A. Background: Biblical Roots       

For Christians, all our reflections about the ways in which we seek to order our lives together are set against the background of the biblical affirmation that every human being is created in the image of God [Gen. 1:26-27]. Every human being is therefore of intrinsic value or worth. Every human being is a child of God. Moreover, although we vary in our human endowments, we all stand as equals before God. As Moses declares to the Israelites in Deut. 10:17, “God is not partial,” and as Peter proclaims to the Caesareans in Acts 10:34, “God shows no partiality.” Our contemporary conceptions of equality and human rights are deeply indebted to biblical affirmations of the inherent worth of every human being as a person created in the divine image and due unmerited regard or respect.

It is also true, of course, that every human being is a sinner. “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” [Rom. 3:23]. Taken together, the affirmations that ALL bear the image of God and that ALL have sinned serve as crucial reminders that it would be a mistake to divide up the world into two kinds of people – those who are righteous and those who are not; those who are criminals and those who are not; those who have worth and those who do not; those who deserve to be punished and those who do not. One sees in the teachings of Jesus in a clear subversion of the universal human tendency to divide up the world between “us” and “them.” In encounters with the religious and political authorities of his day who considered themselves to be good, upright “keepers of the law,” Jesus declares that his gospel is for sinners, not the righteous [Matt. 9:13; Mark 2:17; Luke 5:32].

In particular situations, with respect to specific actions and events, we can hardly avoid making judgment and drawing distinctions between those who have committed offenses called crimes and those against whom such offenses have been committed. However, we must avoid the temptation to characterize some people simply and indelibly as “criminals” and others as not. In fact, research suggests that over the course of our lifetimes, most of us will commit some crime and most of us will also have some crime committed against us. (6) In any event, our feelings and our judgments against those who have committed even the worst of crimes must not be allowed to obscure the fact that they are also fellow human beings, also created in God’s image. The administration of justice toward those who have committed even the worst of crimes against humanity must take into account that they too are human. As Christians we must further affirm that they too are individuals for whom Jesus Christ has lived and died. Some criminals may seem to be beyond redemption, not to mention restoration. That judgment, however, must remain with God. Our reflections on restorative justice implicitly recognize that we are in no position to make final judgments about any of our fellow human beings.

 Our theology of restorative justice must be clearly rooted in the biblical witness. Here it must be acknowledged that there is no single idea of justice in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. One reason for this is that the ancient Hebrews drew no sharp distinction between what we would call law and morality. Nor did they distinguish as we do between crime and sin. They do not draw clear distinctions between those obligations placed upon God’s people that we would consider moral and those we would view as religious. Thus, one sometimes finds no separation between laws and commandments regarding ritual or religious practices and those regarding behavior toward others. Even the Ten Commandments, for example, include both commands pertaining to religious practice – Sabbath keeping, no making of graven images, no misuse of Yahweh’s name – and commands regarding behavior toward others – honoring parents, no stealing, no adultery, no false witnessing, etc. Throughout the Old Testament, the pervasive if implicit view is that the person who is in right relationship with God must also be in right relationship with others, and the person who is in right relationship with God.

Thus, in ancient biblical view, the just or righteous individual is precisely the individual who is in right relationship with God and with others. Righteousness in the Old Testament (OT)

is not behavior in accordance with an ethical, legal, psychological, religious, or spiritual norm…Rather, righteousness is in the OT the fulfillment of the demands of a relationship, whether that relationship be with [others] or with God…

Generally, the righteous [person] in Israel was the [one] who preserved the peace and wholeness of the community, because it was he who fulfilled the demands of communal living…Righteousness is the fulfillment of the communal demands, and the righteous judgments are those which restore community…Thus the constant plea of the prophets is for righteousness in the gate, for a restoration of the foundations of the communal life. (7)

          From one perspective, the language of law and commandment in the Old Testament is often regarded as evidence of legalism. Thus, the Old Testament’s “God of law” is often contrasted with the New Testament’s “God of grace.” However, as biblical scholars are quick to point out, this is a caricature of Old Testament understandings of God and of law. This is not to say that there are no instances of retributive justice in the Old Testament, or that these scriptures have nothing to say about the administration of divine or human punishments. Nonetheless, the fundamental orientation of the Old Testament scriptures is not to demand conformance to moral or religious law. The fundamental orientation is to sustain – or where broken, to restore – the covenantal relationships and the covenantal bonds of the human community before God. God’s “righteous judgments” are always oriented toward the salvation, the restoration, and the making whole of the covenantal community. In the Old Testament, God’s righteousness “involves both justice and compassion as expressed in God’s concern for the weak and vulnerable.” (8) “On the human side, righteousness meant life and behavior appropriate to the covenant and embraced all aspects of an Israelite’s relations with God and [neighbor]. Its meaning thus ranged from right worship to care for the poor.” (9) God’s people are therefore enjoined not only to BE righteous or just, but to DO JUSTICE, as a matter of faithfulness to one another and to God.

          To grasp fully the centrality of the biblical idea of restorative justice we need to see that it is integrally identified with the biblical vision of shalom. We need to see, further, that God’s people are called to live toward the vision of shalom. The ancient prophet Micah is best remembered for his answer to the question of the true worship and service of God. Micah asks rhetorically: “With what shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before God on high?” He then answers: “[God] has told you, O mortal what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” [6:6, 8] This is the essence of how to live toward the vision of God’s shalom.

Neither Jesus nor Paul denies the reality of evil in the world. Neither denies that great suffering and harm result from such evil. On the one hand, there is great need to show love and compassion toward those who suffer. In Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan we see just how central is such compassion to the fulfillment of the great commandments, to love God and neighbor. However, what is most remarkable about Jesus’ proclamations of the gospel and Paul’s subsequent theological formulation of all that was revealed in the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, is the insistence that God does not deal with human evil and sin by seeking retribution or plotting the destruction of those who sin. To the contrary, God takes the initiative in trying to overcome evil with good. As Paul put it to the Romans, “While we were yet sinners Christ died for us” [Rom. 5:8]. The Pauline doctrine of justification, so central to our understanding of the Christian faith, is premised upon this affirmation of God’s gracious solicitude toward us. It declares that God accepts us as just, as righteous, as set right in our relationships with God and others, quite apart from our deserving. Not that we are already just, or righteous, or in right relationship with God and all our neighbors, but that God so cherishes us and regards us that it may be so. This can only mean that God’s justice is oriented not toward retribution but rather toward “healing, reconciliation, the restoration of relationships.” (12) Paul clearly understands that on this account, we no longer regard one another from the limited perspective of those who are subject to the law of measure for measure [cf. Matt. 7:1-2]. Now we regard one another from the transformed perspective of those who have been grasped by the law of love and grace. And it is on this basis that we have been given our ministry of reconciliation [cf. 2 Cor. 5:16-21].

          Whenever anyone is ordained to be a deacon, an elder, or a minister of Word and Sacrament in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), he or she is called upon to answer in the affirmative the following question: “In your ministry will you try to show the love and justice of Jesus Christ?” In the biblical perspective it becomes evident that love and justice are understood to be so integrally related that one can hardly have the one without the other. The righteousness of God is, in effect, the love and justice of God. In Jesus Christ, God’s Righteous One [cf. Acts 3:14; 7:52; 2 Cor. 1:30], we see this love and justice incarnated in the world of human affairs. Restorative justice recognizes that there can be no justice without love. It also recognizes that love must be embodied in relationships and institutions that are just. Justice “is the form in which and through which love performs its work.” (13) And, as affirmed in a statement adopted by the 184^th General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church in 1972, “the law of love is the criterion for justice.” (14) Thus we speak of a love that is just and a justice that is loving.

          In 1978, the 118^th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church U.S. adopted a statement on “The Church and Criminal Justice” that also spoke directly from this insight:

Always, with all people, God is both loving and just, just and loving. God’s love is God’s justice, and God’s justice is God’s love. That God is the God of loving justice, and just love. And true human justice and true human love can only be a reflection of the unity of justice and love in God…

Human justice that reflects God’s loving justice and just love…involves concern to correct social situations and institutions that cause or nurture the fear, sickness, helplessness, and despair which lead to anti-social behavior. It involves the concern to see that laws are not made or enforced to the disadvantage of the poor and powerless and to the advantage of the rich and powerful. In short, it means criticizing and correcting every political or legal structure or practice in which equal justice for all really means that some are more equal and have a better chance than others.

          Thus, restorative justice exhibits a concern for the welfare of the whole of society, recognizing that what we call criminal behavior is never simply a matter of individual acts of violation but also invariably a reflection of basic social values, structures, and systems of inequality.

          In sum, in the Old Testament, a world of loving justice and just love is envisioned in terms of shalom. In the New Testament, the dominant metaphor to express this vision is the kingdom of God. We are called to live toward this vision by practicing a restorative justice that focuses on addressing the harm, suffering, violence, exploitation, and degradation of human beings that result from violations of a community’s legal or moral norms as well as other means by which life in community is jeopardized, relationships are broken, people are divided, and there is need for restoration.

B. Current Societal Realities in the Light of Restorative Justice

          “Let us begin with a fundamental realization,” writes Richard Quinney at the beginning of his book, Criminology As Peacemaking, co-edited with Harold L. Pepinsky:

No amount of thinking and no amount of public policy have brought us closer to understanding and solving the problem of crime. The more we have reacted to crime, the father we have removed ourselves from any understanding and any reduction of the problem. In recent years, we have floundered desperately in reformulating the law, punishing the offender, and quantifying our knowledge. Yet this country remains one of the most crime-ridden nation. In spite of all its wealth, economic development and scientific advances, this country has one of the worst crime records in the world. (15)

          Although restorative justice is not limited in its concern to the workings of the “criminal justice system,” that is usually the point at which it begins to identify the larger social problems and practices that must be addressed in order for restorative justice principles and practices to be implemented. Restorative justice commends itself, first of all, as a biblically faithful alternative to a retributive, punitive criminal justice system. In fact, it is only with significant qualification that we may even speak of the “criminal justice system.” In far too many respects this system is unjust.

In the first place, research suggests that, nationally, “only about 3 percent of all serious crimes result in a sentence of imprisonment. This is not because of overly lenient judges, but due to the inherent limitations of the reactive system itself.” (16) Most crimes either are never reported or do not result in an arrest. Yet it is widely believed that punishment of criminals, especially by incarceration, is a primary factor in the deterrence of criminal behavior. On the other hand, there are now some two million people in the U.S. prisons and jails. This is the highest rate of incarceration in the industrialized world, recently surpassing even that of Russia. (17) If the prospect of incarceration were an effective deterrent to crime, one might expect the crime rate in the United States to be among the lowest in the industrialized world, and lower in those U.S. states that practice capital punishment than in those that do not. None of these expectations is born out by the facts. (18)

          The following circumstances are telling: Of those in our federal prisons, nearly two-thirds have been convicted on drug-related charges. As many as 80 percent are in need of treatment for substance abuse, but fewer than half of our jails and prisons provide drug treatment. Drugs are often easier to obtain in prison than on the street. Over 45 percent of the inmates in our nation’s prisons are African Americans, most between the ages of 18-34. (19) The percentages are often higher in county jails. A 1995 report documented that at any given time nearly one in three young black men in the age group 20-29 is under some form of criminal justice supervision – either in prison or jail, or on probation or parole. (20) Increasing numbers of those in prisons and jails are Hispanic. Many are non-citizens. Incarceration rates for adult females, most of whom are African American or Latina, have quintupled in the past two decades. There are increasing numbers of youth, as prosecutors succumb to public pressure to try juveniles as adults. (21) In the twelve years from 1985-1997, the number of offenders under age 18 in state prisons more than doubled. The likelihood that a youth under age 18 arrested for a violent offense would be sentenced to prison also almost doubled during this period. Some 60 percent of youth in state prisons are African Americans.

          Many of those in our prisons and jails are mentally ill, an estimated 284,000 in 1999. In a 1996 survey, over one-third of jail inmates reported some physical or mental disability. Our prisons and jails have become dumping grounds for people our society does not wish to deal with in other ways. At the same time that prison building has become a growth industry, educational and rehabilitative services in prisons have been cut back or eliminated altogether. The money is there to lock them up but not to try to help them become human beings who can function effectively and safely in a “free” society. The department of Housing and Urban Development estimates that it costs over $40,000 a year to keep someone in jail in New York City, while $12,50 would provide affordable housing plus food and support services to a homeless American. (22) There is also a trend toward privatization of prisons, an economic proposition only so long as there is a dependable supply of prisoners. Recognizing the inherent conflict of interest between the economic imperatives of private for-profit institutions and the long-term interests of both prisoners and society, the 211^th General Assembly (1999) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) approved a policy opposing prison privatization.

          The dramatic increase in the rate of incarceration of adults in American society has also been accompanied by a serious erosion of juvenile justice programs.

The juvenile justice system in the United States was introduced a hundred years ago, in an attempt to emphasize individualized treatment and rehabilitation, while shielding young people from rampant abuses in the adult prison system. Over the past decade, punishment, retribution, and incarceration have once again become society’s prescription for trouble youth. Since 1993, forty-three states have changed their laws to make it easier to send youth into the adult criminal justice system. (23)

          As with the adult population in jails and prisons, these youth are disproportionately from minority groups. The overwhelming majority has committed nonviolent offenses, mostly property crimes. They are much less likely than adults to receive due process, including legal representation, in juvenile courts. In jail or prison, they are especially vulnerable targets for all kinds of abuse, including physical and sexual abuse, from other prisoners, guards, and staff. Youth incarcerated with adults are eight times more likely to commit suicide than youth in juvenile facilities, and they have a much higher rate of re-arrest. (24)

          In 2000, the prison population in the United States rose for the twenty-eighth consecutive year. In mid-2000, one in every 142 U.S. residents – including approximately one out of every 76 men – was in jail or prison. At current incarceration rates, one in every twenty persons can be expected to serve time in prison during their lifetime. For African American men and women, the figure is one in six. Newborn black males have a greater than one-in-four chance of going to prison during their lifetime. There are now four times as many adults in our nation’s jails and prisons as there were just two decades ago.

          Meanwhile, crime rates for serious offenses are now reported to be at their lowest levels since 1978. (25) How can this anomaly be explained? Is it that incarceration has proven effective as a deterrent, after all? The evidence suggests otherwise. Three important factors would seem to be most responsible. On the one hand, the period in question was marked by unprecedented economic prosperity. Even though the benefits of this prosperity fell disproportionately to those with higher incomes, in 2000 the unemployment rate reached its lowest point in over thirty years. (26) Secondly, the general aging of the U.S. population means that there are now proportionately fewer males between the ages of 15-30, the demographic group most likely to commit offenses. These two facts, when combined with increased funding of crime prevention, including larger numbers of law enforcement personnel, have probably been most significant in reducing the rate of felony crimes.

          On the other hand, the two major sources for measuring crime rates, the FBI Uniform Crime Reports and the National Crime Victimization Survey, only include crimes for which there is an identifiable victim other than the offender him/herself. Thus, most drug offenses (as well as prostitution and gambling), are not included in either measure. Increasingly longer sentences, combined with the enormous increase in arrests and incarcerations for drug-related crimes, would seem to account for most of the burgeoning population in the nation’s jails and prisons. (27) Another possible contributing factor is mandatory sentencing laws, e.g., “three-strikes-and-you’re-out.” The dramatic rise in the numbers of incarcerated persons in the United States has little to do with the amount of crime being committed. Rather, it reflects increasingly punitive attitudes toward persons identified as criminals, most of whom are poor people of color.

          Despite the overwhelming failures of our prison system, spending on prisons in the United States grew from $7 billion in 1980 to $45 billion in 2000 – and there is still an oversupply of prisoners. (35) This would suggest, again, that there are forces at work in our criminal justice system that have little to do with the creation of a society that is safer, more just, more humane, and more whole. It is as if our society believes it can solve the problem of crime by banishing all offenders from our midst, though of course we succeed in banishing few but them most underprivileged, powerless, and disadvantaged, and most of these only temporarily. The inequities and irrationalities of our incarceration practices reflect the extent to which the desire to punish is driven by fear, anger, and the spirit of revenge. It seems unlikely that the general public can be persuaded to act more equitably, more rationally, or more humanely without addressing the deep reservoir of negative feelings that motivate so much public discourse about crime.

          This raises the question of whether restorative justice has anything to say about, and to, those who are victims of crime. In comparison to retributive justice, restorative justice commends itself as an approach to justice that takes more fully into account the actual harm done to and experienced by victims, whose needs it seeks to address. In our present system, crime is understood first of all as an offense against the state. Criminal cases, for example, are designated in such terms: State of _______ vs. _______. Legal cases are defined and conducted within an adversarial framework that discourages admission of guilt and sets up a win-lose contest between plaintiff and defender. Typically, the criminal justice system is interested in the victims of crime chiefly for their evidence or testimony, not with alleviating the actual injury, loss, or trauma they have suffered. The aim of criminal proceedings, from the state’s perspective, is to secure a conviction, or to force a plea bargain, in order to dispose of the case. What happens to the victim often remains incidental to the aims of the system.

          Consequently, victims often report that the conviction of an offender does little to remedy the distress caused by the offense. In many cases a victim has no opportunity to discover the motivations of the offender, and therefore no way to give meaning to, or make sense of, the act that she or he has suffered. Was there some reason the offender singled the victim out? Or was it a random act? Is the offense part of a pattern? In an adversarial judicious system, where offenders are encouraged to deny culpability and prosecutors downplay mitigating circumstances, victims have few resources to interpret the significance of the injuries done to them and offenders have incentives not to admit to anything for which they could be held accountable.

          A major study a few years ago by the National Criminal Justice Commission confirms this general picture. The commission concluded, n part, that “crime victims are often revictimized by the justice process. They are sometimes shuffled around by the bureaucracy, questioned insensitively by police, subpoenaed by courts, mystified by procedures needed to get restitution, kept ignorant of important court dates, and denied possession of their own property being held as evidence.” (36)

          Further testament to the inadequacies of the current system is the so-called victims’ rights movement. Because victims have often felt that their feelings and injuries have been inadequately addressed by prevailing criminal justice practices, many are now demanding a greater say in judicial and sentencing procedures. The victims’ rights movement and the restorative justice movement share the concern to be responsive to the felt needs of victims. Insofar as the victims’ rights movement is fueled by a desire for greater retribution or revenge, however, its goals are directly at odds with the goals of restorative justice. It would be unfortunate if the energies this movement concentrates on securing a greater voice for victims in the criminal justice system simply add to the impetus toward harsher punishments. It remains to be shown, moreover, whether the imposition of harsher penalties contributes in any positive way to the resolution of the distress and hurt that are common to most victims. On the other hand, restorative justice programs have been involving victims in creative and constructive resolution of criminal cases for many years with positive outcomes for participating victims. (37)

          The many restorative justice success stories have been corroborated by several research studies. One of these, a large multi-site study of victim-offender mediation programs with juvenile offenders found the following: (1) in cases referred to the four study-site programs during a two-year period, 95 percent of mediation sessions resulted in a successfully negotiated restitution agreement to restore the victims financial losses; (2) victims who met with offenders in the presence of a trained mediator were more likely to be satisfied with the justice system than were similar victims who went through the standard court process (79 percent vs. 57 percent); (3) after meeting offenders, victims were significantly less fearful of being re-victimized; (4) offenders who met with victims were far more likely to complete their restitution obligation successfully than were similar offenders who did not participate in mediation (81 percent vs. 58 percent); and (5) recidivism rates were lower among offenders who participated in mediation than among offenders who did not (18 percent vs. 27 percent); moreover, participating offenders’ subsequent crimes tended to be less serious. (38)

          When we think about victims and the injuries they suffer due to criminal behavior, we think first of all those who have had crimes committed directly against them. There are many others, however, whose lives are also diminished by crime. In a statement on “The Church and the Victims of Crimes,” the 120^th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church U.S. identified the following as victims:

Persons whose bodies are assaulted, violated, and murdered, and their families or survivors;

          Those who are intimidated, harassed, and coerced;

          People whose property is damaged or stolen;

          People whose lives are disrupted by criminal behavior of community or family members;

Consumers who pay higher prices because of “white collar” offenses, employee theft, or greed and mismanagement by businesses and corporations;

Taxpayers whose money supports a cumbersome and often ineffectual system of justice and imprisonment. (39)

This list is suggestive, not exhaustive. It reminds us that crime tears at the social fabric and its consequences ripple through the whole of society. It should also remind us that crime is pervasive and that no part of society can insulate and isolate itself either from crime or its effects. Among those who suffer most on account of the harmful actions of others are two categories of victims that merit special mention.

          One category is the estimated ten million children in the United States who have experienced the incarceration of a parent. Nearly half of the incarcerated parents are African American; another 20 percent are Hispanic. Black children are nine times as likely, and Hispanic children are three times as likely, to have a parent in prison as white children. There are now over 1.5 million children with one or both parents in prison. The implications of this are very troubling:

Studies show that children of parents in prison, most already suffering from the effects of high poverty rates, substance abuse by their parents, as well as neglect and abuse by their parent or others, are at greater risk than other children of almost every bad experience imaginable: depression, acting out, poor academic performance, early pregnancy, substance abuse, post-traumatic stress disorder, shame, self-loathing, survivor guilt, flashbacks, and problems with sleep and concentration. Here again, the prison industry guarantees future business for itself. (40)

          In addition to the injustices and irrationality of current imprisonment practices with respect to those who are incarcerated, add the injustices and horrendously undesirable consequences that bear down upon their children who, in this context, must be regarded as innocent victims.

          A second and similarly innocent category of victims is women, children, and men who are victims of what is called domestic violence. There is nothing very “domestic” about such violence, of course. From verbal abuse to physical assault, from rape and incest to murder, such violence generates fear, pain, and terror in untold numbers of human beings. Most domestic violence never gets reported, so we can only guess at the magnitude of this problem. Consider the following comparison, however: During the Vietnam War some 58,000 servicemen were killed, their names now inscribed on the wall of the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, D.C. During the same period, some 54,000 women were murdered in acts of domestic violence. (41) To most of us they remain completely anonymous, the stories of their lives perhaps never to be told.

          A good bit is known, however, about what it is like to be a surviving victim of domestic violence. The need for survivor victims to be protected, heard, believed, respected, supported, and helped has been identified and affirmed by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in its adoption of a “Domestic Violence” policy in 2000. (42) The realities of domestic violence highlight in a dramatic way some of the major challenges for a theology and practice of restorative justice. An emphasis upon restoration of relationships in a domestic situation without due attention to safety, protection, accountability, and effective treatment or rehabilitation can be deadly. Women (or men) who have been seriously abused by their spouses or domestic partners can hardly be expected to extend forgiveness and seek reconciliation without substantial assurances and evidence that they are not likely to become victims again. Indeed, the emotional scars of domestic violence and sexual abuse are often so deep that it is not possible to achieve a full recovery, or a full restoration of relationships, to the state before the violence or abuse occurred. In such cases restorative justice aims, first of all, to provide the necessary safety, protection, and support that survivor victims need to be able to move beyond their trauma and fears. Then restorative justice aims to accomplish as much healing as possible, e.g., to restore whatever relationships can be restored and/or to help the survivor victims to regain sufficient sense of wholeness to be able to engage in meaningfully close relationships in the future.

          At the same time, restorative justice insists upon holding the perpetrators of domestic violence and abuse accountable for their actions. Restorative justice always maintains that those who have violated others, whether through criminal actions or by means of other behaviors that harm individuals and impair relationships, must take responsibility for their actions and become subject to some process of personal transformation for restoration to be achieved.

          Restorative justice commends itself, thirdly, as a way of thinking that provides a critique of social structures and systems whose consequences are harmful whether or not they result from illegal practices. Retributive justice is focused on violations of law. When laws are broken, it wants to know what happened, who did it, and what punishment is deserved? Relatively little attention is given to repairing the damage that has been done. Nor does retributive justice concern itself with legal manifestations of harm and violence. Restorative justice recognizes that harm and violence can be done even when laws are not broken. In a restorative justice perspective, as we have already seen, the institutionalization of racial and class prejudices in systemic structures of violence cannot be ignored. Domestic violence was a concern well before the law recognized that rape and other forms of unacceptable violence among inmates were crimes. Restorative justice remains concerned that still other forms of abuse that would be illegal if committed against strangers continue to take place without legal censure within “domestic” situations.

          Unfortunately, there are still many other ways in which harm can be done to others that are “perfectly” legal. For decades major cigarette companies denied the validity of scientific research documenting the harmful effects of smoking, and still they are free to promote their products to a vulnerable public. Employers offer more part-time jobs and fewer full-time jobs to unskilled employees in order to avoid providing health care and other benefits. Corporate executives award themselves huge salaries and even larger bonuses while laying off thousands of hourly employees, blaming declining markets and revenues. Politicians reward major party benefactors with government contracts, corporate subsidies and income tax breaks that redistribute wealth and social power toward even greater disparity.

          Restorative justice is not a panacea for all our social ills. However, because it focuses on harm and need, not just on assigning guilt and fixing blame, it offers a critical lens through which to see what I going on in society that offends the sense of justice. Because it focuses on relationships, not just legal infractions, it recognizes violations of equality, justice, and love that constitute abuses of power, that diminish prospects or life, and that fracture and destroy the bonds of community.

          Finally, restorative justice commends itself as a way of thinking substantively and acting concretely in order to begin to embody the biblical vision of shalom, or the kingdom of God, as a realm of justice, love, and peace for all of God’s children. Many restorative justice practices have already been tried and found effective in binging about a transformation in the lives of victims, offenders, and the communities of which they are a part. Victim Offender Mediation Programs, community conflict resolution programs, victim assistance programs, and family conferencing programs are prime examples. Restorative justice is not a particular program or cluster of programs, however. It is a way of thinking about the demands of justice and a way of working with victims, offenders, and communities to achieve the goal of repairing harm, restoring relationships, healing individuals and society so far as possible. It owes much of its support to people whose experiences working within the criminal justice system have convinced them of the need to change the way we deal with the events we call crime and with the people we call offenders and victims. Reflection upon those experiences in the light of the biblical vision of justice has led to a number of widely accepted principles that have come to define the restorative justice approach.

C. Restorative Justice Principles

          As noted previously, a simple definition of restorative justice is “addressing the hurts and the needs of the victim, the offender, and the community in such a way that all – victim, offender, and community – might be healed.” (43) Basic principles include:

1.      Safety is the first consideration of the community. The first step toward restoration must be to protect those who have suffered and those who are at risk to suffer at the hands of others.

2.      The least drastic interventions, forms of coercion, and social control consistent with public safety are always to be preferred in dealing with offenders.

3.      The primary focus is on the harms of wrongdoing rather than the laws that have been broken.

4.      Concern and commitment must be shown both to victims and to offenders, involving both in the process of justice.

5.      Work toward the restoration of victims requires acknowledging their sense of violation, empowering them, and responding to their needs as they see them.

6.      Offenders must be held accountable for their actions, expected to take responsibility for their behavior, and called upon to change.

7.      Offenders should be expected to make restitution whenever possible, not as a matter of punishment but as an obligation and a means of helping to achieve restoration.

8.      The basic conflict or circumstance that led to the harm should be addressed and resolved whenever possible.

9.      Affected communities need to be involved in the restorative justice process. They have a stake in its outcome. Such involvement will also increase their capacity to recognize and respond more effectively to those conditions and practices within their community that contribute to crime.

10.  The availability of a continuum of service and treatment options in a variety of settings is necessary to provide alternatives to incarceration and other essentially punitive measures.

11.  The approach must encourage collaboration and reintegration rather than coercion and isolation. Participation in restorative justice programs by all parties must be voluntary. Victims must be willing and able to affirm the goals of restorative justice over those of retribution. Offenders must be provided the opportunity to participate in restorative justice programs as an alternative to punishment, not as an additionally imposed penalty. Restorative practices and programs must also be made available to incarcerated offenders. The community must be willing to exercise care and accountability, extending support to victims and acceptance of measures by which offenders may be restored to community life.

As affirmed by the 118^th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church U.S.:

Human justice that reflects divine justice will attempt specifically to “rehabilitate” or “reintegrate” social offenders in such a way that they are enabled to live freely and responsibly in a community with other people…It means the rejection of all procedures that expect people to become free and responsible while at the same time denying every possibility of exercising freedom and responsibility. It means devising procedures that with patience, helpful supervision, discipline, and due precaution encourage and enable people to practice – learn by doing – freedom and responsibility. (44)

          Restorative justice recognizes the need, first of all, for victims and potential victims to be protected. Therefore, it accepts the limited necessity for coercive forms of restraint, including incarceration, for some offenses. The primary purpose of incarceration, however, must be to protect victims and society, not to punish offenders. From a restorative justice perspective, punishment is not viewed primarily as an abstract notion regarding what seems to be required to restore the balance of justice. Rather, punishment is recognized to involve the deliberate infliction of pain – physical, mental, emotional, or psychological – on a human being.

In practice, “enhanced penalties” almost always amount to longer or harsher sentences. In the first place, greater punishment does not increase the likelihood that offenders will experience a change of heart toward persons who belong to the group they hate. Nor are longer sentences likely result in safer streets. (48) Moreover, there is strong reason to believe that those who are most likely to become subject to such penalties are not the chief offenders:

In the real world of the U.S. criminal justice system…whenever penalty enhancements have been enacted to underline the seriousness of certain types of offenses, they are not applied against those responsible for causing the greatest harm. Instead, they are overwhelmingly applied to defendants with the fewest resources: the least access to counsel, the least sophistication about the system, and, not coincidentally, the least social status (that is, the least human value) in the eyes of prosecutors, judges, and juries. In other words, poor people, people of color, and youth. (49)

          Finally, the ready resort to “enhanced penalties” for hate crimes conceals a subtle resistance to the more difficult tasks of trying to change the social, economic, and other life conditions that aid and abet both prejudicial attitudes and criminal behavior. People who have been thwarted in life, and especially those who are socially or economically disadvantaged, tend to locate blame for their circumstances with, and direct their hatred toward, some identifiable racial, ethnic, or other social group. Ironically, “enhanced penalties” for hate crimes may be a form of reverse scapegoating, a means by which most members of society may divert attention from their own widespread and pervasive patterns of institutionalized prejudice and discrimination to place the blame on an already disadvantaged segment of society. And even if many hate crimes are committed by persons who are themselves in no obvious way disadvantaged, it must be noted,

Hate crimes are committed by specific individuals, but they target those within a community who are seen as expendable or unworthy. In this sense, not only the individual who commits an act of violence but the entire community is implicated in hate violence – and so the community must also help to heal it. (50)

          Communities must assume a significant measure of responsibility for hate crimes. They must also hold themselves accountable for attitudes and practices of prejudicial hate. “Enhanced penalties” should not be used to displace the blame for hate crimes entirely on the identified perpetrators.

          3. Other Harmful and Legally Proscribed Behaviors

          As already noted, various forms of domestic violence place special burdens and obligations upon restorative justice. The challenges of dealing with domestic violence are not unique to restorative justice, however. Our traditional retributive justice system has notoriously failed to address the needs of victims and to provide the necessary protections often called for in the face of realistic threats of domestic violence. Victims, or potential victims, of domestic violence require and deserve special protection. Because of its focus on harm, not just legal violation, restorative justice is quicker to recognize and respond to such threats as real harms in themselves. The necessity to find ways to deal with actual and potential offenders and to help them move beyond their anger and need for control remains a continuing challenge.

          Sexual predation is another form of behavior, found within as well as outside domestic situations, that poses special challenges for restorative justice, as it does for traditional retributive justice. Again, restorative justice, with its focus on harm done, is better prepared to address the needs of actual and potential victims. It must be acknowledged, however, that the goal of restoration for sexual predators is often not readily achieved. The psychological and/or social pathology of many sexual predators is such that they appear to be resistant to rehabilitation. From a mental health perspective, sexual predation may be a form of mental illness, or a grievous addiction, a begging for the therapeutic intervention. From a retributive justice perspective, it is a crime deserving of punishment. The perspective of restorative justice does not limit viewing sexually predatory behavior exclusively as either criminal behavior or as pathology, however. On the one hand, society needs to be protected from sexual predators, whose actions constitute a horrible form of violence against persons. On the other hand, though they need to be held accountable, sexual predators also need help; they may even need to be protected from themselves. A restorative justice approach may be best able to see this form of personal violence as a form of harmful behavior that needs to be addressed with a continuum of coercively restraining and potentially restorative measures.

          Acts of terrorism also constitute a hard case for restorative justice. Restorative justice recognizes acts of terrorism to be criminal acts. They can be acts of massive and terrible violence, or they can be acts of ominous threat with minimal destruction. Whatever immediate damage they inflict, they are also designed to instill terror, to disrupt and disturb normal ways of life, to rob people of their sense of safety and equilibrium. Here again, however, restorative justice is better prepared than retributive justice to recognize and address the harm of such acts. The victims of terrorist acts must be of first concern. Their future safety, and the safety of the community or society to which they belong, is integral to that concern. Restorative justice also recognizes, however, that terrorism does not arise or exist in a vacuum. It is not a locus of evil that can be isolated, circumscribed, restrained, and permanently eliminated. It is a symptom of some larger disease. It may be a sign of moral and political failure, in which relationships among certain parts of the world have gone terribly wrong. It must be understood in terms of these relationships, and efforts must be concentrated not only on apprehending terrorists in order to prevent their activities and to provide immediate protection to society but also on righting these relationships. The material circumstances and cultural rifts that breed terrorism must themselves be transformed, both to alleviate the conditions that would motivate future new terrorists and to restore a sense of safety to their prospective victims.