The field of restorative justice has been characterized by on-going discussions about how to define the term. \u00a0Some have argued that we should avoid definitions because of the rigidity they bring. \u00a0Others have claimed that ambiguity and uncertainty have led to confusion and bad practice.<\/p>\n
Many have advised that we drop the term \u201cjustice\u201d entirely. In a school context, for example, the \u201cjustice\u201d word is often replaced by terms such as \u201cpractices\u201d or \u201cdisciplines.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 Catherine Bargen, in her earlier guest blog<\/a>,\u00a0questions the wisdom of that, and her concerns are affirmed and expanded upon in an important new contribution by Dorothy Vaandering. (\u201cA faithful compass:\u00a0 rethinking the term restorative justice to find clarity.\u201d Contemporary Justice Review<\/em>, Vol 14, No. 3, Sept 2011, 307-328).<\/p>\n Vaandering\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n Overall, she worries that ambiguity about the meaning of the term has led to the field being discredited and also encouraged bad practice.\u00a0 The fact that practice has moved ahead of theory from the beginning has been another source of confusion. \u00a0In addition, when the term \u201cjustice\u201d 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.<\/p>\n This is especially true in the educational context, where the word \u201cjustice\u201d is often foreign and strengthens the tendency to see restorative approaches as add-ons to disciplinary processes that are basically judicial.\u00a0 Also, a restorative \u201cdiscipline\u201d focus limits application to behavioral management, yet educators\u2019 overall mandate is educational, not behavioral.<\/p>\n Vaandering helpfully revisits Gavrielides\u2019 5 fault lines<\/a>, arguing that the lack of a clear understanding of both \u201cjustice\u201d and \u201crestorative\u201d contributes to these misunderstandings and divisions.<\/p>\n 1. \u00a0RJ as new paradigm or RJ as pragmatic, parallel approach<\/p>\n 2. RJ as process vs RJ as outcome<\/p>\n 3. RJ as mediation (only immediate stakeholders) or RJ as conferencing (involving a larger definition of stateholders)<\/p>\n 4. RJ as coercive vs RJ as voluntary<\/p>\n 5. RJ principles as flexible or RJ principles as inflexible.<\/p>\n The core of her exploration, Vaandering notes, are these questions:\u00a0 What is justice?\u00a0 What is being restored?\u00a0 How can the term justice be used within various fields without eliciting connotations of crime (including its objectifying tendencies)?<\/p>\n The justice component of restorative justice must not be lost, Vaandering argues, and a clear understanding of the meaning of \u201cjustice\u201d will not only clarify the \u201crestorative\u201d part but will\u00a0 help address these fault lines.<\/p>\n What is really at stake, she concludes, is what it means to be human.\u00a0 The compass is missing a needle.\u00a0 That can be provided by a broader understanding of justice, one that explicitly acknowledges our humanity and what that implies.<\/p>\n In the next I entry I will summarize her proposal.<\/p>\n (Theo Gavrielides\u2019 helpful study is available as a free pdf from this site<\/a>.)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The field of restorative justice has been characterized by on-going discussions about how to define the term. \u00a0Some have argued that we should avoid definitions because of the rigidity they bring. \u00a0Others have claimed that ambiguity and uncertainty have led to confusion and bad practice. Many have advised that we drop the term \u201cjustice\u201d entirely.....<\/p>