This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Daly, K. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Restorative justice

The real story

Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

Advocates’ claims about restorative justice contain four myths: (1) restorative justice is the opposite of retributive justice; (2) restorative justice uses indigenous justice practices and was the dominant form of pre-modern justice; (3) restorative justice is a ‘care’ (or feminine) response to crime in comparison to a ‘justice’ (or masculine) response; and (4) restorative justice can be expected to produce major changes in people. Drawing from research on conferencing in Australia and New Zealand, I show that the real story of restorative justice differs greatly from advocates’ mythical true story. Despite what advocates say, there are connections between retribution and restoration (or reparation), restorative justice should not be considered a pre-modern and feminine justice, strong stories of repair and goodwill are uncommon, and the raw material for restorativeness between victims and offenders may be in short supply. Following Engel, myth refers to a true story; its truth deals with ‘origins, with birth, with beginnings... with how something began to be’ (1993: 791-2, emphasis in original). Origin stories, in turn, ‘encode a set of oppositions’ (1993: 822) such that when telling a true story, speakers transcend adversity. By comparing advocates’ true story of restorative justice with the real story, I offer a critical and sympathetic reading of advocates’ efforts to move the idea forward. I end by reflecting on whether the political future of restorative justice is better secured by telling the mythical true story or the real story.

Key Words: conferencing • myths about justice • restorative justice • retributive justice

Punishment & Society, Vol. 4, No. 1, 55-79 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/14624740222228464


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. Stubbs Beyond apology?: Domestic violence and critical questions for restorative justice JCriminology and Criminal Justice, May 1, 2007; 7(2): 169 - 187. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Hutchinson Countering catastrophic criminology: Reform, punishment and the modern liberal compromise Punishment Society, October 1, 2006; 8(4): 443 - 467. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. Daly and J. Stubbs Feminist engagement with restorative justice Theoretical Criminology, February 1, 2006; 10(1): 9 - 28. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. Hudson Beyond white man's justice: Race, gender and justice in late modernity Theoretical Criminology, February 1, 2006; 10(1): 29 - 47. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Cameron Stopping the violence: Canadian feminist debates on restorative justice and intimate violence Theoretical Criminology, February 1, 2006; 10(1): 49 - 66. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. Nancarrow In search of justice for domestic and family violence: Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian women's perspectives Theoretical Criminology, February 1, 2006; 10(1): 87 - 106. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. J. Cook Doing difference and accountability in restorative justice conferences Theoretical Criminology, February 1, 2006; 10(1): 107 - 124. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Pratt and M. Clark Penal populism in New Zealand Punishment Society, July 1, 2005; 7(3): 303 - 322. [Abstract] [PDF]