Restorative Justice has been Dangerously Simplified within Mainstream Media

The concept of restorative justice has gained attraction as a nuanced approach to crime by promoting healing over redress. The dominant portrayal of restorative justice narrowly focuses on facilitated contact between victims and their convicted perpetrators in the form of face-to-face meetings. There are strong arguments surrounding the effectiveness of such meetings for survivors who wish to receive answers from their perpetrators to facilitate the possibility of closure. As someone who deeply cares about how the justice system impacts people’s lives, I find the mainstream media’s preoccupation with this understanding of restorative justice hugely concerning. Reports fixate on the compelling narrative that restorative justice promotes forgiveness, reconciliation, and accountability. While it may be true that a victim might feel a sense of closure through a meeting with their perpetrator, we need to be careful as closure does not equate to a full recovery from a crime. In my view, the justice system significantly overlooks the need to repair the long-term, harmful repercussions that crime has on individuals’ lives.

This is why it is important to explore and question what it truly means to ‘restore’. I strongly believe that the prevailing perspective of restorative justice should not be uncritically idolized, specifically in cases of gender-based violence. For many women, particularly survivors of sexual or domestic abuse, the proposition of meeting with their perpetrator may have the opposite intended effect. I believe it to be naive to assume that all victims would benefit from a direct encounter with their perpetrator. The prominent charity Women’s Aid have rightly expressed that they believe there are limitations in the operation and effectiveness of restorative justice practices in cases of gender based violence due to a power imbalance and the intimate nature of the victim and perpetrator’s relationship. In such sensitive cases there is a risk of traumatisation.

This is why it is vital to approach restorative justice not as a universal remedy, but a potential path that women should be fully informed about and empowered to choose on their own terms. Hence, I am supportive of charities such as Rape Crisis Scotland advocate who for the importance of developing restorative justice practices safely, in a way that gives survivors full control over how and whether to participate. An alternative, comprehensive approach to restorative justice lays the foundation for lasting change. Practices that are truly “restorative” of victims in a wider concept are too often pushed aside to facilitate the narrative that centers around confrontation and forgiveness. This frustratingly narrow comprehension of restorative justice overlooks the wide spectrum of recovery needs that victims, particularly women impacted by gender- based violence, continue to face long after the crime itself.

We need to redefine what it means to restore within the justice system. I maintain that restorative justice ought to be viewed not merely as one face-to-face meeting but instead as a mechanism that offers survivors ongoing support in rebuilding their lives after experiencing the harmful repercussions of crime. It should be acknowledged that the path to healing from a distressing crime is one filled with complexity that one mediated meeting with the perpetrator will not sufficiently ‘fix’. Instead, the justice process needs to begin to recognize the magnitude of harm that survivors experience due to crime and actively support them to reconstruct what they feel has been taken away from them.

Victims’ emotional and practical needs should be prioritised in order for them to feel truly

restored. Such needs may come in a multitude of different forms, whether that be tangible needs including money, property or intangible such as a sense of emotional closure or personal security. This avenue of restorative justice does not focus solely on direct contact with the victim’s perpetrator as restoration for many, is not about directly confronting the past, but about recovering in the future with adequate resources and support. In my view, this route to restorative justice is a more beneficial one for victims of crime as it facilitates a sustained journey of recovery which results in lasting, meaningful change.