Reconciling the Notions of Restorative Justice and Imprisonment

Abstract

Restorative justice (RJ) in the secure estate is widespread internationally, although piecemeal and inconsistent in its application. It exists in the form of many practices such as mediation, conferencing, circles, and panels. As the interest in RJ continues to grow, this research takes a step back to ask how reconcilable RJ is with incapacitation. Through a combination of normative thinking, literature review, and primary research that applied qualitative methodologies over a 3-year period, the article examines where the two notions meet in their intentions and expected outcomes. A new classification of restorative practices in prisons is proposed, placed in the context of case studies of existing programs from around the world.

Full text

http://tpj.sagepub.com/
The Prison Journal
http://tpj.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/09/01/0032885514548010
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0032885514548010
published online 2 September 2014The Prison JournalTheo Gavrielides
Reconciling the Notions of Restorative Justice and Imprisonment
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Pennsylvania Prison Society
can be found at:The Prison JournalAdditional services and information for
http://tpj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://tpj.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://tpj.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/09/01/0032885514548010.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- Sep 2, 2014OnlineFirst Version of Record >>
by guest on September 2, 2014tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on September 2, 2014tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

The Prison Journal
1 –27
© 2014 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0032885514548010
tpj.sagepub.com
The Prison Journal
Reconciling the Notions
of Restorative Justice and
Imprisonment
Theo Gavrielides1
Abstract
Restorative justice (RJ) in the secure estate is widespread internationally,
although piecemeal and inconsistent in its application. It exists in the form
of many practices such as mediation, conferencing, circles, and panels. As
the interest in RJ continues to grow, this research takes a step back to
ask how reconcilable RJ is with incapacitation. Through a combination of
normative thinking, literature review, and primary research that applied
qualitative methodologies over a 3-year period, the article examines where
the two notions meet in their intentions and expected outcomes. A new
classification of restorative practices in prisons is proposed, placed in the
context of case studies of existing programs from around the world.
Keywords
restorative justice, incapacitation, restorative practice programs
Problem Statement
The increasing number of prisoner suicides, the deepening racism and inequal-
ity in the secure estate (Elliott, 2011), prison overcrowding and the inhumane
conditions to which prisoners are subjected,1 high rates of reoffending (e.g., see
Barabás, 2012; Barabás, Fellegi, & Windt, 2012; Elliott, 2011), and the rising
costs of incapacitation as a policy and philosophy for crime control2 are some
1Independent Academic Research Studies, London, UK
Corresponding Author:
Theo Gavrielides, Founder and Director, Independent Academic Research Studies (IARS),14
Dock Offices, Surrey Quays Road, London SE16 2XU, UK.
Email: T.Gavrielides@iars.org.uk
548010TPJXXX10.1177/0032885514548010The Prison JournalGavrielides
research-article2014
by guest on September 2, 2014tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

2 The Prison Journal
of the factors quoted by reformists from around the world in their search for
new avenues of justice, one of which is restorative justice (RJ).
RJ was reborn in the 1970s (Braithwaite, 1999; Gavrielides, 2011a), produc-
ing an unprecedented volume of academic and policy discussions on its poten-
tial. Many definitions have been developed since (Daly & Immarigeon, 1998;
Gavrielides, 2007; Johnstone, 2002). For the purposes of this article, we accept
that RJ is “an ethos with practical goals, among which is to restore harm by
including affected parties in a (direct or indirect) encounter and a process of
understanding through voluntary and honest dialogue” (Gavrielides, 2007, p.
139). I have argued elsewhere that RJ “adopts a fresh approach to conflicts and
their control, retaining at the same time certain rehabilitative goals” (p. 139).
The application of RJ in the secure estate is widespread internationally (see
Table 3), although piecemeal and “ in the margins” (see Dhami, Mantle, & Fox,
2009; Edgar & Newell, 2006; Elliott, 2011; Gavrielides, 2012b; Guidoni, 2003;
Johnstone, 2007). The limited literature on the evaluation of RJ practices in
prisons suggests that when applied properly, they can render benefits for the
offender, the victim, and the community (see Barabás, 2012; Gavrielides,
2012b; Liebmann & Braithwaite, 1999; Toews, 2006; Van Ness, 2007). This is
not to say that there is not a strong sense of skepticism in the literature (e.g.,
Guidoni, 2003; Hirsch, 1999). It is not the intention of this article to engage
with this debate. The focus of our research was somewhat different.
Dhami et al. (2009) noted that one of the reasons that RJ has been kept
under the radar of prison governors, reformists, and prison policy makers is
the identifying of in-prison programs as restorative. However, Van Ness
(2007) countered that a number of prison projects self-identifying under the
banner of RJ have nothing to do with the notion’s fundamental principles and
outcomes.
In fact, the consistent message from the literature is that there is a frag-
mented picture of RJ in the secure estate (see also Gavrielides, 2012b;
Johnstone, 2002), as its application is inconsistent and under the radar of
research and evaluation. If this ambiguity is indeed a hindrance in RJ’s fur-
ther development within the secure estate, then why is this the case? This
question provided the impetus for the study.
However, we were not concerned with issues of conception in the narrow
sense. We know that since its inception, RJ has struggled with definitional
ambiguity, and this extends far beyond its application in the secure estate (see
Gavrielides, 2008; Johnstone, 2002; Mackay, 2002). As Daly and Immarigeon
(1998) put it,
Over the last two decades, RJ has emerged in varied guises with different
names, and in many countries; it has sprung from sites of activism, academia,
by guest on September 2, 2014tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Gavrielides 3
and justice system workplaces. The concept may refer to an alternative process
for resolving disputes, to alternative sanctioning options, or to a distinctively
different, new model of criminal justice organised around principles of
restoration to victims, offenders and the communities in which they live.
(p. 21)
We saw RJ’s conceptual ambiguity in the secure estate as a by-product of
the wider question of how reconcilable its paradigm is with the concept of
incapacitation. On the face of it, RJ and imprisonment appear to be in opposi-
tion. As early as 1977, Barnett spoke about a “paradigm shift,” claiming that
we are living a “crisis of an old paradigm,” and that “this crisis can be restored
by the adoption of a new paradigm of criminal justice” (p. 244). Braithwaite
(1999), Christie (1977), and Zehr (1990) spoke about the transformative
potential of the RJ paradigm and its “changing lenses” of how we view crime.
However, it is widely accepted that imprisonment is based on the philoso-
phy of incapacitation, which, in simple terms, posits that if criminals are in
prison, or under intense surveillance in the community, they will find it dif-
ficult to reoffend (Smith & Natalier, 2005). Incapacitation is not driven by the
need to restore harm doing. It places emphasis on the criminal and the pre-
vention of further crime by the convicted or other potential criminals who
will hopefully observe punishment and be deterred (Elliott, 2011).
In posing our research question, we did not expect a straightforward
answer, but rather to develop knowledge around the normative foundations
underpinning the practices that we call RJ and imprisonment. This is not to
say that without these foundations the RJ practice will not continue to exist
within prisons. As it will be argued, RJ has done so for years. However, it is
impossible to expect any further progress for the RJ practice (mediation, con-
ferencing, circles, etc.) within prisons, if it refuses conceptually to accept the
basic principles that drive incapacitation and vice versa.
As more and more governments are investing in RJ within the secure
estate, this paper raises concerns around the reasons that drive policy reform
in the secure estate. For instance, in 2011, the U.K. government gave £1.3
million to roll out training on RJ in all prisons,3 while Belgium has already
spent millions of Euros to introduce an “RJ consultant” in all its prisons.4
Research Method and Caveats
In considering this project’s research strategy, qualitative research was judged
to be the most appropriate method. It was not our intention to paint a quantita-
tive picture of RJ in the secure estate. If such a study was ever possible, it
would require an incredible amount of resources and time. In fact, some have
by guest on September 2, 2014tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

4 The Prison Journal
argued that it is highly unlikely that such a scientific analysis of RJ in prisons
can ever be achieved due to an array of factors such as sampling limitations,
movement in the sample population, definitional confusion, access barriers,
agreement on outcomes, and issues of confidentiality and ethics (see
Gavrielides, 2007; Marshall & Merry, 1990).
According to Miles and Huberman (1994), qualitative research can “per-
suade through rich depiction and strategic comparison across cases, over-
coming the abstraction inherent in quantitative studies” (p. 41). The qualitative
approach also demanded that an adequate level of freedom was left to the
respondents, allowing them to discuss and think at length and in their own
terms. This could not have been achieved through the application of a quan-
titative design, mainly because this would have approached the investigated
matters not through the examination of the substance of the sample’s
responses, but of variables. In addition, our small-scale project had to allow
for the possibility of issues emerging spontaneously from the data without
being forced through fixed theoretical frames. Although the questions were
intended to follow up the preliminary data from the literature, they merely
aimed at stimulating imagination, providing an opportunity of identifying the
sample’s thoughts, images, hopes, and fears.
The research design aimed to combine normative thinking with various
qualitative methods, with a view to ensuring that our results were as accurate
as possible. The research adopted a “nonprobability sampling” method and,
more specifically, the rules governing “convenience sampling.” Therefore, it
was essential that the limitations surrounding this approach were acknowl-
edged. Bryman (2004), for instance, warned that the generated data cannot be
used as the only basis for generalized conclusions. The yielded information,
he said, “will only provide an insight into the sample’s views and attitudes
towards the discussed topics” (Bryman, 2004, p. 100).
According to Shaw (1999), studies that are carried out with nonprobability
sampling are not interested in what proportion of the population gives a par-
ticular response, but rather in gauging the range of respondents’ ideas.
According to Shipman (1997), the dangers inherent in any generalization of
data derived from the responses of a nonprobability sample will be mini-
mized if analyzed in conjunction with evidence from the extant literature.
Therefore, the project started with an overview of the available literature and
was then officially launched with an expert 3-day seminar that took place in
London in November 2009. Thirteen criminal justice professionals (e.g., prison
governors, probation staff, judges, prosecutors, and researchers)5 attended work-
shops organized by Independent Academic Research Studies (IARS).6
The preliminary findings from the workshops were complemented with
a focused literature review, followed by original qualitative research that
by guest on September 2, 2014tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Gavrielides 5
combined 20 in-depth interviews with prison governors, RJ practitioners,
policy makers and academics (see Table 1). The research was concluded
with an expert half-day seminar that was held in London in November
2010. The seminar was organized by IARS in partnership with Open
University. Forty experts in the field of RJ, policy, and criminal justice
attended the seminar.7 Research ethics were observed by the IARS
Academic Board, while the broader program fell into the European
Commission–funded “Mediation and Restorative in Prison Settings”
3-year project (Barabás et al., 2012).
The data from the primary and secondary research were finally used for
normative thinking and theoretical analysis of our central research question.
This article has been organized into three sections. First, it provides a
summary of the debate and categories that are recorded in the extant litera-
ture on RJ in prisons. This account aims to develop an understanding of
how RJ currently appears within the context of prisons. The discussion then
moves on to expose some conceptual challenges. The implications of these
challenges are also presented as these were captured by the in-depth inter-
views with practitioners and other experts. The next section analyses fac-
tors that create these challenges by addressing how reconcilable the
concepts of RJ and imprisonment are. We then attempt to answer this ques-
tion in the hope that a firmer normative RJ foundation can allow for future
developments in RJ practice, policy, and research. A new classification of
RJ practices in the secure estate is attempted using the normative argument
that we developed through the primary and secondary research of the proj-
ect. Existing RJ programs in prisons from around the world are used to
contextualize this classification.
Extant Definitions and Categorizations
Arguably, the term restorative justice was first introduced in the contempo-
rary criminal justice literature and practice in the 1970s.8 Van Ness and
Strong (1997) claimed that the term was coined by Albert Eglash in a 1977
article (Eglash, 1977), but they then (Van Ness & Strong, 2010) cited research
of Skelton (2005) who found that the 1977 chapter was a reprinted article
from a series that Eglash published from 1958 to 1959.9
Here,we have accepted a broader definition of RJ as an “ethos.”
RJ, in nature, is not just a practice or just a theory. It is both. It is an ethos; it is
a way of living. It is a new approach to life, interpersonal relationships and a
way of prioritising what is important in the process of learning how to coexist.
(Gavrielides, 2007, p. 139)
by guest on September 2, 2014tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

6 The Prison Journal
For Braithwaite (1999) and McCold (1999), the principles underlying this
“ethos” are victim reparation, offender responsibility, and communities of
care. McCold argues that if attention is not paid to all these three principles,
then implementation will only be partially restorative.
Table 1. Profile of Project Interviewees.
Interviewee Area of expertise
HMP Grendon and Spring Hill, prison
governor (retired)
Prison and RJ
Hull University, research director, MA in RJ Research on RJ,
academic
Prison Reform Trust, head of research Prison and RJ policy
Youth Justice Board, director of secure
accommodation
Prison and RJ
Association of RJ practitioners RJ practitioner
HM Prison Hewell National Offender
Management Service, RJ manager
Prison and RJ
Lambeth Mediation Service, mediator Research on RJ,
academic
Prison Fellowship International U.S. Sycamore
Tree Program, director (retired)
Policy expert
West Midland Probation Service, victim–
offender development manager
RJ practitioner
Board member, Youth Justice Board Youth justice policy
Safer London Foundation, director (retired) Criminal justice policy
NACRO, head of policy Criminal justice policy
European Forum for RJ, chief executive
officer
Research and policy on
RJ
Centre for Justice and Reconciliation at
Prison Fellowship International, executive
director
Research and policy on
RJ, academic
Independent RJ trainer and Researcher Research, evaluation and
training on RJ
Home Office, Antisocial Behavior and Youth
Crime Unit
Youth justice policy
Southwark Mediation Centre, project
manager
RJ practitioner
Open University, senior lecturer Youth justice policy
London Probation, project manager RJ practitioner
Metropolitan Police Service, detective chief
inspector
Criminal justice
practitioner
Note. HMP = Her Majesty’s Prisons; RJ = restorative justice.
by guest on September 2, 2014tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Gavrielides 7
In a similar vein, Daly (2000) said that RJ places “ . . . an emphasis on the
role and experience of victims in the criminal process” (p. 7) and that it
involves all relevant parties in a discussion about the offence, its impact, and
what should be done to repair it. The decision making, Daly said, has to be
carried out by both lay and legal actors. The RJ ethos, as defined by
Gavrielides, and the RJ principles, as developed by Braithwaite and McCold,
must lead to certain outcomes if a practice is to remain genuinely restorative.
These should relate to the victim, the offender, and the community (see
Beven, Halla, Froylandb, & Steelsa, 2005).
Attempts to classify RJ practices in prisons have been numerous (see
Dhami et al., 2009; Edgar & Newell, 2006; Immarigeon, 1994; Liebmann,
2007; Van Ness, 2007). These codifications tend to change depending on a
range of factors such as the origin of the programs’ agencies (Immarigeon,
1994), the programs’ objectives (Van Ness, 2007), the programs’ inclusion
of all, few, or none of the harmed parties (Newell, 2002a, 2002b), or the
programs’ impact on the organizational and cultural aspect of prisons
(Johnstone, 2007).
The latest literature groups prison-based RJ projects into five broad
categories (Dhami et al., 2009). The first category is “offending behavior
programmes,” such as Alternative to Violence Project (AVP) workshops.
They are attended voluntarily by prisoners, but they do not include victims
(Bitel & Edgar, 1998). The second is “victim awareness programmes,”
such as the Sycamore Tree Project, developed by Prison Fellowship
(1999). They are attended voluntarily by prisoners who are given the
opportunity to interact (either in a direct or indirect way) with “surrogate
victims.”10 They are usually delivered in group sessions and do not include
restitution to their own victims, but provide opportunities to offenders to
make symbolic acts of remorse such as poems, letters, and craftwork. The
third is “community service work,” which includes projects that teach
prisoners skills through work in the community that not only benefit the
public but also prisoners’ prospects for postrelease success and integration
(Carey, 1998). They do not involve interaction with the victim and are
fairly prevalent in British prisons (Liebmann, 2007). The fourth category
is “victim–offender mediation,” which includes an encounter (direct or
indirect) with the prisoner and his or her victim. The final category refers
to prisons with a complete RJ philosophy. These institutions have adopted
RJ not just as a practice for the prisoners but also as an ethos and philoso-
phy that guides their policies and procedures, induction programs, antibul-
lying strategies, staff disputes, race relations, resettlement, and release
strategies (Robert & Peters, 2002). Table 2 provides an illustration of the
aforementioned five categories.
by guest on September 2, 2014tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

8 The Prison Journal
Grappling With the Restorative Notion
There seemed to be consensus among our sample that their “on the ground”
experience with RJ had little to do with its normative vision. This finding is
aligned with the views expressed by Dhami et al. (2009), Van Ness (2007),
Johnstone (2007), Gavrielides (2012b), and others. For instance, our inter-
viewed prison governors/staff and RJ practitioners/proponents agreed that
when RJ is implemented in the secure estate, there is little awareness about it,
even by the very agents implementing it. “Most of the times, prison staff will
not realize that they are doing RJ, when they are,” one policy maker said. One
practitioner pointed out,
One of the difficulties of identifying, measuring and rolling out RJ in the secure
estate is that in the everyday reality of prison staff and in the chaotic lives of
offenders, it cannot be pinned down as one isolated practice or phenomenon.
The interviewee continued,
When there is appetite for RJ in a prison, it will mostly be done in bits . . . some
will use it for educational purposes, others for psychological support and
mentoring and others for healing whether of a young person or the affected
community.
This finding resonates with many RJ authors who have continuously
warned the RJ movement to be cautious when claiming a practice to be
restorative (e.g., see Braithwaite, 2002; Gavrielides, 2007; Roche, 2003).
Table 2. Categorization of Prison-Based RJ Projects.
Categories of prison-based RJ projects Key characteristics
1. Offending behavior programs No encounter with victims; no
direct reparation
2. Victim awareness programs Encounter with surrogate victims;
no reparation to the direct
victim
3. Community service work No encounter with the victim; no
direct reparation
4. Victim–offender mediation (direct
and indirect)
Encounter with the victim; direct
reparation
5. Prisons with a complete RJ
philosophy
Encounter with the victim; direct
reparation
Note. RJ = restorative justice.
by guest on September 2, 2014tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Gavrielides 9
Some interviewed practitioners who were open to the idea of a consistent
and identifiable model of RJ within the secure estate warned of a potential
threat of a narrow version of the practice. “A narrow version of RJ will not
allow us to apply the educational and other preparatory stages that are needed
in order for any encounter to be attempted,” one interviewee said.
The interviewed practitioners and prison staff also highlighted the
extremely vulnerable nature of young prisoners who tend to be very emo-
tional and insecure individuals. A few interviewees also quoted examples to
illustrate the fear that prisoners carry not only in relation to their environment
and themselves, but also of society and their victim. One practitioner shared
the experience of a young person who had undergone a RJ program while in
a secure institution. He described how frightened the young person was when
he was confronted with the idea of meeting the victim he had assaulted.
Repeating the young person’s own words, “meeting my victim was harder
than hearing my sentence.” According to the same practitioner, another
offender said to him, “I was so afraid meeting them for the first time as I was
sure that the father would come to shoot me for what I did . . . not that I did
not deserve it.”
A psychologist who was interviewed as part of our study stressed the sig-
nificance of being able to instill a sense of hope and confidence in prisoners
while involving them in a RJ program. “Without that hope, RJ practices have
very little to offer within the secure estate.” The development of skills and
“the right attitude that will allow prisoners to be integrated back into society
as successfully as possible” were also highlighted. All in all, the interviewees
advocated for a RJ model that is flexible enough to accommodate the educa-
tional, psychological, and other needs of young offenders, but at the same
time retaining the core values underlying the RJ ethos.
The interviews and the group discussions among the practitioners, funders,
government, and researchers indicated that the aforementioned conceptual
challenges also had an impact on the funding of RJ practices within prisons
as well as how evaluation and research are conducted. For instance, one inter-
viewee said, “. . . RJ is not an easy concept to comprehend or accept. It is
difficult to get it across within a short period of time.” According to our
research participants, funders have often been led to
 think that RJ practice and practitioners are against the traditional crim-
inal justice system—some may even believe that RJ was introduced to
lead to a fundamental transformation of the prison system;
 associate RJ practices with religious beliefs;
 confuse RJ with individual practices such as victim–offender
mediation;
by guest on September 2, 2014tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

10 The Prison Journal
 believe that RJ is something “new” and hence too risky or cumber-
some to support;
 take RJ to be a “radical idea”; and
 believe that RJ is a “soft option” that should be used only for minor
crimes and young offenders.
Our findings correlate with the extant literature. For instance Wilcox and
Hoyle (2004) said, “Funding bodies need to be more specific about the nature
of the interventions they are funding, or else they risk funding non-restorative
activities” (p. 54). They move on to criticize the U.K.-based RJ projects that
they were called to evaluate and were funded by the Youth Justice Board.
They said, “There was a considerable amount of ‘drift’ from the aims stated
in the bids, reflected by the fact that over 50% of interventions involved
either community reparation or victim awareness only” (Wilcox & Hoyle,
2004, p. 54).
The findings from the fieldwork also indicated that the prioritization of
funding resources for specific parties of crime affects the sponsoring of RJ
schemes. This is mainly due to the fact that restorative principles place equal
significance on all communities of interest. For example, funding specifically
allocated to rehabilitating offenders may not consider RJ schemes to be
appropriate. Likewise, funding for victim support programs may treat RJ as
something just for the offender and maybe dangerous for the victim.
According to our research participants, the extant classification of RJ proj-
ects in prisons seemed to have aggravated this conceptual challenge of victim
versus offender–based RJ practices. The group discussions also indicated that
in the absence of a regulatory body that checks the quality of RJ practices, the
question for funders is ensuring that the invested practice is one that is based
on the norm’s true values. “We are not experts in RJ,” some funders said.
They also said, “It should not be expected that we will be able to spot the dif-
ference between what is a practice that is indeed based on the values of RJ
and what is not.” Another interviewee said,
. . . the term RJ is currently being used to label things that are in no means
restorative for either party involved. And there are a lot of reasons for this, and
one of them is money . . . some people came along with their punitive practices
and labeled them RJ in order to get this money hijacking funding by nongenuine
RJ programmes.
Moreover, according to the research, funding bodies introduce time scales
and performance measurement targets into funded practices that usually under-
mine their effectiveness. The interviewees also pointed out that evaluation
by guest on September 2, 2014tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Gavrielides 11
needs to be large scale, and conducted at a sufficient length of time following
an intervention to accommodate reoffending data. One practitioner said,
When it comes to asking for money, the problem is that RJ has a slow time
delivery . . . this is especially the case with the government, which is where the
money usually comes from. Funders, in general, want to see results now, and
treat RJ as a “quick fix tool”; this often leads to disappointments and
misunderstanding about what RJ really is and what it can offer.
Another practitioner pointed out,
Potential funding bodies will continue to insist on some measure of success or
failure at a reasonably early stage, which is almost well short of the time needed
to develop firm and efficient strategies of work . . . Rather than insisting on
rigid academic conditions for “proper” evaluation, researchers are forced to
develop modes of investigation that address success while accommodating the
reality of what they are assessing.
Where Does the Heart of the Problem Lie?
Grappling with the concept of RJ within the secure estate should come as no
surprise. As argued, this is not caused by lack of definitions on what RJ is or
what its practices encompass. There is a plethora of them in the literature
(e.g., see Braithwaite, 2002; Gavrielides, 2007, 2008; Johnstone, 2002;
Marshall, 1996; Miers, 2001; Miers et al., 2001). The heart of the problem
lies in our understanding of how RJ fits within the prison system. We are still
struggling to understand how the principles of restoration can function with
the punitive and top-down structures of the secure estate. This tension was
reflected even in some of our interviewees’ initial reluctance to take part in
our survey, as they believed that their involvement in a research project on
prisons would undermine RJ’s development.
We believe that this reluctance reaches deep into the very foundations and
history of RJ. As noted, when the notion of RJ was first coined in the early
1970s, RJ advocates such as Cantor (1976), Christie (1977), Barnett (1977),
Thorvaldson (1978), and Zehr (1990) portrayed the relationship between the
then emerging RJ and the existing criminal justice system as being “polar
opposites” in almost every aspect. Cantor (1976), for instance, argued in
favor of a total substitution of civil law for criminal law processes with a
view to “civilising” the treatment of offenders.
Barnett (1977) spoke of a “paradigm shift,” defining “paradigm” as “an
achievement in a particular discipline which defines the legitimate problems
and methods of research within that discipline.” Barnett claimed that we are
by guest on September 2, 2014tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

12 The Prison Journal
living a “crisis of an old paradigm”11 and that “this crisis can be restored by
the adoption of a new paradigm of criminal justice-restitution” (p. 280).
Christie (1977)12 claimed that the details of what society does or does not
permit are often difficult to decode, and that “the degree of blameworthiness
is often not expressed in the law at all” (p. 5). Christie argued that the State
has “stolen the conflict” between citizens, and that this has deprived society
of the “opportunities for norm-classification” (p. 5).
By introducing RJ as a radical concept, its proponents were hoping to
make the then new concept of RJ appealing and interesting enough for writ-
ers and politicians who knew nothing about it. However, once the excitement
was over, and while RJ was leaving the phase of “innovation” to enter the one
of “implementation,” its advocates (e.g., Braithwaite, 1999) started to talk
about the need to combine its values and practices with existing traditions of
criminal practice and philosophy.
Admittedly, RJ purists continue to believe that RJ should sit outside the
current criminal justice system including prisons. Some hold the view that if
integrated into current traditions of punitive philosophy, some restorative
practices will be co-opted, whereas others will be marginalized and gradually
withdrawn (see Dhami et al., 2009; Edgar & Newell, 2006; Gavrielides,
2008). The most critical view from the interviews came from a leading prac-
titioner who said, “I have strong concerns not just for RJ but for any humane
practice that is introduced in prisons as this tends to make the public and
prisoners feel that imprisonment is not as bad as originally thought.” The
same practitioner, however, moved on to say, “However, being a realist, I am
conscious not to deprive offenders and victims the option to meet if they both
wish to do so.”
This tension is particularly visible in the RJ movement, and it has repeat-
edly led to misconceptions and disagreements. It has also created tendencies
to either play up or down differences and similarities between RJ and the
criminal justice system. These are often exemplified by reluctance from a
number of RJ advocates to acknowledge that the criminal justice system
comprises certain restorative elements (e.g., in the form of victim impact
statements, community service, and victim compensation).
More importantly, as Johnstone (2007) argued, the RJ movement has had
little success in its efforts to encourage the use of RJ as alternatives to impris-
onment. Therefore, a normative discussion on wishful thinking and untested
potential makes no contribution to the construction of implementation mod-
els and policy. Similarly, Immarigeon (1994) argued, “RJ measures rarely
divert anyone from imprisonment . . . Some evidence exists that New Zealand
is using RJ as an alternative to detention, but even that evidence is weaker
than one would hope for” (p. 144).13
by guest on September 2, 2014tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Gavrielides 13
However, it also has to be accepted that the skepticism about restorative
imprisonment derives from more than just “blue sky thinking” by abolition-
ists and RJ purists. As Guidoni (2003) argued, the possibility of integrating
the constructive ethos of RJ within a punishment-based social institution,
such as the prison, is highly problematic in philosophical terms.
For instance, the findings of a 2-year (2001-2003) evaluation of a RJ pro-
gram (A Bridge Towards New Horizons) in Turin prison (Italy) concluded
that, “RJ cannot be assimilated into the ideology and practice of punishment,
if we mean by punishment negative sanctions for a crime—those inflicted on
a convicted person by a judge under the rules and guarantees of the penal
trial” (Guidoni, 2003, p. 57). Guidoni (2003) argued that before the potential
of RJ in the prison estate is explored, we need to be able to develop a robust
philosophical understanding of two preliminary questions. First, is RJ itself a
form of punishment and second, does it have common features with rehabili-
tation and retribution? In a similar vein, Gavrielides (2005) asked, “Does RJ
belong to the world of theories or is it merely an alternative criminal justice
process?” (p. 87).
Back to Basics for a Common Ground
RJ in the secure estate is already widespread internationally. Surely, this
would not have been possible if common ground was lacking. But how can
conceptual challenges be faced? Using the data from our literature review
and primary research, we attempted a normative exploration of the philo-
sophical foundations that underpin the notions of RJ and imprisonment.
Particular focus was given on their interpretation of “punishment.”
The debate on RJ’s relationship with punishment has been particularly
interesting and extensive. To give some examples, Daly (2000) took RJ to be
punishment because it leads to obligations for the offender. However, McCold
(1999) rejected the idea of including coercive judicial sanctions in the restor-
ative process, as they might shift RJ back to being punitive. Marshall (1996)
claimed that noncoercive processes are not always achievable and that coer-
cive measures must be considered. However, this should be done through the
criminal justice system. He argued that this is where RJ should end and where
the traditional system should take over.
For the sake of brevity, two broad categories of the relationship of RJ with
punishment are offered. A third category by the author is also added
(Gavrielides, 2005; 2013). The article will now argue that this new category
is where the RJ paradigm and the concept of imprisonment reconcile.
The first camp in the literature denies that RJ measures can, in any way, be
punitive (Wright, 1996). The second argues that RJ is not “alternative to
by guest on September 2, 2014tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

14 The Prison Journal
punishment,” but “alternative punishment” (Duff, 1992). The argument of
the first group is that restorative measures’ primary purpose is to be construc-
tive. Therefore, they are not inflicted “for their own sake” rather than for a
higher purpose (Walgrave & Bazemore, 1999, p. 146). The second group,
however, has noted,
This purported distinction is misleading because it relies for its effect on the
confusion of two distinct elements in the concept of intention. One element
relates to the motives for doing something; the other refers to the fact that the
act in question is being performed deliberately or wilfully. (Dignan, 2002, p.
179)
I offer that irrespective of whether we decide to go with the first group of
critics who deny that restorative measures are punitive, or with the second
who claim that they are alternative punishments, we still have to accept that
RJ is surely neither punishment nor is it interested in it, at least in the form
that it has taken under the punitive paradigm of our criminal justice systems
(Gavrielides, 2005; 2013).
I have argued that there is a third type called “restorative punishment.”
This is where RJ and incapacitation meet. Punishment comes from the Greek
word poene, meaning pain, and examples of RJ practices illustrate the restor-
ative pain that offenders undergo when entering into a voluntary dialogue of
personal transformation and community healing. Elliott (2011) also wrote, “It
is often said of RJ that what is required in response to harm within a RJ para-
digm is much more demanding of individuals and communities than is the
reflexive resort to punishment” (p. 28) and I would add “as this is understood
by the punitive paradigm of justice.”
What then is RJ’s relationship with punishment/poene as this sits outside
of the punitive paradigm? The retributive understanding of punishment iden-
tifies the existence of two basic elements. The first is the communicative and
the second the retributive. Punishment should aim to communicate with the
receiver, imposing “the suffering which she deserves for her crime” (Duff,
1992, pp. 53-54). Punishment is thus justified as an intrinsically appropriate
response to “crime.” On the contrary, according to the utilitarian position, its
central characteristic is that it aims to prevent “crime” (either in a general or
specific way), and what matters is that “crime” is actually or potentially
harmful.
If we accept the retributive position that punishment consists of two ele-
ments, the expressive and the retributive (Duff, 1992), restorative measures
would certainly deny the second one. Retribution is completely taken out of
the restorative picture. However, the expressive element is desirable, as it
by guest on September 2, 2014tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Gavrielides 15
promotes the restorative goal of the process. Put another way, punishment, no
matter the type (restorative or punitive) should serve an “expressive func-
tion” (Feinberg, 1965).
Clearly, we notice a difference of aims in the restorative versus punitive
punishment comparison. As a restorative measure, punishment aims to
restore, create, construct, repair and reintegrate. As a punitive one, depending
on the punishment theory we use, for example, Retribution/Utilitarian (deter-
rence/rehabilitation, etc.), its aims are rather different. In addition, restorative
measures can entail education per se. Put another way, restorative punish-
ment can teach communication, negotiation, compromise, and related skills.
In this way, it promotes a moral education, possibly creating a moral order in
society.
I (Gavrielides, 2005) move on to conclude, “Restorative punishment aims
to restore the harm done. Deterrence (general or specific) might be welcomed
as a side effect, but is not among the primary goals of restorative measures,
nor is retribution for what was done” (p. 93).14 RJ entails pain (poene) that is
as deep as the one inflicted by the punishment of current criminal justice
system.
Consequently, “restorative punishment,” prisons, and the RJ ideals and
goals are not mutually exclusive. Although RJ is not punishment in the tradi-
tional criminal justice sense, in the context of “restorative punishment,”
poene and deterrence are welcomed side effect. As argued by both utilitarian
and libertarian schools of thought, deterrence is also one of the primary goals
of imprisonment. Likewise, “restorative punishment” entails pain and has
serious precautions for all parties involved.
In fact, “restorative punishment” shares similar objectives with imprison-
ment. The critique, however, is important as it helps us to identify a number
of aspects of imprisonment that conflict with the ethos of RJ (Johnstone,
2007). Like Johnstone, I also have to agree that there is a considerable gap
between the environment of a prison and the ethos of RJ. As he also points
out, “there is also a very large gap between the environment of many parts of
contemporary society and the ethos of RJ” (Johnstone, 2007, p. 20).
Guidoni is right in saying that the Turin project that he investigated failed
to reach genuine and long-lasting RJ outcomes. However, he uses this to
dismiss RJ in the prison estate altogether. His conclusion is flawed for three
main reasons. First, Guidoni’s analysis makes the assumption that RJ must be
“institutionalised”15 to coexist with imprisonment. In Guidoni (2003) own
terms, “These ambivalences were decisive in the failure of the project’s insti-
tutionalisation” (p. 62). According to our research and the extant literature,
rarely will RJ practitioners go as far as believing that RJ will one day be
“institutionalised” (Gavrielides, 2008; Johnstone, 2007, 2012). In fact,
by guest on September 2, 2014tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

16 The Prison Journal
several interviewed practitioners expressed strong reservations with “RJ
being institutionalised” or “mainstreamed.” For instance, they stressed the
importance of the practice being and remaining community led or at least
having a community representative at all times (see also Wright, 1996).
Second, Guidoni seems to accept only one vision of RJ. This vision dates back
to the 1970s and was best captured by the abolitionist movement (Kuhn, 1970).
He views RJ as being totally at odds with the criminal justice system while the
notion of “restorative punishment” is not considered; naturally, the “RJ para-
digm” is thus rejected. To illustrate his point, he quotes Stan Cohen’s (1975)
Peace Crimes: “The core of a prison system . . . cannot be changed . . . Either we
eliminate the institution entirely or we keep it with all the contradictions and
paradoxes emerging when we try to reform it” (pp. 441-442). Our normative
explanation of how RJ views punishment in a parallel universe also explains that
despite being different, these universes are not mutually exclusive.
Finally, Guidoni is flawed in his belief that all RJ proponents reject the idea
of using RJ for recidivism and the reduction of prison population. Guidoni
(2003) said, “I cannot see how RJ could lead to reducing prison populations,
which actually is not an intended goal of its advocates” (p. 65). Many RJ advo-
cates would disagree with this statement particularly because there is consen-
sus in the vast RJ literature that RJ’s objectives and goals do not merely revolve
around the victim and the community but have an offender focus particularly
when it comes to reintegration and resettlement (see Edgar & Newell, 2006;
Gavrielides, 2008). Restorative punishment, as described above, retains certain
rehabilitative goals as these are also explained in Gavrielides (2007),
Braithwaite (1999), and McCold’s (1999) understanding of the RJ ethos.
Subsequently, we have concluded that RJ and imprisonment strategies can
be pursued concurrently and that the two can be complementary in achieving
crime reductions goals such as deterrence (common feature of both), inca-
pacitation (feature of imprisonment), and restitution/healing (feature of RJ).
A New Classification and a Mapping Exercise
So, where do we go from here? Complex delineations of the RJ practice in the
secure estate, long-winded definitions, and conceptual fluidity must be
addressed. Starting with the extant classification of RJ projects in prisons as
this was presented above (see Table 2), we notice that it does not reflect our
normative thinking. The majority of our interviewees did not accept it either.
For instance, one interviewee said, “I don’t find the five categories particu-
larly accurate; how much restorative are offending behavior programs or com-
munity work?” Someone else said, “It is a useful typology . . . but only for the
literature. I am not sure it helps when it comes to doing RJ.” Someone else
by guest on September 2, 2014tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Gavrielides 17
said, “RJ is harm-focused . . . where is the restored harm in offending behavior
programs?” Another practitioner said, “Where is the encounter in AVP?”
To put our normative thinking in context and in response to the findings
from the fieldwork, we propose a simpler delineation of RJ practices in pris-
ons. This includes only two categories of RJ programs, which can be either
“preparatory” or “delivery.” In the “preparatory practices” group, our research
placed all practices that targeted only one party (i.e., offending behavior pro-
grams, victim awareness programs, and community service work). These
practices were also characterized by a RJ intention, but not necessarily a RJ
outcome. In our normative thinking, this group does not offer restorative pun-
ishment (restorative poene/pain) as it merely sits within the punitive para-
digm aiming to prepare for a RJ encounter. Put another way, preparatory RJ
practices are not placed within the restorative punishment paradigm, but aim
to prepare for the restorative poene using existing structures within the cur-
rent system and punitive paradigm.
However, “delivery practices” refers to programs that involve a (direct or
indirect) encounter (i.e., victim–offender mediation and prisons with a com-
plete RJ philosophy). Delivery practices must be run with a restorative out-
come in mind—irrespective of whether this is successful or not. They entail
restorative punishment/pain and involve deterrence in the same way as inca-
pacitation. Their telos is to inflict restorative poene and attempt restorative
outcomes in parallel to the intentions pursued through incapacitation.
To place this argument in context, examples of existing practices were
needed. Examples were sought from around the globe both in relation to adult
and young offenders (see Table 3).16 Sources for seeking more information
on each of these programs are provided, as the limited scope of this article
does not allow a detailed examination of their individual practices. A caveat
that needs to be mentioned relates to the “labeling” or “self-categorization”
of programs as restorative.
Concluding Remarks
We have shown that RJ exists within the secure estate widely in the form of
mediation, circles, conferencing, victim awareness programs, and so forth.
We have argued that if further development of RJ practices within the secure
estate is wanted, then its concept has to reconcile with that of imprisonment.
We also argued that the ambiguity that seems to exist around RJ within the
prison estate is not due to lack of definitions. We identified the problem
within a normative framework of misunderstanding of where the restorative
notion sits within the context of incapacitation. We went back to basics by
looking at the ultimate outcomes of RJ practices and imprisonment, as these
by guest on September 2, 2014tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

18
Table 3. Preparatory and Delivery Restorative Justice Projects in Prisons.
Name Country
Young people/
adults Category
Sycamore Treea project Australia, Bolivia, Cayman Islands, Colombia, Commonwealth of Northern Mariana
Islands, Costa Rica, England and Wales, Guam, Hong Kong, Hungary, Kazahkstan,
New Zealand, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Palau, Philippines, Rwanda, Scotland,
Solomon Islands, South Africa, United States, Zambia
Both Preparatory
SORI projectbEngland and Wales (mainly Cardiff prison) Both Preparatory
Hope Prison MinistrycSouth Africa Adult Preparatory
Bridges to LifedTexas, United States Adult Preparatory
Community based
mediation
Examples from the United Kingdom: REMEDI (South Yorkshire), Kent Mediation,
Thames Valley Statutory Adult Restoration Service (STARS) and West Yorkshire
mediation.
Adult Delivery
Probation-based
mediation
Examples from the United Kingdom: West Midlands, Kent, Avon, and Somerset Both Delivery
Youth offending teams
based mediation
Examples from the United Kingdom: Leeds, Swindon, Torbay, South Devon,
Lancaster, Cookham Wood.
Young people Delivery
Victim–offender dialogue
programse
United States (24 states), Canada (Langley, British Columbia) Both Delivery
Prisons Transformation
Projectf
South Africa Adult Delivery
Corrective Services
based mediationg
Australia, New South Wales Adult Delivery
Phoenix ZululandhZululand Adult Delivery
AMICUS girls restorative
programi
United States, Minnesota Correctional Facility Adult Delivery
Restorative conferencingjUnited Kingdom, Medway Secure Training Centre Young people Delivery
(continued)
by guest on September 2, 2014tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

19
(continued)
Name Country
Young people/
adults Category
Restorative
adjudicationsk
United Kingdom: Brixton, Bullingdon and Grendon (male), Swinfen Hall (both),
Cornton Vale (adult female), Ashfield, Brinsford, Huntercombe, Cookham Wood
(young male), New Hall (young female)
Both Preparatory
Communities of
Restoration (APAC)l
Argentina, Australia, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador,
Germany, Hungary, Latvia, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, United States
Both Preparatory
Kainos Community
Programm
England and Wales (HMP The Verne, HMP Swaleside and HMP Stocken) Adult Preparatory
Prison Therapeutic
Community Program
England and Wales (HMP Grendon) Adult Preparatory
Alternative to Violence
Project (AVP)n
African Great Lakes Initiative, Angola, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Belarus,
Bosnia/Herzegovina, Brazil, Britain, Burundi, Canada, Colombia, Congo, Costa
Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Georgia, Germany, Haiti, Hong
Kong, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ingushetia, Ireland, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Lithuania,
Macedonia, Mexico, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua,
Nigeria, Russia, Rwanda, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Tanzania, Tonga,
Uganda, Ukraine, United States, Zimbabwe
Adult Preparatory
RJ in Prisons ProjectoBelgium (Leuven Central, Hoogstraten School Centre, Leuven Hulp) Both Delivery
A Bridge Towards New
Horizons
Italy (Turin prison) Adult Delivery
The Anne Frank Prison
Projectp
United Kingdom (Holloway, HMP Durham, HMP Highpoint, Oakhill STC, HMP
Peterborough, HMP Highdown, HMP Wakefield, HMP Cookham Wood, HMP
Bullingdon, HMP Werrington, HMP Swaleside, HMP Standford Hill, HMP Gartree,
HMP Edmunds Hill, HMP Carlford, HMP Newhall)
Both Preparatory
Prison-based mediation
and conferencingq
United Kingdom (36 prisons) Adult Delivery
Table 3. (continued)
by guest on September 2, 2014tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

20
Name Country
Young people/
adults Category
The Forgiveness ProjectrUnited Kingdom (7 prisons: High Down, Guys Marsh, Featherstone, Wandsworth,
YOI Ashfield, HMP & YOI Parc, HMP Doncaster, Blantrye House (Resettlement),
Huntercombe)
Both Preparatory
Note. SORI = Supporting offenders through restoration inside; REMEDI = restorative justice and mediation initiatives; APAC = association for the protection of the
condemned; HMP = Her Majesty’s prisons; STC = Secure Training Centre; YOI = young offenders institution.
aAs recorded by Liebmann (2007) : www.pficjr.org
bSee SORI Project (Supporting Offenders through Restoration Inside), Ministry of Justice: (originally developed by Cardiff Prison Chaplaincy).
cSee Hope Prison Ministry, Cape Town, South Africa: http://www.hopepm.org/
dSee Bridges to Life, Texas: www.bridgestolife.org
eFor further information see Umbreit, Vos, Coates, and Brown (2003).
fSee www.ccr.org.za/images/stories/pdfs/CCRAR_0708_pt2.pdf, pp. 52-54
gSee http://www.correctiveservices.nsw.gov.au/related-links/victims
hSee http://www.phoenix-zululand.org.za/
iSee http://www.amicususa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/AmicusGirlsStudy503small.pdf
jMainly used for bullying incidents and conflicts within prison.
kThese are mainly used to deal with prison incidents such as assaults and thefts.
lCountry list as of 2009, http://www.acea.org.au/Content/2005%20papers/Paper%20Roper.pdf
mSee www.kainoscommunity.com
nCountry list as of 2009, for AVP in Britain see www.avpbritain.org.uk and internationally www.avpinternational.org
oFor a detailed account of this program see Aertsen and Peters (1998), Newell (2002a, 2002b).
pCarried out by the Anne Frank Trust, see http://www.annefrank.org.uk
qThis is based on Home Office (2003) RJ mapping exercise. Other projects not listed here but were in existence are as follows: The inside out trust (preparatory),
Victim Impact Groups in Bristol Prison (preparatory), Manchester Adult RJ Project (preparatory), the government-funded project in HMP Bullingdon and Thames Valley,
the government-funded CONNECT project (25 prisons were running it), Wetherby YOI (preparatory).
rSee http://theforgivenessproject.com/projects/prisons/
Table 3. (continued)
by guest on September 2, 2014tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Gavrielides 21
are placed within the punitive and restorative paradigms. The relationship of
RJ and incapacitation with punishment was explored and common ground
was identified in their intentions
We have concluded that RJ and prisons are not mutually exclusive as some
commentators have argued (e.g. Guidoni, 2003). This proposition is, of
course, open for debate. The article also endorsed the idea of “restorative
punishment” and rejected the proposition that RJ can only be approached as
an abolitionist concept.
Our findings also suggest that a simpler categorization of existing prac-
tices in the secure estate is preferable. A mapping exercise of existing pro-
grams in prisons was attempted grouping them into “preparatory” and
“delivery” categories. While the first group aims to prepare the victim and the
offender to reach RJ outcomes (e.g., via an encounter), the latter pursues
these outcomes directly/indirectly. However, both preparatory and delivery
programs must be based on the RJ ethos as this was described above. More
importantly, when the restorative poene is inflicted, the pain must be justified
through the principles underlying this ethos. This allows the development of
a parallel restorative understanding of punishment that works alongside inca-
pacitation. At the same time, we also accepted that RJ prioritizes goals and
outcomes differently and hence it needs its own theoretical and philosophical
justification. This does not mean that it is in opposition with criminal justice
practices such as imprisonment. In the words of the late Liz Elliott, “RJ must
be more than a programme within the current system—it must be a new para-
digm for responding to harm and conflict with its own philosophical and
theoretical framework” (Elliott, 2011, p. 3). Developing this further may
indeed allow a more solid diffusion of RJ in the secure estate. In drawing a
conclusion for our understanding of RJ in prisons, care needs to be taken not
to raise false expectations. Morris (2002) claimed that many of the criticisms
of RJ are the result of a fundamental understanding of what it seeks to achieve.
Wright (1996) also warned that we would be doing RJ a disservice were we
to raise expectations of complete success.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: Part of the research was funded by EU
Grant agreement No. JLS/2008/JPEN/015-30-CE-0267156/0039.17
by guest on September 2, 2014tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

22 The Prison Journal
Notes
1. See, for instance, the Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics (SPACE I and
II) as well as the annual report produced by the Committee for the Prevention of
Torture and Inhumane and Degrading Treatment http://www.coe.int/lportal/web/
coe-portal/what-we-do/human-rights/prevention-of-torture?dynLink=true&layo
utId=23&dlgroupId=10226&fromArticleId=
2. For instance, in 2005, US$68,747,203,000 was spent on prisons in the United
States and in England and Wales placing one young offender in prison costs as
much as £140,000 per year (£100,000 in direct costs and £40,000 in indirect
costs once they are released). Keeping each prisoner costs £41,000 annually (or
£112.32 a day). This means that if there are 85,076 prisoners at the moment, pris-
ons cost as much as £3.49 billion. According to Home Office statistics, it costs
£146,000 to put someone through court and keep them in prison for a year).
3. See https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/effective-community-
services-1
4. See http://www.restorativejustice.org/prison/09examples/belgium/
5. For the full list of participants, see http://www.iars.org.uk/sites/default/files/
IARS_MEREPS_EU%20Study%20Tour_2009.pdf
6. Independent Academic Research Studies (IARS) is an independent think tank
with a charitable mission to give everyone a chance to forge a safer, fairer, and
more inclusive society. IARS produces evidence-based solutions to current
social problems, share best practice, and enable young people to shape decision
making www.iars.org.uk
7. Gavrielides, T. (2011a). Also to download the expert seminar report and for
the full list of participants, see http://iars.org.uk/sites/default/files/RJ%20
Seminar%20Nov%202010%20report_Final.pdf
8. The first contemporary restorative justice (RJ) practice took place in Ontario
(Canada) when Mark Yantzi, a probation officer, initiated the Victim–Offender
Reconciliation Program (Yantzi, 1998).
9. Skelton found that Eglash’s source was Heinz Horst Schrey’s 1955 book The
Biblical Doctrine of Justice and the Law, originally published in German and
then translated and adapted into English.
10. This is a term used to refer to victims who are involved in similar crimes but they
do not relate to the offender directly.
11. One of the most influential books on “paradigm changes” is by Kuhn (1970).
There, Kuhn claimed that paradigms can replace each other, causing a “revo-
lution” in the way we view and understand the world. What can cause such a
change is a “paradigm crisis.”
12. Nils Christie is considered a leading proponent of the “Informal Justice” move-
ment. After “Conflicts as Property,” he published “Limits to Pain,” where he
showed the connection between the “theft of conflicts” that he advanced in the
article and the use of punishment (Christie, 1977).
13. For a general guide to further reading, see Van Ness (2007), Guidoni (2003). For
initiatives in the United Kingdom, see Stern (2005), Edgar and Newell (2006),
and Liebmann (2007).
by guest on September 2, 2014tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Gavrielides 23
14. Marshall’s (1996) understanding of punishment also seems to be aligned with
Gavrielides’ (2007).
15. Guidoni did not really define what he means by “institutionalisation” but we are
left to assume that it means the implementation of RJ within an institution such
as prisons. This is opposed to RJ’s implementation in the community or as a pilot
scheme introduced on ad hoc basis. Gavrielides (2008) defines mainstreaming as
the process of integration into an institution’s culture and everyday reality.
16. A thorough account of RJ in prisons can be found in Francis (2001) and Liebmann
and Braithwaite (1999).
17. The wider project is titled Mediation and RJ in Prison Settings, see http://mereps.
foresee.hu/en/
References
Aertsen, I., & Peters, T. (1998). Mediation for reparation: The victim’s perspective. In
E. Fattah & T. Peters (Eds.), Support for crime victims in a comparative perspec-
tive: A collection of essays dedicated to the memory of Prof. Frederic McClintock
(With a preface by E. Fattah & T. Peters, pp. 229-251). Leuven, Belgium: Leuven
University Press.
Barabás, T. (2012). The position of juvenile offenders in Hungary: Policy and prac-
tice. In T. Gavrielides (Ed.), Rights and restoration within youth justice (pp. 281-
319). Witby, Ontario, Canada: de Sitter Publications.
Barabás, T., Fellegi, B., & Windt, S. (2012). Responsibility-taking, relationship-
building and restoration in prisons. Budapest, Hungary: OKRI.
Barnett, R. (1977). Restitution: A new paradigm of criminal justice. Ethics: An
International Journal of Social, Political, and Legal Philosophy, 87, 279-301.
Beven, J., Halla, G., Froylandb, I., & Steelsa, B. (2005). Restoration or renovation?
Evaluating restorative justice outcomes. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 12,
194-206.
Bitel, M., & Edgar, K. (1998). Offending prisoners on alternatives to violence. Prison
Service Journal, 118, 42-44.
Braithwaite, J. (1999). Restorative justice: Assessing optimistic and pessimistic
accounts. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 25, 1-127.
Braithwaite, J. (2002). Setting standards for restorative justice. British Journal of
Criminology, 42, 563-577.
Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Cantor, G. (1976). An end to crime and punishment. The Shingle (Philadelphia Bar
Association), 39(4), 99-114.
Carey, M. (1998). A voluntary organization in the prison system . . . Inside Out Trust.
London, England: Prison Governors Association Magazine.
Christie, N. (1977). Conflicts as property. British Journal of Criminology, 17(1),
1-15.
Cohen, S. (1975). Uno scenario per il sistema cencerario future [A scenario for the
future criminal justice system]. In F. Basagua (Ed.), Crimini di pace (pp. 81-102).
Torino, Italy: Einaudi.
by guest on September 2, 2014tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

24 The Prison Journal
Daly, K. (2000). Revisiting the relationship between retributive and restorative jus-
tice. In H. Strang & J. Braithwaite (Eds.), Restorative justice: Philosophy to prac-
tice (pp. 55-76). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate/Dartmouth.
Daly, K., & Immarigeon, R. (1998). The past, present, and future of restorative jus-
tice: Some critical reflections. Contemporary Justice Review, 1, 21-45.
Dhami, M. K., Mantle, G., & Fox, D. (2009). Restorative justice in prisons.
Contemporary Justice Review, 12, 433-448.
Dignan, J. (2002). Restorative justice and the law. In L. Walgrave (Ed.), Restorative
justice and the law (pp. 168-190). Cullompton, UK: Willan.
Duff, A. (1992). Alternatives to punishment or alternative punishments? In W. Cragg
(Ed.), Retributivism and its critics (pp. 44-68). Stuttgart, Germany: Franz Steiner.
Edgar, K., & Newell, T. (2006). Restorative justice in prisons: A guide to making it
happen. Winchester, UK: Waterside Press.
Eglash, A. (1977). Beyond restitution: Creative restitution. In J. Hudson & B. Galaway
(Eds.), Restitution in criminal justice (pp. 91-100). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
Elliott, L. (2011). Security with care. Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: Fernwood.
Feinberg, J. (1965). The expressive function of punishment. The Monist, 49, 397-408.
Francis, V. (2001). Restorative practices in prison: A review of the literature. London,
England: ICPS.
Gavrielides, T. (2005). Some meta-theoretical questions for restorative justice. Ratio
Juris, 18(1), 84-106.
Gavrielides, T. (2007). Restorative justice theory and practice: Addressing the dis-
crepancy. Helsinki, Finland: HEUNI.
Gavrielides, T. (2008). Restorative justice—The perplexing concept: Conceptual fault-
lines and power battles within the restorative justice movement. Criminology &
Criminal Justice, 8, 165-184.
Gavrielides, T. (2011a). Drawing together research, policy and practice for restor-
ative justice. London, England: Independent Academic Research Studies.
Retrieved from http://www.iars.org.uk/sites/default/files/RJ%20Seminar%20
Nov%202010%20report_Final.pdf
Gavrielides, T. (2011b). Restorative practices: From the early societies to the 1970s.
Internet Journal of Criminology. ISSN 2045-6743. Retrieved from http://www.
internetjournalofcriminology.com/Gavrielides_Restorative_Practices_IJC_
November_2011.pdf
Gavrielides, T. (2012a). Restorative justice and the secure estate: Alternatives for
young people in custody. London, England: Independent Academic Research
Studies.
Gavrielides, T. (2012b). Rights and restoration within youth justice. Witby, Ontario,
Canada: de Sitter Publications.
Gavrielides, T. (2013). Restorative Pain: A new vision of punishment. In Gavrielides,
T. and V. Artinopoulou (Ed). Reconstructing Restorative Justice Philosophy (pp.
311-337) . Ashgate Publishing: Furnham, UK.
Guidoni, O. V. (2003). The ambivalences of restorative justice: Some reflections on
an Italian prison project. Contemporary Justice Review, 6, 55-68.
Hirsch, A. V. (1999). Punishment, penance, and the state. In M. Matravers (Eds.),
Punishment and political theory (pp. 69-82). Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.
by guest on September 2, 2014tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Gavrielides 25
Home Office. (2003). Restorative justice: The government’s strategy. London,
England: Author.
Immarigeon, R. (1994). Reconciliation between victims and imprisoned offenders:
Program models and issues. Akron, PA: Mennonite Central Committee U.S.
Office of Crime and Justice.
Johnstone, G. (2002). Restorative justice: Ideas, values, debates. Devon, UK: Willan.
Johnstone, G. (2007). Restorative justice and the practice of imprisonment. Prison
Service Journal, 140, 15-20.
Johnstone, G. (2012). The standardization of restorative justice. In T. Gavrielides
(Ed.), Rights and restoration within youth justice (pp. 91-117). Witby, Ontario,
Canada: de Sitter Publications.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Liebmann, M. (2007). Restorative justice: How it works. London, England: Jessica
Kingsley.
Liebmann, M., & Braithwaite, S. (1999). Restorative justice in custodial set-
tings. Retrieved from http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/assets/_ugc/fetch.
php?file=12zy_research_into_restorative_justice_in_custodial_settings.pdf
Mackay, R. (2002). Punishment, guilt, and spirit in restorative justice: An essay on
legal and religious anthropology. In E. G. M. Weitekamp & H.-J. Kerner (Eds.),
Restorative justice: Theoretical foundations (pp. 247-266). Deon, UK: Willan.
Marshall, T. (1996). The evolution of restorative justice in Britain. European Journal
on Criminal Policy and Research, 4(4), 21-43.
Marshall, T., & Merry, S. (1990). Crime and accountability: Victim-offender media-
tion in practice. London, England: HMSO.
McCold, P. (1999). Toward a holistic vision of restorative justice: A reply to Walgrave.
Presentation at The 4th International Conference on Restorative Justice for
Juveniles. Leuven 24-27 October 1999. Contemporary Justice Review, 3, 357-
414.
Miers, D. (2001). An international review of restorative justice. London, England:
Home Office.
Miers, D., Maguire, M., Goldie, S., Sharpe, K., Hale, C., Netten, A., Uglow, S., .
. .Newburn, T. (2001). An exploratory evaluation of RJ schemes. London,
England: Home Office.
Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. London, England:Sage.
Morris, A. (2002). Critiquing the critics: A brief response to critics of restorative
justice. British Journal of Criminology, 42, 596-615.
Newell, T. (2002a). Restorative justice in prisons project. In Restorative justice in
prisons. Resource book and report (pp. 3-6). London, England: HM Prison
Service. Retrieved from http://www.thamesvalleypartnership.org.uk/wp-content/
uploads/rjinprisonreport.pdf
Newell, T. (2002b, August 8-10). Restorative practice in prisons: Circles and con-
ferencing in the custodial setting. Paper presented at the Third International
Conference on Conferencing, Circles and other Restorative Practices,
Minneapolis, MN.
by guest on September 2, 2014tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

26 The Prison Journal
Prison Fellowship. (1999). The Sycamore Tree Project: A model for restorative jus-
tice. London, England: Author.
Robert, L., & Peters, T. (2002). How restorative justice is able to transcend the prison
walls: A discussion of the project “restorative detention.” In E. Weitekamp & H.
Kerner (Eds.), Restorative justice in context: International practice & directions
(pp. 95-122). Devon, UK: Willan.
Roche, D. (2003). Accountability in restorative justice. London, England: Clarendon
Press.
Shaw, I. (1999). Qualitative evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Shipman, M. (1997). The limitations of social research. London, England: Longman.
Skelton, A. M. (2005). The influence of the theory and practice of restorative justice
in South African with special reference to child justice. Dissertation submitted in
partial fulfilment of the degree Doctor Legum in the Faculty of Law, University
of Pretoria.
Smith, P., & Natalier, K. (2005). Understanding criminal justice. London, England:
SAGE.
Stern, V. (2005). Prisons and their communities: Testing a new approach. An account
of the restorative prison project 2000-2004. London: International Centre for
Prison Studies - Kings College London.
Thorvaldson, A. S. (1978). The effects of community service on the attitudes of offend-
ers (Doctoral dissertation). University of Cambridge, UK.
Toews, B. (2006). Restorative justice for people in prison.Pennsylvania: Good
Books.
Umbreit, M. S., Vos, B., Coates, R. B., & Brown, K. (2003). Victim offender dialogue
in violent cases: The Texas and Ohio experience. VOMA Connections, 14(1),
12-17.
Van Ness, D. W. (2007). Prisons and restorative justice. In G. Johnstone & D. W.
Van Ness (Eds.), Handbook of restorative justice (pp. 312-324.). Devon, UK:
Willan.
Van Ness, D. W., & Strong, K. H. (1997). Restoring justice. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
Van Ness, D. W., & Strong, K. H. (2010). Restoring justice, fourth edition: An intro-
duction to restorative justice. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
Walgrave, L., & Bazemore, G. (1999). Restorative juvenile justice: Repairing the
harm of youth crime. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Wilcox, A., & Hoyle, C. (2004). Restorative justice projects: The National
Evaluation of the Youth Justice Board’s RJ Projects. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Wright, M. (1996). Can mediation be an alternative to criminal justice. In B. Galaway
& J. Hudson (Eds.), Restorative justice: International perspectives (pp. 227-239).
Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Yantzi, M. (1998). Sexual offending and restoration. Windsor, Ontario, Canada:
Herald Press.
Zehr, H. (1990). Changing lenses: A new focus for crime and justice. Scottdale, PA:
Herald Press.
by guest on September 2, 2014tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Gavrielides 27
Author Biography
Theo Gavrielides is the founder and director of the U.K.-based international think
tank, Independent Academic Research Studies (IARS) and the Restorative Justice for
All institute. He is also an adjunct professor at Simon Fraser University and
Buckinghamshire New University. He has published widely in restorative justice,
human rights, and youth policy. His latest publication is Reconstructing Restorative
Justice Philosophy (Ashgate).
by guest on September 2, 2014tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from