has been embraced with unbridled enthusiasm by virtually every criminal justice network and dispute resolution stakeholder outside of the criminal justice system, Theo Gavrielides presents us with an original, comprehensive, and essential examination of the subject. This work should be read by anyone and everyone who is the least bit interested in the future health of the restorative justice movement.” Prof. John Winterdyk, Ph.D. Department of Justice Studies, Chair, Mount Royal College, Canada
“Theo Gavrielides has provided a constructive and thought-provoking contribution to our understanding of the dynamics of one of the most significant contemporary developments in thinking about criminal justice.” Professor Nicola Lacey, LSE, UK
“Restorative justice is a noble concept, but if the actual practice does not match the ideal, it could be discredited. That would be a great loss. Theo Gavrielides has brought together some challenging thoughts about this danger…” Dr. Martin Wright, European Forum of restorative justice and Restorative Justice Consortium, UK and EU
It is a concise, engaging, innovative and informative book for practitioners and scholars. This comprehensive introduction to restorative justice provides a much-needed textbook for an increasingly popular area of study and practice, which can be used as a basis for further theoretical development and elaboration on the concept’s limitations and accountability. Dr. Effi Lambropoulou Professor of Criminology Department of Sociology, Panteion University of Social and Politic, Greece
As a restorative justice practitioner for ten years, I continue to be impressed with the in-depth research Theo Gavrielides does in the field of restorative justice. He meets the challenges with provocative and cutting edge topics directly and succinctly… The struggle of theory vs. practice has been a difficult one in the field since restorative justice began mostly with practice. Gavrielides approaches this struggle with wisdom of historical roots and with encouragement that restorative justice is developing theory to catch up with practice. Linda Harvey Program Director and Founder of the Restorative Justice Council on Sexual Misconduct in Faith Communities, USA
“Dr. Theo Gavrielides’ book provides a special journey from the underlying theoretical foundations to the daily practice of restorative justice. By his thought-provoking and critical approach, he gifts the restorative justice field with an essential analysis that bridges theory and practice in an interdisciplinary and multisectoral way” Borbala Fellegi, researcher and lecturer at the ELTE University, consultant of the Ministry of Justice in Hungary in the field of restorative justice, Hungary
This project is about reviewing current practice within London probation, and the building of an evidence base that will help the Trust achieve better and measurable outcomes for its BME service users.
This paper engages the efforts to develop a mid-range theory to complete the vaguely defined paradigmof restorative justice. Advocates of the Maximalist model have been critical of a voluntary process-baseddefinition and proposed a more expansive definition. An analysis of stakeholders needs is proposed as atheoretical structure to evaluate the restorativeness of different models. A Purist model of restorativejustice based on a voluntary cooperative approach is proposed, which is shown to be holistic in responseto stakeholders needs. The author defends the ‘diversionist perspective’ and the process definition ofrestorative justice. The Maximalist model’s assumed roles for community and society as direct stakeholdersis shown to incorporate both retribution and treatment goals. The cornerstone of the Maximalist model,court-imposed ‘restorative sanctions’, is criticized as a non-restorative practice. A three-fold typology ofrestorative practices based upon victim reparation, offender responsibility, and communities-of-carereconciliation is proposed which places the Purist model within a holistic approach and distinguishesfully restorative from partly restorative practices.
Crenshaw outlines the history and basic tenets of critical race theory. While critical race theory does not have a coherent set of fundamental ideas, scholars of this school of thought typically share two primary interests. First is to understand how white supremacy is maintained and related to legal ideals. Second is to change this state of affairs. Based in Critical Legal Studies, Critical Race Theory challenges elitism and exclusivity in the law. It focuses on the law's racist aspects, particularly the changing trends in racism. For example, colorblindness is now seen as preferable to race-consciousness, despite the fact that colorblindness merely masks the power embedded in such an ideology. Critical Race Theory developed in two prominent ways. First, the student protest at Harvard Law School in 1981 began a new avenue of legal study. Second, the Critical Legal Studies National Conference on silence and race solidified the place of Critical Race Theory in Critical Legal Studies.
In the five years since the first edition of Injustice there have been devastating increases in poverty, hunger and destitution in the UK. Globally, the richest 1% have never held a greater share of world wealth, while the share of most of the other 99% has fallen in the last five years, with more and more people in debt, especially the young. Economic inequalities will persist and continue to grow for as long as we tolerate the injustices which underpin them. This fully rewritten and updated edition revisits Dorling’s claim that Beveridge’s five social evils are being replaced by five new tenets of injustice: elitism is efficient; exclusion is necessary; prejudice is natural; greed is good and despair is inevitable. By showing these beliefs are unfounded, Dorling offers hope of a more equal society. We are living in the most remarkable and dangerous times. With every year that passes it is more evident that Injustice is essential reading for anyone concerned with social justice and wants to do something about it.