Hwang: Restorative Justice: A Better Alternative for Reducing Recidivism

The Sociological Imagination: Western's Undergraduate Sociology and

Criminology Student Journal 6(1)

Restorative Justice: A Better Alternative for Reducing Recidivism?

Alice Hwang,
Western University, Canada
Abstract
Although the primary justice system is retributive, there has been debate
surrounding and the rise of new justice system models that provide insight on how the
current system could be improved. One of the pitfalls of the retributive system is the lack
of rehabilitation, resulting in low rates of success in reintegration and high rates of
recidivism. To address this, this paper explores the capacities of the restorative justice
system in lowering the recidivism rates by incorporating differential association theory
(Sutherland 1978) and social control theory (Hirschi 1969). Empirical evidence
regarding restorative justice measures have found that victim-offender mediation (VOM)
and victim-impact training (VIT) have shown to not only decrease recidivism but
increase satisfaction and trust among all parties involved in the crime. However,
restorative justice does not apply efficiently to all crimes. Restorative justice principles
are most effective in young, first-time female offenders. However, this is not to say that
other populations do not benefit from restorative justice principles. Overall, despite the
limitations of restorative justice, this paper argues that restorative justice principles are
important to incorporate into our current criminal justice system.
Introduction While one system of criminal justice is
not “better” than the other, there is
Since the 1970s, there has been increasing support that restorative justice
debate among academics and policy- has positive effects on the rate of
makers on the restorative-retributive recidivism, the rate of reintegration of
dichotomy on the approach to criminal offenders back into the community, and
justice (Armstrong 2014; Hayes and Daly increase in the sense of fairness and
2004). Unfortunately, there is no satisfaction for both victims and
consensus on the definition of restorative offenders (Bradshaw and Roseborough
justice, but the principle that restorative 2005; Daly et al. 2013; Hayes and Daly
justice should restore and repair 2004). Thus, this paper argues that
relationships between the victim, restorative justice programs are more
offender, and community in the aftermath effective at reducing recidivism than
of crime is reflected in most discourse retributive justice, therefore restorative
regarding restorative justice (Braithwaite justice programs should be more firmly
2002; Daly 2002; Daly 2016; Marshall incorporated into our current system of
1999; Zehr and Gohar 2002). criminal justice.
This notion of restorative justice First, this paper will define
provides a striking departure from the restorative justice and discuss the
traditional criminal justice system, reasons why recidivism occurs using
retributive justice, which seeks retribution differential association theory
and punishment of the offender for (Sutherland 1978) and social control
committing a crime (Armstrong 2014). theory (Hirschi 1969). Second, there will

Published by Scholarship@Western, 2020 1

 Sociological Imagination: Western's Undergraduate Sociology Student Journal, Vol. 6 [2020], Iss. 1, Art. 2
Hwang
be an analysis of academic literature
regarding how restorative justice is better
at reducing recidivism, particularly
through the process of victim-offender
mediation (VOM), also known as
conferencing (Bradshaw and
Roseborough 2005; Daly et al. 2013;
Hayes and Daly 2004). Third,
sociological inequalities and limitations,
specifically in terms of age, type of crime,
gender, class, and language present in
restorative justice programs will support
and specify which criminal populations
would benefit most from the
incorporation of restorative justice
programs into our current system of
criminal justice (Beus and Rodriguez
2007; Hayes and Daly 2004; Jackson
2009). Finally, this paper will discuss the
future of restorative justice as a part of
our criminal justice program.
What is Restorative Justice?
In the current literature, there is
no official definition of restorative justice
(Armstrong 2014; Daly 2002; Young and
Hoyle 2003). However, there exist
multiple conceptualizations of restorative
justice (Daly 2002). For example,
Marshall (1999) claims that restorative
justice is an approach to crime that
resolves problems of the relationship
between the victim, offender, and the
community. Thus Marshall (1999) places
more emphasis on the process of
restoring relationships between the
parties rather than rectifying the outcome
of the crime itself (Daly 2002).
Alternatively, Zehr and Gohar (2002)
specify restorative justice as a process
that requires all stakeholders of an
offense to collaborate on a method in
which the harms, needs, and obligations
of each member are met to heal and put
http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/si/vol6/iss1/2
right wrongs committed from the crime
(40). Thus, Zehr and Gohar (2002) focus
more on the outcome, in which they aim
to re-establish the state each affected
party was in before the criminal event
took place.
For this paper, the definition of
restorative justice is a process that
brings together all those affected by the
offense and providing guidance in which
each party can carry out their obligations
to fulfill their needs and heal from the
harm presented through the offense, as
well as an attempt to restore, as much as
it is possible, the circumstances before
the crime was committed.
What is Recidivism?
Recidivism can be defined as the
likelihood of someone to repeat a
criminal act that he or she had previously
been corrected for through the criminal
justice system (Tica 20 14). The reasons
why this may occur are broad and many,
however, this paper will focus on two
theories: the differential association
theory and the social control theory as
discussed by Tica (2014) to explain why
someone would be more prone to re-
offend.
Differential Association Theory
Sutherland (1978) explains
criminal behavior through what he calls
"differential association theory". This
theory proposes a developmental
perspective on criminal behavior with
several assumptions (Sutherland
1978:80). First, criminal behavior is
learned, and it is learned through
communications with others, particularly
those that are intimate or personal with
the individual such as family and friends
2
 Sociological Imagination: Western's Undergraduate Sociology Student Journal, Vol. 6 [2020], Iss. 1, Art. 2
Hwang
(Sutherland 1978:80). These
communications teach the individual the
skills and techniques required to commit
crimes, as well as social norms,
rationalizations, and attitudes toward
crime that are favorable to the violations
of law (Sutherland 1978:81). Sutherland
(1978) claims that delinquency occurs
when there are more reasons or
definitions favorable toward violating the
law than there are definitions favorable
toward respecting the law (Sutherland
1978:81). Finally, associations with
behavior can vary in frequency, duration,
priority, and intensity, and this ultimately
determines whether an individual
commits a crime (Sutherland 1978:81).
One of the ways recidivism can be
explained through this theory is through
the fact that individuals that are
convicted of crime tend to come from
poorer, more disorganized
neighborhoods where crime rates are
higher (Hipp and Yates 2011; Jeffery
1965). This leads to individuals with
more exposures and opportunities to
learn crime from friends, family, or other
close relationships (Jeffery 1965;
Sutherland 1978). In these interactions,
individuals would learn crime-conducive
attitudes and definitions (Jeffery 1965;
Sutherland 1978). In addition, once in
correctional facilities, offenders
encounter other criminals and learn new
techniques and skills that can be used
for future violations of law (Jeffery 1965).
Thus, the community and the
environment, as well as the process of
the court system perpetuates crime and
criminal behavior.
Social Control Theory
Alternatively, recidivism can be
explained through the social control
Published by Scholarship@Western, 2020
theory (Hirschi 1969). Hirschi (1969)
claims that there is a bond between
individuals and society, composed of four
parts. These four components are
defined as an attachment to others,
commitment to conformity, the
involvement of regular activities due to
commitment, and belief in legal, moral
and social rules (Hirschi 1969:16-27).
Hirschi (1969) argues that deviant
actions (i.e. actions that violate social
norms) are innately attractive to humans,
but the strength of the bond between the
individual and society is what stops
people from performing deviant acts and
violating laws (16, 31).
Therefore, it could be argued that
social control theory explains recidivism
because once a person has been
through corrections, they must
reintegrate back into society. Committing
a crime comes with social stigma
(Braithwaite 2002; Walgrave 2004). This
can lead to the loss of attachment to
other members of society as the offender
becomes isolated from society
(Braithwaite 2002; Walgrave 2004). In
addition, it has been shown that people
that go through the criminal justice
system often lose trust in the system and
the laws surrounding our society (Young
and Hoyle 2003). Thus, with the loss of
trust, released offenders do not see the
reason to conform and with the social
isolation from their community, are
unable to become involved with society
(Young and Hoyle 2003). All these
issues ultimately lead to crime and
recidivism.
Restorative Justice Programs and
Their Effectiveness
There are extensive research and
support on the positive effects of
3
 Sociological Imagination: Western's Undergraduate Sociology Student Journal, Vol. 6 [2020], Iss. 1, Art. 2
Hwang
restorative justice methods on the victim,
offender and the community (Beus and
Rodriguez 2007; Bradshaw and
Roseborough 2005; Daly et al. 2013;
Hayes and Daly 2004). Particularly, the
literature supports that restorative justice
programs reduce recidivism in non-
violent, juvenile offenders (Bradshaw and
Roseborough 2005; Daly et al. 2013;
Hayes and Daly 2004; Latimer, Dowden
and Muise 2001, Ward and Langlands
2009). At the heart of restorative justice
principles, Victim-Offender Mediation
(VOM), or conferencing, allows harm that
is suffered by all stakeholders of the
criminal event to be repaired (Bradshaw
and Roseborough 2005). VOM is a
restorative justice program in which the
victim, offender, and the community meet
face-to-face and discuss a restitution
plan (Bradshaw and Roseborough
2005:16). Bradshaw and Roseborough
(2005) claim VOM is almost three times
more effective than traditional, retributive
measures at reducing adolescent
recidivism.
In addition to reducing recidivism,
research shows that restorative justice
practices also greatly increase
satisfaction for all parties and increases
the trust offenders have toward the
criminal justice system (Braithwaite 2002;
Beus and Rodriguez 2007; Bradshaw
and Roseborough 2005; Daly et al. 2013;
Hayes and Daly 2004; Young and Hoyle
2003). In fact, restorative justice
practices have also shown to decrease
post-traumatic symptoms in victims
(Angel et al. 2014).
Moreover, Jackson (2009) found
that the Victim Impact Training (VIT)
restorative justice program, which allows
offenders to understand the harm they
had inflicted on the victim, resulted in the
development of guilt, shame, and
http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/si/vol6/iss1/2
empathy. However, Jackson (2009)
noted that individuals more likely to feel
shame were less likely to develop
empathy and were more likely to avoid
situations that were likely to increase
shame. Likewise, Rodogno (2008)
studied guilt and shame in restorative
justice conferencing. The results showed
that guilt and shame are favorable in the
restorative process (Rodogno 2008).
However, he warned that guilt and
shame can be unfavorable to the
restorative process and cautioned the
mediators to consider cultural influences
on the idea of guilt and shame (Rodogno
2008). Jackson’s (2009) and Rodogno’s
(2008) studies highlight the aspect of
learning within the differential association
theory by focusing on emotional
development. This is also highlighted by
Hayes and Daly (2004), which in their
study found that conferences increased
feelings of remorse, and when a genuine
consensus was reached on the
outcomes or agreements of the
conference, recidivism rates dropped. As
Braithwaite (2002) claims, shame is a
helpful tool in reintegrating and rebuilding
intimate relationships by stimulating
forgiveness.
These emotions, relationships,
understandings that develop through
conferencing can establish attachment
types and provides an opportunity for the
offender to learn and create positive
associations toward crime and the law,
thus, through differential association
theory and social control theory, how
these restorative justice programs
reduce recidivism is justified. Not only do
restorative justice programs help
establish intimate relationships, but they
also aid in changing the values the
offender has toward crime and heal harm
for all participants (Braithwaite 2002).
4
 Sociological Imagination: Western's Undergraduate Sociology Student Journal, Vol. 6 [2020], Iss. 1, Art. 2
Hwang
Inequalities and Limitations of
Restorative Justice
Unfortunately, restorative justice is
not effective for all populations (Hayes
and Daly 2004; Jackson 2009). Age, the
type of criminal offense, gender, and
class can affect the rate of recidivism,
and affect the rate of completion of
restorative justice. While these
inequalities can be a limitation, they can
also serve as guidelines for applying
these restorative programs to the most
effective populations.
Age
Research has provided evidence
that the youth are more likely to
recidivate (Hayes and Daly 2004).
Additionally, when young offenders
commit a crime they are more likely to
have a longer criminal career (Hayes and
Daly 2004). Hayes and Daly (2004)
specified in their study that the age range
of 13 to 16 years to have the highest
likelihood of recidivism. However, Hayes
and Daly (2004) also found that when
youth between 10 and 12 years
completed a restorative justice program
as their first method of intervention prior
to the criminal offense, they were less
likely to re-offend than those that went
through the criminal justice system
(Hayes and Daly 2004). Therefore, the
most effective age range for restorative
justice programs is individuals from 10 to
12 years that have committed a crime for
the first time because restorative justice
programs help young, first time offenders
to grow out of crime more effectively
(Hayes and Daly 2004).
Type of Crime
Published by Scholarship@Western, 2020
Though first-time offenders tend to
see the most benefit from restorative
justice programs, the effectiveness of
restorative justice programs fluctuates by
the type of offense. The effectiveness of
conferencing has been accepted for
minor offenses and low-risk offenders,
but other offenses have shown mixed
results in the empirical literature. For
example, Cossins (2008) noted that
restorative justice for youth with minor
offenses was successful, but for sex
offenses, particularly child sex offenses,
conferencing and restorative justice
programs re-traumatized the victim and
maintained the dominating power
relationship between offender and victim.
In contrast, Hayes and Daly (2004) found
reduced recidivism for violent sex-
offenders when those offenders went
through restorative justice programs.
Young and Hoyle (2003) also found
reduced recidivism for violent offenders.
These results provide contrasting views
on the effectiveness of restorative justice
programs on other types of crime. Thus,
restorative justice is best implemented
for low-risk offenders and minor crimes
rather than for all criminal behavior.
Gender
In addition to age and the type of
offense, there exists a gender inequality
in recidivism. According to Hayes and
Daly (2004), males are more likely to
recidivate than women. Likewise,
Jackson (2009) found that women were
more likely to develop a sense of shame
and guilt in restorative justice programs,
which ultimately lead to a reduced rate of
recidivism. In addition, women are less
likely to commit violent crimes and tend
to be low-risk offenders (Jackson 2009).
5
 Sociological Imagination: Western's Undergraduate Sociology Student Journal, Vol. 6 [2020], Iss. 1, Art. 2
Hwang
In accordance with social control theory,
women may be less prone to recidivate
because the social roles played by
women in society reflect nurturing,
motherly relationships that promote
attachment. Thus, it seems plausible that
women may benefit from restorative
justice programs more than men.
Class
Crime is often rooted in the
environment and community that the
individual is in. A strong determinant of a
crime-conducive environment is class
(Hipp and Yates 2011). Likewise, there is
empirical support for the idea that
poverty impacts recidivism (Beus and
Rodriguez 2007). According to Beus and
Rodriguez (2007), poverty of the
community, among other variables,
influence recidivism rates. Beus and
Rodriguez (2007) noted that low rates of
poverty within a community reduced the
rate of recidivism for young offenders.
These juvenile offenders not only had a
lower rate of recidivism but could also
more easily reintegrate back into their
communities (Beus and Rodriguez 2007;
Hipp and Yates 2011). Likewise,
offenders from poor communities that
suffer from higher social disorganization
are more likely to recidivate (Beus and
Rodriguez 2007). This is in line with the
differential association theory by
Sutherland and Cressey (1978) as a
poor community has higher levels of
crime (Hipp and Yates 2011), therefore a
higher chance for offenders to learn and
develop skills and attitudes conducive to
crime.
Language
http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/si/vol6/iss1/2
Many other limitations exist in
restorative justice. For example, Albrecht
(2010) studied the cross-cultural aspect
of restorative justice programs during
conferencing. The findings of that study
discussed the language barriers and the
issues of translation by interpreters that
interfered with smooth dialogue between
the victim, offender, and the community
(Albrecht 2010). With such sensitive
topics, participants were often hesitant to
get interpretations, and interpreters often
could not provide a sufficient level of
communication between parties
(Albrecht 2010). As communication and
understanding between the offender,
victim, and stakeholders of the crime are
essential in restorative justice programs,
the lack of complex communication is a
huge detriment to the success of these
programs at reducing recidivism.
In addition, Albrecht (2010) found
in his study of cross-cultural limitations of
restorative justice programs that even
when all parties of the conference spoke
a common language, the pace, volume,
density, and the use of slang in their
speech could play a role in the
interpretation of the discourse.
Regardless, Albrecht (2010) still found
that despite the struggles, minorities saw
benefits from mediation and
conferencing under the restorative justice
programs.
Thus, while limitations and
struggles exist in the communication
between the victim, offender, and
stakeholders of crime, restorative justice
programs still provide strong evidence
toward reduced recidivism. Even so,
language is an issue for participants of
restorative justice programs, particularly
those in the minority, both racially and
culturally.
6
 Sociological Imagination: Western's Undergraduate Sociology Student Journal, Vol. 6 [2020], Iss. 1, Art. 2

Hwang

The Future of Restorative Justice Even with these limitations, the

effectiveness of restorative justice
Restorative justice programs have programs is undeniable. While the
empirical data to support their weaknesses of these programs prohibit
effectiveness in reducing recidivism. the implementation of these services to
Unlike retributive justice, restorative all offenders, the populations that benefit
justice aims to bring together all parties the most from restorative justice should
of the offense: the victim, the offender, have access to an empirically supported
and the community, which includes the alternative to retributive methods. Thus,
stakeholders of the crime. Together, restorative justice should be more firmly
these parties come up with a plan to incorporated into our system of criminal
reduce the harm and return the state of justice, and changes should be made
each party to that which they continuously toward a better system of
experienced before the crime was justice that benefits all participants.
committed. Restorative justice programs
provide a way for each participant of References
crime to understand and communicate
with each other and provide a result that Angel, Caroline M., Lawerence W.
satisfies all parties. The empirical data Sherman, Heather Strang, Barak
show that restorative justice programs Ariel, Sarah Bennett, Nova Inkpen,
can be nearly three times more effective Anne Keane, and Therese S.
at reducing recidivism rates when Richmond. 2014. “Short-Term
compared to retributive justice methods, Effects of Restorative Justice
and these programs have shown Conferences on Post-Traumatic
effectiveness in inducing empathy in Stress Symptoms among Robbery
offenders (Beus and Rodriguez 2007; and Burglary Victims: A
Jackson 2009; Rodogno 2008). These Randomized Controlled
benefits reduce recidivism by re- Trial.” Journal of Experimental
establishing positive attachments, trust in Criminology 10(3):291–307.
law and the criminal justice system, and
by providing the opportunity for offenders Armstrong, Jac. 2014. “Rethinking the
to learn and understand the restorative-retributive dichotomy:
consequences of their actions. is reconciliation possible?”
However, the consensus of the Contemporary Justice Review
empirical data does not undermine the 17(3):362–374.
weaknesses of the programs. There are
inequalities and limitations of restorative Bradshaw, William and David
justice. Young male offenders in the Roseborough. 2005. “Restorative
minority (especially with language) with Justice Dialogue: The Impact of
minor crimes benefit the most from these Mediation and Conferencing on
programs. These weaknesses and Juvenile Recidivism.” Federal
limitations in age, type of offense, gender, Probation 69(2):15–21.
class, and language are areas of
improvement that can create a better,
more generalizable system of justice.

Published by Scholarship@Western, 2020 7

 Sociological Imagination: Western's Undergraduate Sociology Student Journal, Vol. 6 [2020], Iss. 1, Art. 2

Hwang

Braithwaite, John. 2002. Restorative Hirschi, Tavis. 1969. Causes of

Justice & Responsive Regulation. Delinquency. Berkeley: University
Oxford: Oxford University Press. of California Press.

Beus, Kimberly De, and Nancy Jeffery, C.R. 1965. “Criminal Behavior
Rodriguez. 2007. "Restorative and Learning Theory.” Journal of
Justice Practice: An Examination Criminal Law and Criminology
of Program Completion and 56(3):293–300.
Recidivism." Journal of Criminal
Justice 35(3):337–47. Latimer, Jeff, Craig Dowden and Danielle
Muise. 2001. The Effectiveness of
Daly, Kathleen. 2016. “What is Restorative Justice Practices: A
Restorative Justice? Fresh Meta-Analysis. Ottawa: Research
Answers to a Vexed Question.” and Statistics Division.
Victim & Offenders 11:9-29.
Marshall, Tony E. 1999. Restorative
Daly, Kathleen, Brigitte Bouhours, Justice: An overview. London:
Roderic Broadhurst, and Nini Loh. Home Office.
2013. "Youth Sex Offending,
Recidivism, and Restorative Rodogno, Raffaele. 2008. “Shame and
Justice: Comparing Court and Guilt in Restorative Justice.”
Conference Cases." Australian & Psychology, Public Policy, and
New Zealand Journal of Law 14(2):142–176.
Criminology 46(2):241–67.
Sutherland, Edwin Hardin and Donald
Daly, Kathleen. 2002. “Restorative Ray Cressey. 1978. Criminology.
Justice: The Real New York: Lippincott.
Story.” Punishment & Society
4(1):55–79. Tica, Gabriel. 2014. “Social Factors
Influencing Criminal Recidivism.”
Hayes, Hennessey and Kathleen Daly. Ph.D. Dissertation, Faculty of
2004. “Conferencing and Re- Sociology and Social Work,
Offending in Babes-Bolyai University of Cluj-
Queensland.” Australian & New Napoca.
Zealand Journal of Criminology
37(2):167–91. Young, Richard and Carolyn Hoyle. 2003.
“Restorative Justice and
Hipp, John and Daniel Yates. 2011. Punishment.” Ch. 7 in The Use of
“Ghettos, Thresholds, and Crime: Punishment. Edited by Sean
Does Concentrated Poverty McConville. Devon, UK: Willan
Really have an Accelerating Publishing
Increasing Effect on Crime?”
Criminology 49(4):955–990. Walgrave, Lode. 2004. “Restoration in
Youth Justice.” Crime and Justice
31:542–597.

http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/si/vol6/iss1/2 8
 Sociological Imagination: Western's Undergraduate Sociology Student Journal, Vol. 6 [2020], Iss. 1, Art. 2

Hwang

Ward, Tony and Robyn Langlands. 2009.

“Repairing the rupture:
Restorative Justice and the
Rehabilitation of Offenders.”
Aggression and Violent Behavior
14:205–214.

Zehr, Howard and Ali Gohar. 2002. The

Little Book of Restorative Justice.
Intercourse, PA: Good Books

Published by Scholarship@Western, 2020 9