Restoration is a metaphor

In an earlier blog entry I discussed the importance of metaphor and promised to say more about how this applies to justice. Here, finally, are more thoughts on metaphors and justice.

The following points are inspired by James Geary’s book, I Is An Other:  The Secret Life or Metaphor and How It Shapes the Way We See the World as well as by earlier reading, most importantly George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By. Numbers in parentheses are page numbers from Geary.

  •  Metaphors are fundamental to thought, communication and emotion. They shape the way we make sense of the world.
  • We use one metaphor for every 10-25 words, or about six per minute. ( 5).
  • “…thinking is a kind of simulated interaction with the world, a metaphorical engagement that makes what we imagine more realistic.” (105)
  • Metaphors highlight and clarify aspects of reality but because they are a comparison and not an exact match, they also hide and obscure realities.
  • The best metaphors are “sticky” but once they take hold, are often mistaken for facts.
  • Many – perhaps most – of our metaphors are unconscious, below the surface. Even when we are conscious of them, we are often unconscious of all the baggage they bring with them.
  • The effectiveness of a metaphor does not depend on its truth but on its easy accessibility. (148)
  • Metaphoric names and language vary in their effectiveness. One reason “global warming” has not been taken more seriously is that it may be too mild to convey a sense of crisis. (120)

Our justice language is full of metaphors. Some, such as the “war on crime” or the adversarial system as a boxing match, are easy to identify. But others are much more subtle and unconscious. For example, we often treat justice as a commodity:  justice is spoken of as “received” or “given.”

Sometimes in restorative justice we use the metaphor of “healing.” One critique of the healing metaphor is that it may promise too much. Another is that it is a medical metaphor, and medical metaphors for crime during an earlier rehabilitation era led to some unfortunate consequences. Like all metaphors, it highlights certain characteristics or goals, but like all metaphors, it is also likely to hide or mislead.

The restoration image in restorative justice itself is a metaphor.  t is a metaphor that communicates and resonates, which may account in part for the popularity of the term and concept. But the resonance of the metaphor also helps to account for the growing misuse of the term. And like all metaphors, “restorative” is bound to hide and mislead.

What are the implications and down sides of the restorative metaphor? What new metaphors for this kind of justice can we imagine? I welcome your ideas.

Webinar series: We are continuing the webinar series that started last fall. The next webinar is entitled “The Promise & Challenge of Restorative Justice Practices in Schools” on Feb. 27.

To view or download the last webinar, “Does Restorative Justice Need Forgiveness,” click here.

January 31st, 2013 – by Howard Zehr Zehr (category: Restorative Justice)

Does restorative justice need forgiveness?

Webinar: Does Restorative Justice Need Forgiveness?: A dialogue with Sujatha Baliga

On January 5, The New York Times Magazine carried a story about the use of a restorative conference in a murder case in the early stages of the legal process, prior to a plea. The case was also highlighted on theToday Show a few days later. The story was entitled, “Can forgiveness play a role in criminal justice?” (See the story on EMU News: “Coverage in NY Times and NBC Sparks EMU Webinar on Restorative Justice”)

Conferences like the one highlighted in that article are sometimes used prior to formal prosecution in “lesser” cases, and victim-offender dialogues are now common post-sentencing. However, a conference to negotiate a plea in a murder case is highly unusual.

How did this case unfold? What can restorative justice practitioners learn from this pioneering case? What is the relationship between forgiveness and restorative justice? How do we relate to the media on these issues?

Sujatha Baliga, the lawyer and restorative justice practitioner who facilitated this process, will be our guest for this webinar. Howard Zehr, who facilitated the connection between the two families and Sujatha and played a background role in the case, will chair the session. Viewers will be able to submit comments and questions through a chat forum.

This webinar is intended for restorative justice practitioners but is open to anyone, though a basic knowledge of restorative justice is preferred. For those without that background, The Little Book of Restorative Justice provides a short introduction.

(Watch the recorded webinar now!)

January 22nd, 2013 – by Howard Zehr Zehr (category: Peacebuilding, Restorative Justice)

Real world restorative justice webinar series and more

I realize that a new blog entry is overdue, and that the following does not get me off the hook, but here is an announcement.

Our program is launching a new series of restorative justice webinars entitled Real World Restorative Justice. The first four will be free and I will be hosting most of them. More information is available from this website:

Here is the link to watch the recorded version of the first webinar.

Starting in January we will also be offering two on-line courses.  Prof. Carl Stauffer will offer a short course in January & February on transitional justice.  I will offer one entitled “Conversations on restorative justice:  critical issues” starting in February and ending in late April or early May.  Watch our website for more information.


Several recent books address restorative justice in some way:

Biblical scholar and restorative justice practitioner Chris Marshall has published Compassionate Justice: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue with Two Gospel Parables on Law, Crime, and Restorative Justice (Cascade books). As I say in my endorsement of it, “His blend of biblical scholarship and contemporary insights from the social sciences and humanities will be of interest not only to Christians but to others concerned about justice in today’s world.”

Drawing in part on restorative justice, Albert W. Dzur argues for a partnership of professionals and citizens through an expanded role for juries in Punishment, Participatory Democracy, & the Jury (Oxford UP).

A Spanish version of my early book, Changing Lenses:  A New Focus for Crime and Justice (Herald Press) was just released this week.

Finally, the next book in the Little Books of Justice and Peacebuilding, due out this spring, is David Karp’s The Little Book of Restorative Justice for Colleges and Universities (Good Books).



September 11th, 2012 – by Howard Zehr Zehr (category: Restorative Justice)

Metaphors matter – in photography and in justice

Our metaphors matter – in photography and in justice

As a photographer, I’ve often reflected on how frequently photographs serve to divide rather than create connections between people.  It is so tempting to emphasize the “otherness” of subjects rather than what we have in common.  As a result, photographs often leave subjects feeling degraded and violated.  They undermine rather than build a sense of community.

Photography can exploit or it can respect.  Its impact depends on how it is conducted.  That, in turn, is determined in subtle, often unconscious, ways, by how we talk and think about what we do when we photograph.  How we do photography is affected by how we view photography and that in turn is affected by the images and metaphors that shape our language.

When we think and talk about concepts or, in fact, anything that we cannot see or touch, we compare them to other things.  Consequently, most of our ideas about the world are couched in images and metaphors.

When we talk about justice, we often “right” wrongs or “weigh the evidence,” using the image of a scale.  In the western world, we talk about time as if it were a commodity: we “save” time, we “spend” time. When people of faith try to comprehend the mystery of a Creator, we often rely on human images such as father or mother or judge. In such cases, we are using something we understand to comprehend and symbolize something we know incompletely.

Our metaphors subtly shape how we see and react to the world.  When we talk about a “war on crime,” for example, we are using the metaphor of battle to describe a social problem.  This metaphor in turn reinforces certain stereotypes and assumptions.  It emphasizes the “otherness” of offenders, disguising the fact that they are much like us.  By objectifying an “enemy,” the war metaphor allows us to justify all sorts of actions against those who have caused harm.  This metaphor creates the false assumption that the solution lies in weapons, in “outgunning” the enemy, in deterrence through fear.

In photography, the words and metaphors we use are profoundly disturbing. We “shoot” or “take” a photo.  We aim our camera. The language of photography is predominately aggressive, predatory, acquisitive, imperialistic.

This militaristic image is reflected in the design and marketing of equipment.  Cameras with their protruding lenses often look like weapons and are often designed to put in front of our faces like masks or guns.  And they are advertised this way.  A famous lens manufacturer announces that its “new snub-nosed zoom shoots to kill.”  An ad for a photo lab has a cowboy holding a camera like a gun against a western sky with a “wanted” poster on the wall behind him.  A store for professional photographers advertises that the company is “responsible for over 2,876,431 shootings.”  It touts its “arsenal” of equipment and promises that its service will “blow you away.”  We call our compacts “point-and-shoot” cameras.

The way we actually photograph, unfortunately, frequently reinforces this image of photographer-as-aggressor. Often we approach photography like a hunt, stealing photos and collecting images like trophies. We sneak  photos with a telephoto lens without the subject’s consent.  We use the camera to avoid interacting with our subjects.  We treat the photos as commodities with no input from the subjects about how they are portrayed, how the image is edited or where it is used.

Is it any surprise, then, that subjects feel violated and that photos so often divide and degrade?

Fortunately, there is an alternative way to approach photography.

When we photograph, we do not actually reach out and take anything.  Rather, we receive an image that is reflected from the subject.  Instead of understanding photography as taking, we can envision it as receiving.  Instead of a trophy that is hunted, an image is a gift.

In reality, photography is a matter of opening ourselves to receiving.  Such photography means cultivating a attitude of receptivity, an openness to the unexpected.  This approach is more like meditation than a hunt.

Conceived in this way, photography requires respect for the subject.  The subject plays a crucial part in our creation and thus involves a reciprocal exchange. As photographer John Running says in his book, Pictures for Solomon, “Making a photograph is usually a collaboration between the photographer and the subject.  It doesn’t matter if the subject is a landscape, a still life, an animal or a person.”  As a result, he says he tries to photograph “with care, respect, truth and wonder.”

If we are committed to this approach, our images should seek to convey respect, not arouse pity – to humanize rather than depersonalize.

Full collaboration and reciprocity between photographer and subject are not always possible.  Nevertheless, we have a choice.  Photography can be an act of piracy or a form of meditation.  If we recognize images as gifts, if we cultivate an attitude of receptivity rather than acquisition, then our photography will certainly be affected by this in positive way.

Only when we photograph with care, respect, truth and wonder can we create photographs that encourage rather than destroy life-giving community.

Whether we are seeking justice or doing photography, our metaphors matter.  In a future entry I will look more specifically at some justice implications.



July 7th, 2012 – by Howard Zehr Zehr (category: Photography, Restorative Justice)

Where will we find justice for Trayvon Martin?

David Anderson Hooker

The following is an invited guest post by my friend, colleague and fellow Morehouse College grad, David Anderson Hooker.

Update July 18, 2013:  An interview with David following the Zimmerman trial can be heard here:

I have good news and bad news for the family and supporters of Trayvon Martin: The ‘justice’ you seek is not in the system from which you seek it!  If this sounds like a Jedi mind trick, I apologize.  I hope though that it will at least cause some to stop and think.

The bad news first: The ‘justice’ you seek is not in the system from which you seek it! In the late 1970’s and 80’s Black psychologist Bobby E. Wright coined a phrase – “Mentacide: The systematic destruction of a group of people’s minds with the ultimate aim being the complete extirpation of the race.”   The prime example Wright offered of the workings of Mentacide was when African American parents would send their children to the public schools with curricula that at best neglected and at worst denigrated their entire heritage. Then the parents would complain about the impact on children’s’ self-esteem.

Similarly today, the fact that the family and supporters of the family of Trayvon Martin are looking for relief to a justice system that has historically discriminated against African Americans seems naïve and idealistic, if not fully wrongheaded.  But I think the greatest disappointment will come from the hope that the judicial system could actually provide justice.

The reason the so-called justice system is not the answer in this instance and so many others is because the system asks the wrong questions.  Judicial justice asks: What law was broken?  Who is responsible?  What punishment do they deserve?

Traipsing down this rabbit hole will end up with twisted explanations of how it is ever acceptable to kill an unarmed person, let alone an innocent teenager.  It is not clear whether a law was broken – though I fully concede that George Zimmerman should at the very least have been arrested while someone answered that question.  What happens if the answer to that question is that no laws were broken?  If that’s the case, then no punishment will be required.  And that leaves us all without answers.

The better questions to ask are the typical questions of restorative justice:  What HARM was done?  What will it take to put it right?  Who has the obligation to make it right?  What process would be most effective to involve everyone who has a stake in making it right?  This approach doesn’t excuse what by all indications was the senseless killing of a young Black man.  Rather what it does is acknowledge that this killing and the official response have created many breaches that need to be repaired.

The family has experienced a loss; this needs to be addressed.

George Zimmerman’s life has been irreparably altered – he will both want to make amends and he will need to find ways of healing from the irrational ‘negrophobia’ that likely initiated this fatal sequence.

The image and respect for every aspect of the law enforcement community has been downgraded.  In order to work most effectively, law enforcement needs to have the MERITED trust of their community.  You can’t ask for the community’s cooperation to prosecute wrongdoing when it seems that law enforcement is willing to selectively prosecute.

The sense of community is damaged.  I am not familiar with the racial and class climate in Sanford, Florida but I can’t imagine that this in any way improves it.  Likely any divisions in the community fueled by racially and ethnically-charged mistrust have hardened.  In order for civil society to flourish, trust must be established or restored.

So here’s the good news: The ‘justice’ you seek is not in the system from which you seek it!

Justice is the establishment of right relationships.  In this case, justice would include improving the sense of safety – not insecurity bred by implicit bias, but actual safety for people walking the streets; assurance that law enforcement is about justice and not JUST US; and creation of laws that favor people over property and that don’t give privilege or place to actions based in racism – by shooters, sheriffs, Assistant State’s Attorneys or anyone else.

While it is essential that we continue to demand accountability for the actors including the shooter, the sheriff and the Assistant State’s Attorneys, the sense of balance and vindication is more likely to take a long time to establish.  This will require dialogue and discussion, including the following:

  • Having the Zimmermans and other members of that community hear from Trayvon’s families about the hopes and dreams dashed by this senseless death.
  • Hearing from George Zimmerman and others who describe the life experiences that have resulted in an irrational fear of young Black men.
  • Allowing law enforcement and media to participate in dialogue to recognize that they play a significant role in creating and perpetuating the irrational fear.
  • Examining the legal permission to act on irrationality that is granted by the  “stand your ground” policy.

This will require restitution and reshaping of both laws and practice.  This will require asking different questions.  This will require a full community effort – and possibly result in an actual sense of community.

Restoration is possible and the good news is this:  you don’t have to wait for the current justice system to act to begin to establish the justice you seek.

David Anderson Hooker (J.D. M.Div.) is a lawyer, minister and mediator. For more than 25 years he has worked with communities in the US and throughout the world to host difficult conversations including post-war and post-riot reconciliation, environmental justice and restoratively transforming historical harm and injustice. He is also former Assistant Attorney General for the State of Georgia and an Associate Professor at the Center for Justice & Peacebuilding, Eastern Mennonite University.

April 4th, 2012 – by Howard Zehr Zehr (category: Peacebuilding, Restorative Justice)

Beware of labels

Recently I had the opportunity to spend an afternoon with a friend of some 20 years.  Tyrone Werts is a wise man, a leader, an inspiration to many, who has spent years organizing and helping to sustain others.  He has long been actively engaged in efforts to reduce violence in society.

Tyrone Werts, early 1990s

His picture is on the front cover of my book “Doing Life”  because he has been serving a life sentence – in Pennsylvania, this means life without possibility of parole.

On several occasions, I’ve had prison officers comment that if he were outside, with his relational and leadership skills, he would be CEO of a company. For years he served as president of the lifer’s organization in Graterford prison.

Then, by some miracle (and lots of support from key community figures), after 37 years in prison, Tyrone’s sentence was commuted and he was released last year.  This is an exceedingly rare occurrence in Pennsylvania

Tyrone Werts 2012

What must it be like to be free after 37 years inside?  Tyrone says that he hasn’t had an unhappy day since he got out.  He is working part time as a consultant for the public defender’s office, part time with the Inside-Out Prison Exchange Program at Temple University that brings college students into prison to study together with prisoners.  He has a nice car.  He looks great.  He is on email.  He skypes. He says the weirdest part is being with friends like me who he only knew on the inside.

Tyrone met me at a judges’ conference in Philadelphia where I had just spoken and he seemed to fit right in. He then took me to a conference where we were on a panel together.  He seemed to know everyone and the people he didn’t know, he reached out to.  He laughed when I told him he had the same relational skills and style outside that I had observed inside the walls.

Reflecting back, Tyrone commented that when he was convicted, he was considered a sociopath.  What a sobering reminder of the dangers of labels and stereotypes.

I look forward to the time when he is free to travel and he will be available as a speaker for other communities.  He has so much to offer.

Podcast interview with Tyrone here.

March 12th, 2012 – by Howard Zehr Zehr (category: Peacebuilding, Photography, Restorative Justice)

Restorative justice principles and indicators

As a response to earlier blog entries, Jon Kidde developed an RJ continuum and set of principles or indicators.  With his permission, I am posting them as a guest entry.   Jon welcomes feedback on these.

To see a larger version of the continuum, click here.

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE: principles and indicators


Involve those impacted/affected, including the community, (i.e. victim, family, neighborhood, school, offender) in the resolution.

Engagement of person(s) harmed:

  • Evidence that demonstrates the program provides meaningful invitations to participate (e.g. more than one personalized contact attempt. A single form letter would not demonstrate this).
  • Evidence that demonstrates those harmed have the opportunity to provide input and reasonably shape the outcome. (engagement & restoration)

Engagement of person(s) who have caused harm:

  • Evidence that demonstrates that the program actively involves participants in understanding the harm and related needs as well as their ideas and input in determining the agreements/outcome.

Community Engagement

  • Evidence that demonstrates the program actively involves the community in the response to the needs illuminated/harm experienced by all parties.


Encourage appropriate responsibility to address needs and repair the harm.

  • Evidence that demonstrates the program ensures that the participants acknowledge responsibility for the harm caused.
  • Evidence that demonstrates the program provides opportunities for the person who caused the harm to develop an understanding of how his/her actions affected others.
  • Evidence that demonstrates the program facilitates the development of agreements that directly relate to repairing the harm as defined by those directly affected—victim and offender.


Acknowledgement and repair of the harm caused by, and revealed by, wrongdoing.

  • Evidence that demonstrates the program ensures that the participants acknowledge responsibility for the harm caused.
  •  Evidence that demonstrates completion of agreements focused on repairing the harm.
  •  Evidence that demonstrates satisfaction among those harmed with the outcome of the process used.

(Adapted from and influenced by Howard Zehr’s blog)


A bit of background on Jon:

Jon Kidde has been exploring the concepts of restorative justice for over 14 years and has been influential in the design and implementation of several programs based on restorative justice in Wyoming and California.

He has conducted research on the perspectives of youth, parents, victims, and community members who have interacted with the Juvenile Court. He enjoys facilitating strategic planning for organizations interested in increasing opportunities for collaboration, dialogue, and shared power and decision-making.

Jon is currently thinking broadly about how to effectively bridge the gap that exists between on the ground practices and (1) their foundationalprinciples, (2) governing policies, and (3) outcome evaluation research designed to inform practice.

Jon lives in Vermont with his wife, Heather, and daughter Lily Lyon. He currently supervises the implementation of a statewide initiative to enhance Court Diversion Programs in Vermont.

December 29th, 2011 – by Howard Zehr Zehr (category: Peacebuilding, Restorative Justice)

Good and bad victims?

Is a victim of crime who values restorative justice welcome in the restorative justice community only if s/he “works for” forgiveness?

How is a victim of crime who believes in healing for both victim and offender, but continues to struggle with her/his understanding of justice, supported by restorative justice groups and associations? 

Are victims invited to the restorative justice dialogue even when they are far from knowing what healing means – but yearn to enter this place?

If a victim does not understand or believe in restorative justice, is s/he excluded from the dialogue?

Does rj have room for victims who are in the throes of deep and savage grief, feeling that they are somehow “bad” because they are not “chosen” or “holy” or “healed” enough to belong to what can often seem an elite group who “know” about living life after crime?

Margot Van Sluytman, whose father was murdered, has dedicated her life to the healing of both victims and offenders.  Recently she emailed me these questions after attending a restorative justice conference. They are important questions.

It is tempting for restorative justice advocates, consciously or not, to differentiate between “good” and “bad victims.” Good victims are those who are ready to forgive and reconcile; bad victims are those who are angry, punitive and unforgiving.

“How do we react to such victims?” asks Heather Strang in her essay, “Is Restorative Justice Imposing Its Agenda on Victims?” (Critical Issues in Restorative Justice, Zehr & Toews, eds.).  “Probably most often by dreading and discouraging the one and encouraging and welcoming the other,” she observes.  Strange goes on to suggest that “bad” is often a function of the emotional harm they have suffered and that they may have the most to gain from an encounter.

An attitude of forgiveness is a lovely thing, and a restorative encounter that results in some measure of forgiveness or reconciliation is wonderful. However, I would suggest that this is not a goal of restorative justice and is not a measure of whether an approach qualifies as restorative justice.  For me, restorative justice is about addressing harms and needs, and helping those who have offended to understand and accept the resulting obligations.  To the extent possible, it implies a collaborative and dialogical process.  As long as an encounter can be engaged in respectfully and safely for all participants, whether a victim is angry or forgiving is not the decisive factor.  And in an encounter, the choice to forgive and reconcile is totally up to the participants; forgiveness is not a measure of whether a restorative justice approach has occurred or is worthwhile.

It is important that we as practitioners welcome those who have been harmed into our midst, regardless of their orientation.  Restorative justice calls us to listen to their harms and to the extent we can, help them identify and address their needs, regardless of whether they are forgiving.  That, to my mind, is essential to being a restorative justice community.


November 29th, 2011 – by Howard Zehr Zehr (category: Restorative Justice)

A needle for the restorative justice compass

In my last blog post I summarized Dorothy Vaandering’s concern that without an understanding of the term “justice,” restorative justice may be a compass without a needle.  It is important not to lose the justice dimension in restorative approaches, she suggests, but we must not allow our understandings to be unduly limited by concepts such as fairness and a narrow adversarial focus that are associated with criminal justice.

Drawing upon Freire and Buber, she bases her understanding of justice on what it means to be human:  “one in which justice is identified as honoring the inherent worth of all and enacted through relationships.”  These two terms together – honor and relationships – provide a needle to guide restorative justice proponents and practitioners.

Analyzing the characterization of criminal justice included in The Little Book of Restorative Justice, she observes that what is at stake are these two concepts.  The justice system tends to turn those who have caused harm into objects to be acted upon.  By omission, those who have been harmed are assumed to have no significant needs.  Restorative justice, on the other hand, recognizes that harm is done by and to human beings.

Injustice occurs when people are turned into objects through relationships.  Justice occurs when people are honored through relationships.

So for Vaandering, what is needed in restorative justice is a concerned effort to remind us all of the following:

  • Justice is a call to recognize that all humans are worthy and to be honored.
  • Injustice occurs when people are objectified.
  • The term restorative justice becomes meaningful when it refers to restoring people to being honored as human.
So it is crucial that the terms “restorative” and “justice” be kept and paired together, but with a broader understanding of justice. Without this pairing, the field is functioning as a compass without a needle.
In practice, she argues that continually asking oneself these three questions can keep us on track:
  1. Am I measuring (i.e. judging, objectifying)?
  2. Am I honoring?
  3. What message am I sending?
She suggests a definition of restorative justice:
“RJ acknowledges justice as honoring the inherent worth of all and is enacted through relationship.  As such it affects all social structures.  When something occurs that undermines the well-being of some, RJ provides a space for dialogue so that the humanity of all involved and affected can be restored and each person can once again become a fully contributing member of the community of which they are a part.” (p. 324)

With this “lens,” restorative justice is not something from the outside, as a solution for others.  It is a way of being for all of us.



September 28th, 2011 – by Howard Zehr Zehr (category: Restorative Justice)

Is restorative justice a compass without a needle?

The field of restorative justice has been characterized by on-going discussions about how to define the term.  Some have argued that we should avoid definitions because of the rigidity they bring.  Others have claimed that ambiguity and uncertainty have led to confusion and bad practice.

Many have advised that we drop the term “justice” entirely. In a school context, for example, the “justice” word is often replaced by terms such as “practices” or “disciplines.”   Catherine Bargen, in her earlier guest blog, questions the wisdom of that, and her concerns are affirmed and expanded upon in an important new contribution by Dorothy Vaandering. (“A faithful compass:  rethinking the term restorative justice to find clarity.” Contemporary Justice Review, Vol 14, No. 3, Sept 2011, 307-328).

Vaandering’s research and experiences are in the realm of education, but she speaks to the field as a whole, warning that although it has offered a compass, the compass has been lacking a needle.

Overall, she worries that ambiguity about the meaning of the term has led to the field being discredited and also encouraged bad practice.  The fact that practice has moved ahead of theory from the beginning has been another source of confusion.  In addition, when the term “justice” is used, an over-emphasis on criminal justice models and applications has led to an undue focus on rights and fairness that has pulled the field off-course.

This is especially true in the educational context, where the word “justice” is often foreign and strengthens the tendency to see restorative approaches as add-ons to disciplinary processes that are basically judicial.  Also, a restorative “discipline” focus limits application to behavioral management, yet educators’ overall mandate is educational, not behavioral.

Vaandering helpfully revisits Gavrielides’ 5 fault lines, arguing that the lack of a clear understanding of both “justice” and “restorative” contributes to these misunderstandings and divisions.

1.  RJ as new paradigm or RJ as pragmatic, parallel approach

2. RJ as process vs RJ as outcome

3. RJ as mediation (only immediate stakeholders) or RJ as conferencing (involving a larger definition of stateholders)

4. RJ as coercive vs RJ as voluntary

5. RJ principles as flexible or RJ principles as inflexible.

The core of her exploration, Vaandering notes, are these questions:  What is justice?  What is being restored?  How can the term justice be used within various fields without eliciting connotations of crime (including its objectifying tendencies)?

The justice component of restorative justice must not be lost, Vaandering argues, and a clear understanding of the meaning of “justice” will not only clarify the “restorative” part but will  help address these fault lines.

What is really at stake, she concludes, is what it means to be human.  The compass is missing a needle.  That can be provided by a broader understanding of justice, one that explicitly acknowledges our humanity and what that implies.

In the next I entry I will summarize her proposal.

(Theo Gavrielides’ helpful study is available as a free pdf from this site.)



September 14th, 2011 – by Howard Zehr Zehr (category: Restorative Justice)