The barriers to effectively addressing these kinds of violence are complex and not easily fixed within our current system. Consequently, what role could alternative systems play in addressing these problems?

Restorative practices are an emerging social science, evolved from ancient practices, that studies how to build, strengthen, and repair relationships among individuals, as well as connections within communities. The practices focus on building connections, accountability, and commitments through participatory learning and decision-making. Specifically, restorative practices can provide some justice to people that have been harmed via systemic oppression.

While more preventative in nature, restorative practices has emerged from restorative justice, which is an intentional way handling an offense involving three stakeholders within an organization or community: the person(s) who has offended, the person(s) who were harmed, and communities of care and reconciliation (Wachtel, 2016).

Restorative justice has roots in ancient and Indigenous practices employed in a wide variety of cultures, from Native American and First Nation Canadian to African, Asian, Celtic, Hebrew, Arab and many others (Eagle, 2001; Goldstein, 2006; Haarala, 2004; Mbambo & Skelton, 2003; Mirsky, 2004; Roujanavong, 2005; Wong, 2005).

Restorative practices are most effective when they are used holistically to build relationships within organizations or within communities. This means using them in a proactive way and not just when harm has occurred. Structures that support the building of connection through authentic communication and social capital that is shared by all members of the community can decrease the amount of harm that occurs (Davey, 2007).

For instance, restorative justice has become a central part of discussions about reforming the criminal justice system. Restorative justice centers the survivor, considering what they need to experience healing. It also involves the perpetrator’s participation, requiring them to recognize the harm they did in holding them accountable. More recently, the Center for Court Innovation published a report on the state of nationwide restorative justice approaches to IPV. Examples of restorative programs noted in this report include peacemaking circles, family group conferences, and support circles. If you would like to access the full report, you can do so by clicking this link: A National Portrait of Restorative Approaches to Intimate Partner Violence.

These programs are very different from a criminal justice approach. One of the reasons that groups have begun these practices is due to the inadequacies of the traditional criminal justice system in resolving these issues (Center for Court Innovation, 2019). Unlike the court system, restorative justice centers the survivor rather than the state. It recognizes the agency of survivors and their need to feel safe in the wake of these forms of violence. It also recognizes that healing can look different to different people. At the same time, restorative justice requires the perpetrator to participate actively and engage in an accountability process. More broadly, restorative justice engages communities in their efforts to address IPV by shifting the culture around IPV.

Participation in restorative justice interventions is voluntary and may not be appropriate in all situations, especially if this is not the survivor’s wish. Even so, restorative justice provides an alternate framework, which is worth considering as a means to address some common complaints with the criminal justice approach to IPV.

Licenses and Attributions for Looking Ahead: Restorative Practices

Open Content, Original

“Looking Ahead: Restorative Practices” by Alexandra Olsen and Elizabeth B. Pearce. License: CC BY 4.0.

References

Center for Court Innovation. (2019). A National Portrait of Restorative Approaches to Intimate Partner Violence: Pathways to Safety, Accountability, Healing, and Well-Being. https://www.innovatingjustice.org/sites/default/files/media/document/2019/Report_IPV_12032019.pdf

Davey, L. (2007, November). Restorative practices: A vision of hope. Paper presented at the 10th International Institute for Restorative Practices World Conference, Budapest, Hungary.

Goldstein, A. (2006, October). Restorative practices in Israel: The state of the field. Paper presented at the Eighth International Conference on Conferencing, Circles and other Restorative Practices, Bethlehem, PA, USA.

Haarala, L. (2004). A community within. In Restorative Justice Week: Engaging us all in the dialogue. Correctional Service of Canada.

Mbambo, B., & Skelton, A. (2003). Preparing the South African community for implementing a new restorative child justice system. In L. Walgrave (Ed.), Repositioning restorative justice (pp. 271-283). Devon, UK: Willan

Mirsky, L. (2004a). Restorative justice practices of Native American, First Nation and other indigenous people of North America: Part one. http://www.iirp.edu/pdf/natjust1.pdf

Roujanavong, W. (2005, November). Restorative justice: Family and community group conferencing (FCGC) in Thailand. Paper presented at the Seventh International Conference on Conferencing, Circles and other Restorative Practices, Manchester, UK.

Wachtel, T. (2016). Defining Restorative. International Institute for Restorative Practices. https://www.nassauboces.org/cms/lib/NY01928409/Centricity/Domain/1699/Defining%20Restorative.pdf

Wong, D. (2005) Restorative justice for juveniles in Hong Kong: Reflections of a practitioner. Paper presented at the Sixth International Conference on Conferencing, Circles and other Restorative Practices, Penrith, NSW, Australia