As you might imagine with so many Google references, the usage of the term varies widely. Sometimes it is used in ways that are rather far removed from what those in the field have intended. So when you see the term, you might ask yourself these questions: Are the wrongs being acknowledged? Are the needs of those who were harmed being addressed? Is the one who committed the harm being encouraged to understand the damage and accept his or her obligation to make right the wrong? Are those involved in or affected by this being invited to be part of the “solution?” Is concern being shown for everyone involved? If the answers to these questions are “no,” then even though it may have restorative elements, it isn’t restorative justice.
I’m curious. I have questions that I have been unable to answer via Google search. For example, how does the process address acts where the victim has been permanently harmed? Examples that come to mind: The victim has suffered financial loss too significant for the person committing the act to provide restoration The victim has…Continue Reading