Restorative Justice

First of all, one might ask, “What is Restorative Justice?”

Restorative Justice is a process through which remorseful offenders

accept responsibility for their misconduct, particularly to their victims and to the
community.1 It espouses resolving conflicts with the maximum involvement of the
victim, the offender and the community. It primarily aims to achieve reparation for
the victim, reconciliation of the offender, the offended and the community, and
enhancement of public safety. It also ensures that the child’s rights will not be
infringed when he/she admits to the offence. 2

Restorative Justice is an approach to justice that has both a process

element and a values conception. It is as process where all stakeholders in an
injustice have an opportunity to discuss its effects on people and to decide what
is to be done to attempt to heal those hurt. 3 It is a radical program for
transforming the values of the legal system. the ideal is that our institutions be
redesigned so that the justice of the people is better able to bubble up into the
justice of the law and the justice of the law more effectively filters down into the
justice of the people.4

Restorative Justice is a growing social movement to institutionalize

peaceful approaches to harm, problem-solving and violations of legal and human
rights. These range from international peacemaking tribunals such as the South
Africa Truth and Reconciliation Commission to innovations within the criminal and
juvenile justice systems, schools, social services and communities. Rather than
privileging the law, professionals and the state, restorative resolutions engage
those who are harmed, wrongdoers and their affected communities in search of
solutions that promote repair, reconciliation and the rebuilding of relationships.
Restorative justice seeks to build partnerships to reestablish mutual responsibility
for constructive responses to wrongdoing within our communities. Restorative
approaches seek a balanced approach to the needs of the victim, wrongdoer and
community through processes that preserve the safety and dignity of all. 5

Restorative justice encounters involving victims and offenders discussing

what happened, why it happened and what reparation can be made have
promoted victim wellbeing and offender rehabilitation. It also aims to heal
relationships rather than balance hurt with hurt. 6 The Restorative Justice process,
as a mediated encounter between victim and offender, allows the emotions of
each party to be expressed and appeased by discussing the events, their effects
and what the offender might do to make amends.

Restorative justice asserts that harmful behavior, whether related to legal

action or not, can cause not only material damage but also emotional or
psychological harm that must be healed if the problem is to be comprehensively
resolved.7 The primary healing mechanism is a mediated encounter between
victim and offender whereby the emotions of each may be expressed and

1
Department of Justice (Philippines) Official Website. (Date of Publication is Unknown). Retrieved on 18
September 2019 from http://probation.gov.ph/restorative-justice/
2
Jeza Mae Sarah C. Sanchez. (Date of Publication is Unknown). Retrieved on 18 September 2019 from
https://www.unafei.or.jp/publications/pdf/RS_No101/No101_17_IP_Philippines.pdf
3
John Braithewaite (2002), Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation. Retrieve on 18 September 2019
from https://www.anu.edu.au/fellows/jbraithwaite/_documents/Articles/Restorative_Justice_2002.pdf
4
Ibid.
5
Boyes-Watson, C. (2014). Suffolk University, College of Arts & Sciences, Center for Restorative Justice
6
Kidder, D. L. (2007). Restorative justice: Not "rights", but the right way to heal relationships at work.
International Journal of Conflict Management.
7
Daniel W. Van Ness and Karen Heetderks Strong (2002), Restoring Justice (2nd ed,), p 38.
soothed by discussing the events, their effects and what the offender might do to
make amends.8

Examples of restorative process include mediation, conferencing,

sentencing/support circle and the like. The restorative outcome is the agreement
obtained as a product of a restorative justice process. Examples of restorative
outcomes include restitution, community work service and any other program or
response designed to accomplish reparation of the victim, and the reintegration
of the victims and/or offenders.9

What is the Purpose of Restorative Justice?

Victims of crime may be adversely affected physically, emotionally,

psychologically and financially and the effects of crime on victims can vary
according to the offence.10 A central aspect of restorative justice is the extent to
which it can repair the harm caused as a result of a crime. However, defining
"harm" is problematic, as it is a broad term which can cover material losses,
physical and psychological injuries, social dysfunctions and the rupture of social
bonds and relationships that can arise as a result of crime between the victim,
offender and the community.

A restorative justice program aims to get offenders to take responsibility

for their actions, to understand the harm they have caused, to give them an
opportunity to redeem themselves and to discourage them from causing further
harm. For victims, its goal is to give them an active role in the process 11 and to
reduce feelings of anxiety and powerlessness. 12 Restorative justice is founded on
an alternative theory to the traditional methods of justice, which often focus on
retribution. However, restorative justice programs can complement traditional
methods.

Restorative justice is concerned with healing victims' wounds, restoring

offenders to law-abiding lives, and repairing harm done to interpersonal
relationships and the community. It seeks to involve all stakeholders and provide
opportunities for those most affected by the crime to be directly involved in the
process of responding to the harm caused.13

Victims include not only those directly affected by the offense, but also
family members and members of the affected community. The safety, support,
and needs of these victims are the starting points for any restorative justice
process. Thus a primary objective is to attend to victims' needs: material,
financial, emotional, and social.14 Addressing these needs and the needs of the
community is necessary if public demands for severe punishment are to be
quelled.

This requires the assumption that crimes or violations are committed

against real individuals, rather than against the state. Restorative justice,
therefore, advocates restitution to the victim by the offender rather than

8
Ibid p 55–78.
9
Supra. at Note 1
10
Norton, (2007) "The Place of Victims in the Criminal Justice System", Irish Probation Journal, VOL (4)
11
Rebecca Webber, "A New Kind of Criminal Justice", Parade, October 25, 2009, Reteived on 18
September 2019 from https://parade.com/38506/parade/091025-a-new-kind-of-criminal-justice/
12
Lawrence W. Sherman & Heather Strang (2007), "Restorative Justice: The Evidence" (PDF). University
of Pennsylvania
13
Michelle Maiese (October 2003), Updated by Heidi Burgess and Sarah Cast (June 2013), Restorative
Justice. Retrieve on 18 September 2019 from https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/restorative_justice
14
Ibid.
retribution by the state against the offender. Instead of continuing and escalating
the cycle of violence, it tries to restore relationships and stop the violence. 15

Restorative justice is a forward-looking, preventive response that strives to

understand crime in its social context. It challenges us to examine the root
causes of violence and crime in order that these cycles might be broken. This
approach is based on the assumption that crime has its origins in social
conditions, and recognizes that offenders themselves have often suffered harm.
Therefore, communities must both take some responsibility for remedying those
conditions that contribute to crime and also work to promote healing. 16

Healing is crucial not just for victims, but also for offenders. Both the
rehabilitation of offenders and their integration into the community are vital
aspects of restorative justice. Offenders are treated respectfully and their needs
are addressed. Removing them from the community, or imposing any other
severe restrictions, is a last resort. It is thought that the best way to prevent re-
offending is re-integration.17

The justice process in this way strengthens the community and promotes
changes that will prevent similar harms from happening in the future. It is
generally thought that restorative justice should be integrated with legal justice as
a complementary process that improves the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency
of justice as a whole. Because they focus on the needs of the victim, the
offender, and the community, restorative processes can help to determine how
the law should be applied most fairly.18

How Did Restorative Justice Evolve Through the Years?

In the modern context, restorative justice originated in the 1970s as

mediation or reconciliation between victims and offenders. Restorative justice
echoes ancient and indigenous practices employed in cultures all over the world,
from Native American and First Nation Canadian to African, Asian, Celtic,
Hebrew, Arab and many others.19

The restorative justice movement originally began as an effort to rethink

the needs which crimes create, as well as the roles implicit in crimes’, Howard
Zehr, one of the pioneers of the movement, writes in his Little Book of
Restorative Justice. Throughout the last four or five decades, the proponents of
restorative justice have questioned the most fundamental aspects of the way we
sanction crime: how should we react to crime? What is the aim of our sanctioning
system? What are the needs of the parties involved and how can they be met?
The answers given have been radically different from the traditional answers of
the criminal law. An alternative to the criminal process has been born. 20

Many western nations confront a crisis of access to justice. Legal aid for
the poor is declining. For civil disputes, only the rich effectively have access to
the courts. In criminal cases, the poor are the dominant presence as the court's
victim; courts continue to be utterly uninterested in that part of the crime problem
15
Ibid.
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid.
18
Ibid.
19
Official International Institute of Restorative Practices Website. Retrieved on 18 September 2019 from
https://www.iirp.edu/defining-restorative/history
20
David C. Vogt (2012), The Aims of Restorative Justice: Some philosophical remarks on the challenges of
integrating restorative justice into the criminal justice system. Reconciling the irreconcilable? Chapter in
the book "Restorative Justice and Criminal Law" (eds. Jørn Jacobsen & Linda Gröning), Santérus Förlag,
Stockholm.
which is highest in volume and most serious in impact, white-collar crime. 21 A
revolution is needed in our legal system that substantially replaces adversarial
legalism with Restorative Justice, where the role of the court is substantially
relegated to oversight of the injustices of restorative processes, which do the real
work of access to justice.22

For years now, there has been an emergence of practices involving

mediated encounters between victims and offenders that discuss the offending
behavior, the effects thereof and the reparation the offender is to make to the
victim.23 Encounter processes emerged at a time when there was increasing
awareness of the plight of victims of crime. 24 The state had largely marginalized
victims by assuming the role of the injured party and undertaking the
investigation and prosecution of crimes. 25 While there were advantages to this
arrangement — few individuals had the resources to investigate and prosecute
offences — the manner in which it was done meant that victims were not
involved in and uninformed of the process. Where victims participated, it was
according to rules designed to meet the justice system’s needs rather than
victims’ needs. Material or symbolic reparation for the victim was not a part of the
court process.

Increased awareness of victims’ marginalization resulted in justice system

reform internationally, including empowering courts to order restitution, criminal
injuries compensation schemes, victim support services and the use of victim
impact statements in sentencing. 26 By involving victims rather than marginalizing
them, encouraging offenders to make amends to victims and focusing on victims’
needs, encounter processes shared common ground with concepts of restitution
and victims’ rights.27

The informal justice movement was also a significant influence on

restorative justice.28 According to Daniel Van Ness and Karen Strong, social
justice thinking in the areas of peacemaking criminology, feminism and critiques
of imprisonment have also influenced restorative justice thinking. 29

The justice system’s insensitive handling of victims’ cases may result in

secondary victimization. Furthermore, victims’ families and social networks can
also be adversely affected by the offence and its effect on victims. Restoration is
seen as a process of attending to victims’ needs, which include reassurance and
support, reparation, vindication, meaning, safety and empowerment. 30

Although restorative justice sees assisting victims as a priority, many

proponents also value offender and community restoration. Howard Zehr
suggests that offenders need to have dispelled any doubts or misconceptions
they hold about their responsibility for the incident. They may also need social
support, assistance to deal with guilt, education and training, interpersonal skills,
emotion management skills and a positive self-image.31

21
Supra. note at 3
22
Christine Parker, Just Lawyers: Regulation and Access to Justice (1999).
23
See Paul McCold, (2001), ‘Primary Restorative Justice Practices’ in Allison Morris and Gabrielle
Maxwell (eds), Restorative Justice for Juveniles: Conferencing, Mediation and Circles p. 41
24
Howard Zehr, (2005). Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice (3rd ed.)
25
James Dignan, (2005) , Understanding Victims and Restorative Justice
26
Heather Strang, (2002), Repair or Revenge: Victims and Restorative Justice
27
Supra. note at 16
28
Supra. note at 7
29
Ibid.
30
Supra. note at 17
31
Ibid.
 Restorative justice asserts that the current justice system does not
adequately address victims’, offenders’ and the community’s restoration needs.
By reinterpreting harmful behavior as wrongs against the state rather than
wrongs against victims and by investigating, prosecuting and punishing offenders
in the current judicial manner, the state has excluded the victim and offender
from having principal roles in dealing with the harm’s aftermath. Deterrence,
punishment and rehabilitation currently outweigh more comprehensive values of
restoration.32

According to restorative justice, the best means of promoting the parties’

and community’s restoration needs is through processes that promote active
participation, discussion where each party may express feelings and exchange
information about the harmful behavior in a supportive environment,
collaborative, deliberative decision-making processes, creating opportunities for
the offender to express remorse and convey an apology as well as for the victim
to forgive, and the making of an agreement for reparation to be made to the
victim.33

Eventually modern restorative justice broadened to include communities of

care as well, with victims’ and offenders’ families and friends participating in
collaborative processes called conferences and circles. Conferencing addresses
power imbalances between the victim and offender by including additional
supporters.34

The family group conference (FGC) started in New Zealand in 1989 as a

response to native Maori people’s concerns with the number of their children
being removed from their homes by the courts. It was originally envisioned as a
family empowerment process, not as restorative justice. In North America it was
renamed family group decision making (FGDM). In 1991 the FGC was adapted
by an Australian police officer, Terry O’Connell, as a community policing strategy
to divert young people from court. The IIRP now calls that adaptation, which has
spread around the world, a restorative conference. It has been called other
names, such as a community accountability conference and victim-offender
conference. In 1994, Marg Thorsborne, an Australian educator, was the first to
use a restorative conference in a school.35

The International Institute for Restorative Practices (IIRP) grew out of the
Community Service Foundation and Buxmont Academy, which since 1977 have
provided programs for delinquent and at-risk youth in southeastern Pennsylvania,
USA. Initially founded in 1994 under the auspices of Buxmont Academy, the Real
Justice program, now an IIRP program, has trained professionals around the
world in restorative conferencing. In 1999 the newly created IIRP broadened its
training to informal and proactive restorative practices, in addition to formal
restorative conferencing. Since then the IIRP, an accredited graduate school, has
developed a comprehensive framework for practice and theory that expands the
restorative paradigm far beyond its origins in criminal justice. Use of restorative
practices is now spreading worldwide, in education, criminal justice, social work,
counseling, youth services, work place and faith community applications. 36

How is Restorative Justice Applied in Different Countries?

32
Ibid.
33
Ibid.
34
Supra. note at 12
35
Ibid.
36
Ibid.
 The forerunner of victim−offender mediation was an experiment in
Kitchener, Ontario, where a probation officer and the Mennonite Central
Committee, with the sanction of the court, arranged for offenders to visit the
victims of their vandalism offences and offer to pay restitution. The success of
this case led to the development of victim−offender mediation processes. Such
programs have since become popular in much of the western world. Where
parties do not wish to meet in person but still wish to participate in mediation, a
shuttle or indirect form of mediation is used where communication is facilitated
through a mediator. 37

Conferencing is arguably the most influential restorative justice practice in

Australia, being a critical part of the diversionary approach at the basis of
contemporary juvenile justice practice. The first and most well-known form —
family group conferencing — began in New Zealand as part of a new,
diversion-focused response to children at risk, following concerns raised by the
Maori community that existing strategies were culturally inappropriate and failed
to address underlying issues. These conferences include the family of the young
offender in the conference hearing and decision-making processes. A youth
justice coordinator facilitates the conference, which involves an introduction of
parties and processes, a police officer reading the facts, the offender admitting
the facts and the victim describing the effects of the offence. Then there is a
general discussion about the effects of the offence and options for making
amends. The family meets privately to discuss making an offer of amends. An
agreement may then be reached and the parties may share food together. If the
young person does not make an admission, the conference ends and the matter
is referred to a court.38

Police-mediated conferencing began in Wagga Wagga in 1991 as part of

a community policing initiative and was influenced by the New Zealand model
and John Braithwaite’s reintegrative shaming theory. In this model, there is no
private family meeting. Discussion of what took place, who was affected and
what must be done to make things right happens in a group comprising the
victim, the offender, their supporters and the police mediator. If an agreement is
reached, the mediator prepares a formal agreement while the others take
refreshments and talk in an informal way. Although the Wagga Wagga approach
was later replaced by a statutory scheme in New South Wales, it became the
basis of police-led conferencing around the world.39

Community group conferencing involves scripted conferences adapted

from the Wagga Wagga model. The facilitator uses the script to introduce the
conference, its processes and purpose. The script can also assist the facilitator in
guiding the participants through the discussion, from the incident and its effects
to the completion of an agreement for reparation. It is used in diverse contexts,
including in schools, workplaces and community organizations. 40

Circle methods involve a broader range of participants than conferencing:

victim, offender, their supporters, community leaders and other members of the
community. Indigenous approaches to justice have influenced the use of circle
methods within the justice system, and some contemporary indigenous
communities use circle methods in collaboration with the justice system. A
Manitoba community used this approach to address its incest and sexual assault

37
King, Michael S --- "Restorative Justice, Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Rise of Emotionally
Intelligent Justice" [2008] MelbULawRw 34; (2008) 32(3) Melbourne University Law Review 1096.
Retrieved on 18 September 2019 from http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MULR/2008/34.html#fn55
38
Ibid.
39
Ibid.
40
Ibid.
problems. In Australia, circle processes have been adapted for use in the justice
system in the form of Aboriginal sentencing courts (such as Koori courts in
Victoria), in circle sentencing in New South Wales and in various courts in
Western Australia.41

Restorative justice has been part of Canada’s criminal justice system for
over 40 years. Restorative justice is commonly defined as an approach to justice
that focuses on addressing the harm caused by crime while holding the offender
responsible for their actions, by providing an opportunity for the parties directly
affected by the crime – victims, offenders and communities – to identify and
address their needs in the aftermath of a crime. 42

It is based on an understanding that crime is a violation of people and

relationships. The principles of restorative justice are based on respect,
compassion and inclusivity. Restorative justice encourages meaningful
engagement and accountability and provides an opportunity for healing,
reparation and reintegration. Restorative justice processes take various forms
and may take place at all stages of the criminal justice system.

Throughout the world, Restorative Justice is increasing in popularity for

juveniles. The UK and the US have joined many other countries in introducing
practices that focus on the rehabilitation and reintegration of juveniles. 43

Perhaps, Ireland and the Philippines somehow share identical penal

reforms embracing Restorative Justice involving children.

For Ireland,44 Restorative Justice focuses on the harm when a crime has
been committed, rather than looking at what laws or rules have been broken.
Participation is on a voluntary basis.

In restorative justice, victims are given a chance to ask questions and to

make the offender aware of the effect of their actions. The chance to receive an
apology for the victim and gain forgiveness for the offender can have beneficial
effects on both parties.

Restorative justice practices offer a more re-integrative approach to how

we treat offenders, and community involvement can help to deal with the root
causes of the criminal behavior and reduce recidivism.

Restorative justice for children is provided for by statute for children by

way of the Children Act 2001. Restorative justice practices for adults in Ireland
are provided by organizations such as Restorative Justice in the Community and
Restorative Justice Services.

The main legislation covering children and the criminal justice system in
Ireland is the Children Act 2001. This Act focuses on preventing criminal
behavior, diversion from the criminal justice system and rehabilitation. The use
of detention for a child is to be a last resort: the Act requires that all avenues be
explored before it is used.

The main principles45 of the Children Act are:

41
Ibid.
42
Retrieved on 18 September 2019 from https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/rj-jr/index.html
43
Sabha Macmanus and Sophie C. Millner, (2010), Reflections on Restorative Justice in the Philippines
44
Retrieved on 18 September 2019 from https://www.iprt.ie/restorative-justice/
45
Retrieved on 18 September 2019 from https://www.dcya.gov.ie/docs/The_Children_Act_2001/166.htm
 • Any child who accepts responsibility for his/ her offending behavior
should be diverted from criminal proceedings, where appropriate.

• Children have rights and freedoms before the law equal to those enjoyed
by adults and a right to be heard and to participate in any proceedings affecting
them.

• It is desirable to allow the education etc. of children to proceed without

interruption.

• It is desirable to preserve and strengthen the relationship between

children and their parents/ family members.

• It is desirable to foster the ability of families to develop their own means

of dealing with offending by their children.

• It is desirable to allow children to reside in their own homes.

• Any penalty imposed on a child should cause as little interference as

possible with the child’s legitimate activities, should promote the development of
the child and should take the least restrictive form, as appropriate.

• Detention should be imposed as a last resort and may only be imposed if

it is the only suitable way of dealing with the child.

• Due regard to the interests of the victim.

• A child’s age and level of maturity may be taken into consideration as

mitigating factors in determining a penalty.

• A child’s privacy should be protected in any proceedings against him/

her.

On the other hand, the Philippines’ Restorative Justice 46 aims to consider

the position of all those affected by a crime – the victim, offender, their families
and the community. It focuses on the harm caused by the crime with three
stages. Firstly, it encourages the offenders to accept responsibility for what they
have done; secondly, it tries to repair the harm done to the victim; and finally, it
tries to reduce future harm by preventing crime. Prosecution only proceeds if the
offender fails to make sufficient reparation. Throughout these stages, the
rehabilitation of the offenders and their reintegration back into society is a
primary concern.

Within the Philippines two programs stand out as currently restorative in

nature: the recenty-enacted Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (Republic
Act 9344) and the Barangay Justice System (Katarungang Pambarangay). 47 The
latter will be discussed a little later.

As a signatory to the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the

Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing Rules), the United Nations
Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (The Riyadh Guidelines),
the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty
and the most importantly the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the

46
Supra. note at 42
47
Ibid.
Philippines guarantees the protection of the best interests of the child in
accordance with the standards provided for by these international laws. 48

Republic Act 9344 forging its path as a leader of alternative practices

worldwide and providing an excellent model for other countries. The law raises
the age of criminal responsibility, prevents the detention of minors and introduces
programmes such as mediation, conflict resolution, reparation, anger
management and counselling for offenders under 15 years.

The main features of R.A. No. 9344 are the diversion and intervention
programmes. During the diversion process, the responsibility and treatment of
Child in Conflict with Law (CICL) will be determined on the basis of his/her social,
cultural, economic, psychological or educational background without resorting to
formal court proceedings. If the CICL is found to be responsible for an offence,
he/she will be required to undergo diversion programmes without resorting to
formal court proceedings. During the intervention programmes on the other hand,
they will undergo a series of activities to address issues that caused them to
commit an offence. These may take the form of counselling, skills training, and
education. The bigger the role these diversion and intervention programmes play
in child behaviour development, the more acceptance and social legitimacy these
programmes are likely to enjoy in resolving problems with CICL.

R.A. No. 9344 likewise raises the age of criminal responsibility from nine
years of age under Presidential Decree 603 to a minimum of 15 years old. CICLs
aged 15 and above are also exempted from criminal liability unless the
prosecution proves that they acted with discernment — the capacity to
distinguish right from wrong. These child offenders are also afforded all the rights
of a CICL until he/she is proven to be eighteen (18) years old or older under the
“presumption of minority” rule. In all proceedings, law enforcement officers,
prosecutors, judges and other government officials concerned are mandated to
exert all efforts at determining the age of the CICL. 49

The concept of “restorative justice” as opposed to retributive justice has

also been introduced by R.A. No. 9344. It espouses resolving conflicts with the
maximum involvement of the victim, the offender and the community. It primarily
aims to achieve reparation for the victim, reconciliation of the offender, the
offended and the community, and enhancement of public safety. It also ensures
that the child’s rights will not be infringed when he/she admits to the offence. 50

One more thing the Ireland and the Philippines have in common is there
strive to have Restorative Justice System involving adult criminal offenders.

In Ireland, in fact, Restorative justice practices for adults are provided by

organizations such as Restorative Justice in the Community 51 and Restorative
Justice Services.52
48
Supra. note at 2
49
Ibid.
50
Ibid.
51

52
Restorative Justice in the Community (RJC) (formerly Nenagh Community Reparation Project) is a
restorative justice project supported and funded by the Probation Service.

Restorative Justice brings together everybody affected by a crime to decide how to repair the harm
caused. It allows the person affected by the crime to say how they have been affected and allows those who
have committed the crime the opportunity to accept responsibility and to make amends.

Restorative justice approaches try to provide ways of dealing with the aftermath of crime which are more
satisfactory for victims of crime, more constructive for communities and society and more re-integrative for
offenders. A widely recognised definition of Restorative Justice is: “a process whereby all parties with a
 While here in the Philippines,53 The Commission on Crime Prevention and
Criminal Justice, of which the Philippines is a member-country, through a draft
resolution, recommended to the Economic and Social Council of the United
Nations Organization (UNO), the adoption of the “Basic Principles on the Use of
Restorative Justice Programmes in Criminal Matters”. The said document is a
formulation of UN Standard in the field of mediation and restorative justice. The
Philippines, being a signatory member-country should ensure adoption of this
resolution.

Consequently, the goal of the government is to establish a more

enlightened and humane correctional system that will promote the reformation of
offenders and thereby reduce the incidence of recidivism. This is in line with the
applicable laws, rules, and policies mandating this Agency to administer the
Parole and Probation System in the country. As such, the Parole and Probation
Administration (PPA) is empowered to create innovative policies, programs, and
activities to facilitate the reintegration of its clientele into the mainstream of
society and consequently prevent the commission of crime. Therefore, PPA
adopts Restorative Justice as one of its rehabilitation programs which utilizes
restorative processes and aims to achieve restorative outcomes.

In the Correctional Institution for Women 54 this entails restoring to the

women the opportunity to change, to have a second chance, by focusing on
rehabilitation. The cycle of Restorative Justice considers the causes and
consequences of crime. It aims to address the needs of all parties equally and
emphasizes the value of all in society to participate in the restorative process.
Restorative Justice is founded on the principle of balancing and representing the
needs of the victim, the offender and society. To function effectively, Restorative
Justice must therefore listen to the diversity of the voices and acknowledge the
words spoken from experience.55

stake in a specific offence resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its
implications for the future” (Marshall I, 1999)
53
Supra. note at 1
54
Supra. note at 42
55
Ibid.