Restorative justice
Restorative justice, as a concept, was first introduced in the late 1970s. Norwegian criminologist Nils Christie, in his 1977 article titled Conflict as Property, argued that a criminal offense represents a conflict that is the property of those directly involved (the offender, the victim, and the local community) rather than of legal professionals – judges and lawyers – who effectively ’steal’ it from its rightful owners. According to Christie, a criminal offense should serve as a basis for dialogue between the interested parties, primarily the victim and the offender, enabling them to reach an agreement on how to repair the harm caused and address the consequences of the criminal behaviour. In Christie’s view, “restorative justice offers a better response to crime because it emphasizes direct communication between those in conflict, aimed at achieving compensation.”
Author of the photograph: Ana Batrićević, District prison in Belgrade, 2023
Possibilities and challenges of applying restorative justice in prisons
In the literature, various arguments for and against the implementation of restorative justice in prisons can be found, highlighting both challenges and opportunities. Some criminologists argue that coercion is inherent in the treatment of convicted individuals and that penitentiary institutions are repressive in their nature, which raises doubts about the feasibility of implementing restorative justice programs in such environments. Additionally, restorative justice programs are often regarded as community-based responses that operate outside prison walls, typically within local communities. The application of restorative approaches is usually considered to be a method for diverting cases from the judicial process or as an alternative sanction, aiming to reduce the prison population rather than as a method for working with those already serving prison sentences. Some authors contend that restorative justice cannot be applied in penitentiary institutions due to the physical and social separation of the offender (the inmate) from the victim. Furthermore, restorative justice programs that result in an agreement between the offender and the victim on how to repair the harm are seen as impractical in the prison setting, as such agreements cannot be effectively fulfilled within the constraints of incarceration. Finally, the core aspect of imprisonment – restriction of freedom – can itself be a barrier to facilitating direct meetings between offenders and victims, which are central to many restorative justice practices.[1]
On the other hand, some criminologists believe that restorative justice can be effectively implemented in penitentiary institutions and consider restorative approaches as an added value that can support the treatment process for convicted individuals and their preparation for reintegration into society. Several key arguments support the implementation of restorative programs in prisons. It brings greater humanity into the prison system. By implementing restorative programs, convicted individuals are given the opportunity to reflect on their behaviour, understand the needs and emotions of their victims, develop empathy, and take responsibility for the harm or damage they have caused – not only to the victim but also to their family and the broader community. These programs also allow offenders to make at least symbolic restitution for the harm caused by their criminal behaviour. Restorative justice programs in prisons that directly involve victims can assist victims in their recovery and empowerment process. Furthermore, these programs bring the community into the prison environment, making the prison population more visible in a constructive way. This can help in reducing stigmatization of convicted individuals, which is crucial for their reintegration upon release and for reducing recidivism. Finally, introducing restorative principles and practices in prisons can enhance the social climate within these institutions and improve the quality of life for both inmates and staff. This fosters a more constructive environment, benefiting all involved parties and contributing to the overall goal of rehabilitation and reintegration.
Models of introducing restorative justice into prison settings
Restorative justice can be introduced into the prison context through various approaches, which are not mutually exclusive. One model focuses on raising awareness among incarcerated individuals about victims and restorative justice. This approach can help offenders understand the impact of their crimes on victims and their loved ones, as well as the consequences of their imprisonment on their own families and close relations. This awareness may motivate offenders to seek personal change, request meetings with their victims, and/or provide restitution directly or indirectly. In addition to this, through restorative justice programs, treatment services within the prison can focus on encouraging offenders to take responsibility for the harm and injury caused to the victim. This aligns with one of the fundamental principles of restorative justice, which emphasizes accountability. Such an approach can have a positive impact on specific prevention efforts and reduce the likelihood of reoffending. A second model involves raising awareness and providing education to prison staff about the benefits of restorative justice. This can lead to the development of a restorative climate within the institution, enhance conflict resolution skills, and encourage accountability. Collectively, these efforts can improve relationships within the inmate population and between inmates and staff, ultimately enhancing the overall quality of prison life. A third approach involves implementing programs that facilitate encounters and dialogue between victims and offenders. These programs may take the form of direct encounters between victims and offenders connected to the same criminal incident or involve mediation between incarcerated individuals and the so called ’surrogate victims’. This model can also be applied to resolve conflicts within the prison itself, contributing to improved social dynamics, reduced disciplinary measures, and fostering a culture of restorative justice among inmates. Such an environment can support the reintegration process after release. Finally, restorative approaches can be utilized as part of pre-release preparation for inmates, facilitating their reintegration into the community.
A notable example of the application of restorative justice within the criminal sanctions enforcement system in Serbia is the mediation program between victims and offenders implemented at the Juvenile Correctional Facility in Kruševac. Since 2005, this program was an integral part of standard procedures for resolving conflicts among juvenile residents. It yielded numerous positive outcomes but, unfortunately, was discontinued. Nevertheless, the positive experiences from this program could serve as a basis for reviving mediation programs in institutions for the enforcement of criminal sanctions against juveniles. Furthermore, they could support the introduction of other restorative approaches, not only for juveniles but also for adult individuals serving sentences in correctional institutions or district prisons. These efforts could significantly enhance conflict resolution mechanisms and promote restorative principles across various correctional settings.
Prof. dr Darko Dimovski
Prof. dr Sanja Ćopić
[1] Edgar, K., Newell, T., Restorative Justice in Prisons: A Guide to Making it Happen, Waterside Press, Winchester, 2006, p. 24.