Why is Restorative Justice more effective than Retributive Justice?

 Effectiveness depends on the desired result. Retributive Justice has proved itself to be reasonably effective at maintaining social orders in which a small group make unequal decisions for others on key questions of resources and well being. As a means of social control, imposed from above, the punitive ethos and its legal apparatus - both formally, in state justice systems, and informally, in the way we raise children, live in community, organise our work places - enjoy the symbiotic support of the domination structures that maintain them.

There are huge costs though. Acting in alignment with a prevailing system brings social rewards, so the qualities that serve a retributive system end up being promoted. Suspicion, fear, distrust and an eye to human behaviour which prioritises fault finding and coercive responses are all encouraged. The costs to our personal health, our happiness and our social well being are immense. Bullying, gang violence and the presumption of ill intent are all supported by such thinking and the codes of conduct that arise from it.  

Restorative Justice is effective when our intentions are those of social cohesion, community resilience, healing and sustainable changes in behaviour towards underlying values of well being, inclusion, mutual aid, learning and responsibility. The restorative approach looks not at who has done wrong but at what needs are unmet. It seeks not to label and condemn but to alert us to our place in the web of relationships, to our power to act and our power to mend.

Which basis for justice one finds effective depends on the kind of world one wants to live in, and wants one's children to inherit.

  Have you ever had an experience when the restorative process backfired? If so, why?

 Restorative practices rely on social conventions and emotional literacy. Such conventions are far from new - in fact some believe they are older than our current, punitive view of justice. However they have been marginalised and devalued for centuries. The process of remembering and revaluing them is still gathering ground. The capacity to articulate our feelings and needs without attributing blame is also both ancient and only recently rediscovered in urban cultures. So our ability to make transformative use of restorative practices will continue to be a reflection of our capacity to recover, and to develop processes that promote, these new-ancient conventions and literacy.

 What is the one book about RJ that you consider essential?

 Personally, I have not found the 'one book' and I think there are at least two exciting reasons why this is the case, one conceptual and one practical. Firstly, Restorative Justice, both as a social movement and a philosophy of justice, is still very much in its early days. While 30 years of active research by 'modern', non-indigenous society may be a long time in areas such as computing, it is a very short one in an area that plays such a fundamental role in the way we live, as justice does. There are many wonderful thinkers out there, and RJ is moving at a very impressive pace. However, I imagine it will be some time yet before the RJ community finds ways to articulate more fully its emerging contribution. The second reason is that the field of restorative practices - which describes the way RJ is done - offers not one, but many potential responses. Each book on these practices is a valuable contribution to how we do what we do. 

 You have actively promoted restorative practices in Brazil. Does Restorative Justice look different when it is practiced across the world?

 The different practices that have emerged reflect the different social conditions and cultural leanings of the societies that produce them. Practices in Canada, New Zealand and South Africa, for example, have been influenced by the wisdom of First Nation peoples. The Restorative Circles practice we developed in Brazil reflects the specific experience of Brazil's immense challenges in public security and the search for community engagement. Yet all these many different ways of responding restoratively share common principles.

 Do you see a connection between Gandhi''s philosophy of nonviolence and Restorative Justice?

 The restorative approach to painful conflict, broken agreements, violence and crime clearly invites us to apply Gandhian principles to the question of justice. As a lawyer, the question of right action, and our response when actions cause harm, was of fundamental concern to Gandhi. And yet, from his personal and professional understanding of the legal procedures of his time, he observed that "justice that love gives is a surrender, justice that law gives is a punishment". The 'surrender' in this case is, as I believe restorative practices show, that of a willing approximation to a deeper reality - that our acts are powerful, that they impact others and that, therefore, power is also responsibility. 

The consequence of this is community. We live together. Our well being is buoyed up by our connectedness. When our actions are experienced by ourselves and / or others as leading to harm, we are called upon to heal. Whether or not laws have been broken, peace and harmony has. It can be restored. I think Gandhi would approve.