Restorative Justice and Serious Crime

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE & SERIOUS CRIME

I INTRODUCTION

‘An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind…

…we win justice quickest by rendering justice to the other party’

Since the emergence of Restorative Justice (RJ), many critics have argued its use is inappropriate for serious crime, asserting it to be too ‘soft’ on criminals, and fails to deter crime by sending the wrong message to potential perpetrators. However, such arguments ignore the complexity of issues associated with serious crime, not only in how we respond but also in how we perceive crime and the people involved.

Addressing the problem of serious crime must entail moving beyond the nescient, ‘eye for an eye’ approach demanded by the critics, who all too readily resort to ineffective ‘zero tolerance’ policies in response to serious crime issues.

RJ offers a fresh new approach, and this paper will critically examine the viability of such a paradigm shift, and how it might impact on the participants in the process.

II WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO ACHIEVE IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE?

Examination of RJ principles in application to serious crime first requires identification of the key objectives of justice.

The key goals of justice are reflected in the NSW Attorney-General’s ‘Role’ and ‘Vision’ statements, and are to ‘[p]rovide a just and safe society through the reduction of crime, protection of human rights and community standards’. Key elements in achieving this goal of social harmony, is dealing with all participants in the process with dignity, respect and recognition.

Justice is therefore ultimately about guiding community behaviour, by motivating people to willingly pursue a life style that both benefits and minimizes harm to all; human relationships are the core of justice.

III SERIOUS CRIME – WHAT ARE THE PARAMETERS?

There are many ideas as to what serious crime actually is, ranging from definitions based on statutory penalties, to popularist ideas defined in the media. A broader definition is that serious crime involves serious harm, which imposes obligations reflective of community expectations and requires action to prevent the occurrence of future harm. Typically, serious crimes may include those involving violence, such as sexual assault, murder and robbery and are often consistent with traditional ‘felonies’.

IV RETRIBUTION – MEETING GOALS OR MISSING POSTS?

The existing criminal justice system adopts a central controlling role by ‘influencing’ community behaviour through fear of punishment. Victims and perpetrators maintain passive roles throughout the whole process in a neutral and impersonal manner; human relationships are not factors in the process.

Perpetrators are brandished an evil threat to society and excluded from it through incarceration. The system does not facilitate or encourage perpetrators to accept direct responsibility for their behaviour and the harm caused, which leaves the causal factors for the behaviour unaddressed.

V ENTER RESTORATIVE JUSTICE – A BETTER WAY?

The concept of RJ is often misunderstood, and involves not just a different methodology but a complete paradigm transformation. It encompasses social responsibility through inclusion, and direct accountability for deviate behaviour. The focus is on the behaviour not the person, and practices are employed to restore the harm caused; not to compound the harm through degradation and punishment.

Victims and perpetrators are provided the leading roles, supported by mediators, family, friends and members of the community. The process involves conferencing

or ‘peace circles’, instead of the strictly formal adversarial process, and in cases of serious crime, multiple conferencing stages. The entire process strives to pursue a positive and inclusionary path to repairing the harm caused, and to prevent future harm through direct accountability and willing behaviour change.

It is not a new concept, and loosely reflects ancient community principles of justice practiced prior to the 11th Century.

Whilst most RJ programs and research to date focus on non-serious crime, research suggests that its greatest potential lies with more serious crime because it focuses on meeting the needs of the traumatized participants; something traditional systems fail to do.

VI RJ & SERIOUS CRIME – THE IMPACT.

6.1 Victims.

6.1.1 Victims Issues & Needs Identified.

Victims face a number of issues in dealing with the impact of serious crime which create needs:

Emotional– victims need emotional and psychological support in the short, medium, and long term.
Acknowledgment– victims need to have the harm and their pain acknowledged by family, friends, the community, and most of all by the perpetrator. An apology and acceptance of responsibility by the perpetrator is a crucial need,
Practical– victims need expedient help to overcome any practical issues arising from the harm,
Information– victims need to be informed of their rights, the status of their case and any other issues that may be important to them,
Understanding–requires their feelings and emotions are understood by all concerned and that ‘victim blaming’, a potential danger in serious crime, is avoided,
Engagement– victims need to feel part of the justice process.

6.1.2 Can RJ Potentially Meet Victims Needs for Serious Crime?

The strongest detrimental effect of serious crime is psychological trauma; harm that is in greatest need of repair and restoration. Critics of RJ in application to serious crime discount the key needs of the victim by referring to a ‘principled’ argument in favour of harsh punishment. In fact RJ offers a much greater potential to meet the victims needs because they are central to the process. Under RJ, victims receive support from the first contact, before, during and after conferencing. Their needs are a core consideration because RJ takes place at a personal level; unlike the impersonal treatment offered by retributive justice.

Significant psychological trauma is caused to victims by simply not understanding the ‘why’; why did the perpetrator decide to harm them? RJ enables victims to get direct acknowledgment and acceptance of responsibility for the harm caused to them, which is critical in the victim’s healing process. Acknowledgment is reinforced by involvement of family, friends and the community who are also confronted with the

harm caused. This has the added effect of establishing long term support networks for the victim, and reinforces the inappropriateness of the perpetrators behaviour.

The greatest benefit from RJ for the victim is empowerment. It provides the victim a measure of control beyond anything provided in an adversarial system. The victim is able to engage with the perpetrator in a controlled environment to achieve an outcome acceptable to the victim.

The limited application of RJ conferencing to serious crime has revealed strong victim support and satisfaction with the process, in contrast with the general sense of dissatisfaction found through adversarial justice. RJ case studies include crimes of murder, rape and violent robbery, with key findings that victims supported and were

satisfied with the process, because they were able to:

confront the perpetrator directly and express in their own terms the harm they have suffered to the person that caused it,
gain acceptance of responsibility and an apology from the perpetrator,
gain reparation acceptable to them (sometimes only symbolic).

Criticism that RJ is inappropriate for serious crime, because victims want the perpetrator to be punished, and that perpetrators are unresponsive, is not supported by research.

However, RJ does pose some dangers if not implemented, resourced and managed properly. Because of the complexity and extreme nature of the trauma suffered by victims of serious crime there is a real danger RJ processes may exacerbate the victims harm. In direct contrast, adversarial justice has been clearly demonstrated to inflict

secondary victimization in a high proportion of cases, particularly involving sexual assault.

Further issues associated with special categories of serious crime presents complex dangers for victims in RJ programs. Domestic violence victims often return to the environment and continue to live with the perpetrator, or cases involving perpetrators known to the victim, such as child abuse, can create ‘victim blaming’ by family and friends who side with the perpetrator. In cases of child sexual abuse, parents often demand revenge, overriding the actual needs of the child. There is also potential for non-genuine perpetrators to abuse/misuse the system deliberately to avoid criminal sanctions, to re-victimise or to maintain power control over the victim.

Further problems may arise in cases of stranger crime where the victim feels detached from the perpetrator, with RJ potentially exposing and identifying the victim to this stranger.

However, all of these issues are not isolated to RJ, and are in fact prevalent within the adversarial justice process. All of the identified issues can be overcome or minimized

for RJ through a number of measures shown to be effective in application to even the most serious of crimes:

engagement of specialized mediators to manage vulnerable cases,
support during conferencing by the victim’s therapist/rehabilitation specialist,
preparation conferencing before the primary conference with the perpetrator,
professional evaluation and screening of participants throughout RJ process,

adequate provision of support and resources.

For instances where victims are unwilling to participate, traditional criminal justice processes can be utilized, but with the option of engagement of RJ at any stage. The success of RJ is reliant upon it becoming the ‘norm’ rather than the exception, with pecuniary measures only being utilized as a last resort; something that is increasingly being demanded by victims of serious crime.

6.2 Perpetrators.

This is a preview of the whole essay

6.2 Perpetrators.

RJ seeks to encourage the perpetrator to acknowledge and accept responsibility for the harm they have caused, and to make amends. In many cases, perpetrators are victims themselves who resent a community perceived to be uncaring toward their own harm. Child abuse is recognized as a predominant causal factor in serious crime, and the community, through a retributive system, continues to ignore and punish the perpetrator/victim which only exacerbates feelings of exclusion, anti-social behaviour and recidivism. The perpetrator develops a perception that they are victims of society, with consequential victim reactions – anger, insecurity, fear, hopelessness, exclusion and low self esteem.

RJ provides the opportunity for the perpetrator/victim to have their harm acknowledged and recognized with both respect and support through conferencing. RJ does not excuse their behaviour, and particularly in the case of serious crime, conferencing can be extremely arduous and confronting for them. To face people they have caused

severe harm to without the ‘legal barriers’ to protect them is not easy, but it has already proven to be highly satisfying and rewarding for all concerned. It enables the victim and perpetrator to reach resolution and reparation in their own terms, in often only symbolic terms with little in the way of financial compensation, but in a way that is most important to both parties.

RJ may pose some dangers to perpetrators including potential loss of statutory rights, the presumption of innocence, exposure to heavier penalties, dispensing with procedural fairness and accountability, and ‘net widening’ where insufficient evidence exists to prosecute under a retributive system, but action is taken under a restorative system. This is particularly evident in cases of serious crime where there is considerable political and public pressure to ‘get a result’.

However, such concerns are largely alleviated through voluntary participation, skilled and trained mediators, effective screening and monitoring, personal support, and

adequate resources. Research has established that perpetrators of serious crime, as for victims, equally need specialized support practitioners, in addition to family or friends. The process requires voluntary participation at all stages, and perpetrators may seek legal advice prior to committing themselves to a conferencing agreement.

6.3 The Community.

RJ seeks to manage deviate behaviour and restore harm in its social context through inclusionary principles; reintegration (not exclusion) is the driving force even for serious crimes. In this way it attempts to restore positive peer guidance for behaviour compliance within their community, and allocate joint ‘ownership’ of social issues.

RJ can be contrasted with sound parenting techniques. Deviate behaviour within a ‘functional’ family (or society) is addressed by focusing on the behaviour (not the person) in a loving and supporting way. Misbehaviour is addressed, harm is

recognized and the child’s (or perpetrator’s) integration within the family remains strong. The child (or perpetrator) seeks to correct misbehaviour due to positive and inclusive peer guidance.

Engaging family, friends and members of the community in the process of RJ mirrors this functional family approach – it simply makes common sense. Participants may be able to provide ongoing support and help to alleviate or resolve any causal factors that led to the deviate behaviour. Help could be in the form of housing, employment or just emotional support.

6.4 Limitations for RJ or Limitations for All?

Serious crime presents considerable difficulties for RJ; but it also presents similar difficulties to retributive justice; difficulties it largely has failed to cope with. Some victims are unable to come to terms with the harm they have suffered and RJ will not be acceptable to them. Some perpetrators are so damaged by life and are so dangerous that RJ will simply not be an option. In these cases, retributive justice, as the

exception, should remain to act as a collaborative ‘failsafe’ but still with the ability to activate RJ throughout any stage of the process.

VII CONCLUSION.

RJ faces limitations and problems in dealing with issues of serious crime. Critical issues for victims may involve power imbalance, involvement of family, and possible misuse of the process by the perpetrator. Perpetrators also face potential issues with a reduction of procedural and human rights protection, even heavier sanctions.

However, most if not all the limitations and problems can be resolved or overcome through the provision of competent and skilled staff, adequate resourcing, and strong support mechanisms for all participants.

The cold, hard reality of modern society has shown the existing retributive justice system is highly ineffective at achieving the goals of justice. It punishes, excludes

and fails to meet the needs of both the victim and the perpetrator; it represents a ‘dysfunctional’ approach to managing deviate behaviour.

There will always be exceptions and difficult cases, the principle question in this debate is, what should be the standard of justice for all crime, not just serious crime?

RJ offers a positive alternative that focuses on restoring relationships and repairing the harm in its social context; it represents the ‘functional’ family approach, not without its vulnerabilities and issues, but generally achieving more positive outcomes for all concerned.

When will our consciences grow so tender that

we will act to prevent human misery rather than avenge it? ~

finis

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Articles/Books/Reports.

Aertsen, Ivo, Daems, Tom & Robert, Luc (eds), Institutionalizing Restorative Justice (2005) Willan Publishing, UK.

American Prosecutors Research Institute, Investigation and Prosecution of Child Abuse (2003) Sage Publishing, USA.

Amstutz, Mark, International Ethics: Concepts, Theories, and Cases in Global Politics (2005) Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, USA.

Bartol, Curt & Anne, Current Perspectives in Forensic Psychology and Criminal Behaviour (2008) Sage Publishing, USA.

Barton, Charles, Restorative Justice: The Empowerment Model (2003) Federation Press, Australia.

Beck, Elizabeth, Britto, Sarah & Andrews, Arlene, In the Shadow of Death: Restorative Justice & Death Row Families (2007) Oxford University Press, USA.

Blackler, John, Ethical Issues in Policing (2005) Ashgate Publishing Ltd, UK.

Blackstone, Sir William, Commentaries on the Laws of England: Volume 1 of the Rights of Persons (1765) Clarendon Press, UK.

Braithwaite, John, ‘Restorative Justice and a Better Future’ (1996) 1(76) Dalhousie Review 9.

Braitwaite, John, Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation (2002) Oxford University Press, USA.

Clear, Todd & Karp, David, What is Community Justice? Case Studies of Restorative Justice and Community Supervision (2002) Sage Publishing, USA.

Council of Europe, Rebuilding Community Connections – Mediations and Restorative Justice in Europe (2004) Council of Europe Publications.

Crenshaw, Wes, Treating Families and Children in the Child Protective System (2004) Routledge, USA.

Dandurand, Yvon & Griffiths, Curt, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Handbook on Restorative Justice Programmes (2006) United Nations Publications.

Day, James & Laufer, William, Crime, Value and Religion (1987) Greenwood Publishing Group, USA.

Davis, Henry (transl), The Works of Plato: A New and Literal Reading, Volume II (1888) George Bell & Sons, UK.

De Voltaire, M, A Philosophical Dictionary (1843) E. Truelove, UK.

Dickson-Gilmore, Jane & La Prairie, Carol, Will the Circle be Unbroken? Aboriginal Communities, Restorative Justice, and the Challenges of Conflict and Change (2005) University of Toronto Press, Canada.

Elliott, Elizabeth & Gordon, Robert, New Directions in Restorative Justice: Issues, Practice, Evaluation (2005) Willan Publishing, UK.

Figley, Charles, Trauma and its Wake: The Study and Treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (1985) Psychology Press, UK.

Findlay, Mark, Henham, Ralph, Transforming International Criminal Justice: Retributive and Restorative Justice in the Trial Process (2005) Willan Publishing, UK.

Galaway, Burt & Hudson, Joe (eds), Restorative Justice: International Perspectives (1996) Criminal Justice Press, USA.

Gavrielides, Theo, Restorative Justice: Theory and Practice – Addressing the Discrepancy (2007) Criminal Justice Press, USA.

Ghandi, Mahatma, in Broomfield, John, Other Ways of Knowing (1997) Inner Traditions/Bear Company, USA.

Goodey, Jo Victims and Victimology: Research, Policy and Practice (2005) Pearson Longman, USA.

Greene, Jack, The Encyclopedia of Police Science (2006) CRC Press, USA.

Hadley, Michael, The Spiritual Roots of Restorative Justice (2001) Suny Press, USA.

Heiland, Hans-Günther, Shelley, Louise & Katō, Hisao (eds), Crime and Control in Comparative Perspectives (1992) Walter de Gruyter, Germany.

Herrman, Margaret (ed), The Blackwell Handbook of Mediation: Bridging Theory, Research & Practice (2005) Wiley-Blackwell, UK.

Johnstone, Gerry, Restorative Justice: Ideas, Values, Debates (2005) Willan Publishing, UK.

Johnstone, Gerry, A Restorative Justice Reader: Texts, Sources, Contexts (2003) Willan Publishing, UK.

Johnstone, Gerry & Van Ness, Daniel (eds), Handbook of Restorative Justice (2007) Willan Publishing, UK.

Jowett, B (trans), The Politics of Aristotle: Book I (1885) Clarendon Press, UK.

Karmen, Andrew, Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimology (6th ed, 2007) Thomson Wadsworth, USA.

Lash, Joseph, Eleanor Roosevelt: A Friend’s Memoir (1964) Doubleday, United States.

Levinson, David, Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment (2002) Sage Publishing, USA.

Loy, David, The Great Awakening: A Buddhist Social Theory (2003) Wisdom Publications, Canada.

Macionis, John & Plummer, Ken, Sociology: A Global Introduction (2005) Prentice Hall Publishing, USA.

Maguire, Mike & Pointing, John, Victims of Crime: A New Deal? (1988) Open University Press, Europe.

MCC US Office of Criminal Justice, New Perspectives on Crime and Justice (1985).

McLaughlin, Eugene, Restorative Justice: Critical Issues (2003) Criminal Justice Press, USA.

Mead, George, ‘The Psychology of Punitive Justice’ (1918) American Journal of Sociology 23.

Morris, Allison & Maxwell, Gabrielle (eds), Restorative Justice for Juveniles: Conferencing, Mediation and Circles (2001) Hart Publishing, USA.

Morris, Ruth, Stories of Transformative Justice (2000) Canadian Scholars’ Press, Canada.

Perry, John, Repairing Communities Through Restorative Justice (2002) American Correctional Association, USA.

Piaget, Jean, The Moral Judgment of the Child (1999) Routledge Publishing, UK.

Regoli, Robert & Hewitt, John, Exploring Criminal Justice: The Essentials (2009) Jones & Bartlett Publishers, USA.

Reid, Sue, Crime and Criminology (1982) Holt, Rhinehart & Winston, USA.

Richardson, Sue & Bacon, Heather, Creative Responses to Child Sexual Abuse: Challenges and Dilemmas (2003) Jessica Kingsley Publishers, USA.

Roberts, Albert, Critical Issues In Crime and Justice (2003) Sage Publishing, USA.

Rosenberg, Marshall, Speak Peace in a World of Conflict: What You Say Next Will Change Your World (2005) Puddle Dancer Press, USA.

Rotberg, Robert & Dennis Thompson, Truth v Justice: The Morality of Truth Commissions (2000) Princeton University Press, USA.

Schurink, W, Snyman, I & Krugel, W, Victimization: Nature & Trends (1992) HSRC Press, South Africa.

Shoham, Shlomo, Beck, Ori & Kett, Martin, International Handbook of Penology and Criminal Justice (2007) CRC Press, USA.

South Australia Police Sexual Assault Unit(SAU), Sex Crime Investigators Handbook (1992) SA Police SAU Unit.

Spencer, David & Brogan, Michael, Mediation Law and Practice (2006) Cambridge University Press, UK.

Stephen, Sir James, A Digest of the Criminal Law (Indictable Offences (1950) Sweet & Maxwell Ltd, UK.

Strang, Heather & Braitwaite, John, Restorative Justice and Civil Society (2001) Cambridge University Press, UK.

Strang, Heather, Repair or Revenge: Victims & Restorative Justice (2002) Oxford University Press, UK.

Strang, Heather, & Braithwaite, John, Restorative Justice and Family Violence (2002) Cambridge University Press, UK.

Sullivan, Dennis & Tifft, Larry, Handbook of Restorative Justice: A Global Perspective (2006) Routledge Publishing, UK.

United Nations Human Settlements Programme, Enhancing Urban Safety and Security: Global Report on Human Settlements (2007) Earthscan, UK.

US Department of Justice, Report to the Nation on Crime and Justice (2nd ed, 1988) Diane Publishing, USA.

Vattel, MD, The Law of Nations; or Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns (1820) Simeon Butler, USA.

Walgrave, Lode (ed), Repositioning Restorative Justice (2003) Willan Publishing, UK.

Walgrave, Lode, Restorative Justice, Self-Interest and Responsible Citizenship (2008) Willan Publishing, UK.

Weitekamp, Elmar & Kerner, Hans-Jürgen (eds), Restorative Justice in Context: International Practice and Directions (2003) Willan Publishing, UK.

Whitman, James, Harsh Justice: Criminal Punishment and the Widening Divide Between America and Europe (2005) Oxford University Press, USA.

Williams, Brian, Working with Victims of Crime: Policies, Politics and Practice (1999) Jessica Kingsley Publishers, USA.

Worthington, Everett (ed), Handbook of Forgiveness (2005) CRC Press, USA.

Zehr, Howard & Toews, Barb, Critical Issues in Restorative Justice (2004) Criminal Justice Press, USA.

Zernova, Margarita, Restorative Justice: Ideals and Realities (2007) Ashgate Publishing, UK.

2. Legislation

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)

Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 (Qld)

Summary Offences Act 1985 (SA)

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

3. Other Sources

ABC, ‘Bikie Gangs a Serious Crime Threat: ACC’, ABC News, 24 March 2009, <> at 2 April 2009,

Griffiths, Mark, Working with Serious Violent Crime Using Restorative Justice Conferencing (2004) Jesuit Social Services New Zealand Conference Paper, <> at 2 April 2009.

Heads of Commonwealth Operational Law Enforcement Agencies (HOCOLEA), Serious Crime – Attachment 2 (2007) Australian Attorney General’s Department, <> 2 April 2009.

LawLink NSW, About Us: Our Role, Our Vision (2009) Attorney General’s Department NSW, <> at 2 April 2009.

Sydney Morning Herald, ‘Media Are Tough On Crime And Rough On Justice’, SMH Opinion, 24 October 2008, <> at 2 April 2009.

Rugge, Tanya & Cormier, Robert, ‘Restorative Justice in the Case of Serious Crimes: An Evaluation’ (Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Restorative Justice ‘Best Practices in Restorative Justice’, Vancouver, British Columbia, 1-3 June 2003)

Rugge, Tanya, ‘Restorative Justice in Cases of Serious Crime’ (Research Summary Volume 10/4, Public Safety Canada, 2005) <> at 2 April 2009,

Walgrave, Lode, ‘Building a Global Alliance for Restorative Practices and Family Empowerment’ (Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Conferencing, Circles and other Restorative Practices, Veldhoven, Netherlands, 28-30 August 2003) <> at 2 April 2009.

Wachtel, Ted, ‘Restorative Conferencing for Serious Offences: An Exploration’ (Speech delivered at the International Conference on Serious Violence and Restorative Justice, Bar Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel, March 2006),

EPILOGUE A Personal Note (not part of assessment)

I have provided this epilogue in support of Restorative Justice principles based on my personal experiences.

My background as a former police officer of 22 years with SA Police provided me with the opportunity to see justice from both a retributive and restorative perspective.

My final posting was at a single person station in the country, and it enabled me to put my personal beliefs in RJ into practice; something that was largely precluded in the city.

The strongest example in application to serious crime follows:

A young man moved into our community who had severe behavioural issues with an extensive criminal history and propensity for extreme violence. ‘Dave’ had experienced considerable adversity in the nearest regional town, particularly with police (including threats with firearms and rough handling). This became a focal point for his anger which reached a high point one late afternoon where he began running around his yard with a knife screaming and waving it in the air. I arrived and he threatened me (I kept my distance) but I spent the time to calm him down and worked through everything that was bothering him. (not always possible with some people unfortunately) It was a turning point. It was the first time anyone had sat down with him and listened, it was also the first time anyone in the criminal justice system had treated him with respect and understanding. Despite technical breaches of some very serious offences I felt Dave needed help instead of punishment. So we moved on and looked toward stabilizing his future in the community without initiating formal action against him (I played the incident down to a minor disturbance for the bosses). My aim was inclusion rather than exclusion. Once I was happy he was calm I left, but kept contact with him virtually on a daily basis during my ‘rounds’ (plenty of these in a country station!). I later helped him get local work and also quietly prevented previous criminal associates from dragging him back into their social group…at Dave’s request. This involved liaison with Correctional Services who modified the associate’s parole conditions to prevent further contact.

Dave had a couple of minor episodes after that but they were all resolved in the same manner. At Christmas time I gave him a present – a small pocketknife (seems a bit strange I know considering his previous violence) but it was symbolic of trust and faith in him and it was pivotal in the restoration of his dignity. After 12 months of stable living he left Quorn and got a good job in Queensland, married and never looked back.

Twelve months after he left I received a telephone call from his mother in Melbourne. She had not seen her son for over 10 years, but that he had re-contacted her and finally told her about the traumatic events in his childhood that had led to his violent behaviour; things he had never told her before. In a very teary conversation, she said that our short friendship had enabled Dave to come to terms with his life and move on, and that she finally had her son back.

In the many years sitting in court and watching cases unfold, I became increasingly despondent with the manner in which victims and perpetrators were handled by the criminal justice system. It is a system so impersonal and devoid of human emotion, yet it deals with some of the most personal and emotionally traumatic events in peoples lives. Justice cannot be done in a contextual vacuum and is largely why most victims and perpetrators I have encountered (in excess of 10,000) hold no faith in the process or system.

RJ is a different approach, it can be difficult at first, but it actually makes life a lot easier and more rewarding once established ~ it offers new vision and opportunity and should be embraced.

Mahatma Ghandi in John Broomfield, Other Ways of Knowing (1997) 191.

Gerry Johnstone, Restorative Justice: Ideas, Values, Debates (2005) 7-8, 29-32,

Mark Griffiths, Working with Serious Violent Crime Using Restorative Justice Conferencing (2004) Jesuit Social Services New Zealand Conference Paper, <> at 2 April 2009, 3,

Tanya Rugge & Robert Cormier, ‘Restorative Justice in Cases of Serious Crime: An Evaluation’ in Elizabeth Elliott & Robert Gordon, New Directions in Restorative Justice: Issues, Practice, Evaluation (2005) 268,

Elizabeth Beck, Sarah Britto & Arlene Andrews, In the Shadow of Death: Restorative Justice & Death Row Families (2007) 138,

Lode Walgrave, Restorative Justice, Self-Interest and Responsible Citizenship (2008) 132.

Gerry Johnstone, ‘Critical Perspectives on Restorative Justice’ in Gerry Johnstone & Daniel Van Ness (eds), Handbook of Restorative Justice (2007) 602-607,

Johnstone, above n 2, 10-11, 29-32.

Johnstone, above n 2, 5-9 & 24,

Elliott, above n 2, xix,

Heather Strang, Repair or Revenge: Victims & Restorative Justice (2002) 203.

Johnstone, above n 2, 5-9,

Ivo Aertsen, Tom Daems & Luc Robert (eds), Institutionalizing Restorative Justice (2005) 152,

Howard Zehr & Barb Toews, Critical Issues in Restorative Justice (2004) 351.

Donna Coker, ‘Transformative Justice’ in Heather Strang & John Braithwaite, Restorative Justice & Family Violence (2002) 133,

Peter Lindström, ‘ Zero Tolerance Criminal Policy and Restorative Justice: a Hidden Link?’ in Elmar Weitekamp & Hans-Jürgen Kerner, Restorative Justice in Context: International Practice and Directions (2003) 285-286,

Howard Zehr, ‘Retributive Justice, Restorative Justice’ in MCC US Office of Criminal Justice, New Perspectives on Crime and Justice (1985) 1-15.

Johnstone, above n 2, 109,

Coker, above n 6, 133,

Lindström, above n 6, 285-286.

Theo Gavrielides, Restorative Justice: Theory and Practice – Addressing the Discrepancy (2007) 11,

Lode Walgrave (ed), Repositioning Restorative Justice (2003) 170.

Johnstone, above n 2, 95.

LawLink NSW, About Us: Our Role, Our Vision (2009) Attorney General’s Department NSW, <> at 2 April 2009.

Ibid.

LawLink NSW, above n 8,

Dennis Sullivan & Larry Tifft, Handbook of Restorative Justice: A Global Perspective (2006) 389,

John Perry, Repairing Communities Through Restorative Justice (2002) 198.

John Braitwaite, Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation (2002) 95-98,

B Jowett (trans), The Politics of Aristotle: Book I (1885) 1-2,

M De Voltaire, A Philosophical Dictionary (1843) 117 & 124,

M D Vattel, The Law of Nations; or Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns (1820) 134 & 135,

Perry, above n 12, 198,

Everett Worthington (ed), Handbook of Forgiveness (2005) 482,

Henry Davis (transl), The Works of Plato: A New and Literal Reading, Volume II (1888) 35-45,

Gwendolyn Cuizon, What is Justice: Socrates' Non-consequentialist View on Justice (2009) <> at 22 March 2009.

Examples include: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 4 & 311,

Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) s 5(1),

Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 (Qld) Sch 2,

Summary Offences Act 1985 (SA) s 4,

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 3C.

ABC, ‘Bikie Gangs a Serious Crime Threat: ACC’, ABC News, 24 March 2009, <> at 2 April 2009,

Sydney Morning Herald, ‘Media Are Tough On Crime And Rough On Justice’, SMH Opinion, 24 October 2008, <> at 2 April 2009.

John Macionis & Ken Plummer, Sociology: A Global Introduction (2005) 442,

Hans-Günther Heiland, Louise Shelley & Hisao Katō (eds), Crime and Control in Comparative Perspectives (1992) 252.

Heads of Commonwealth Operational Law Enforcement Agencies (HOCOLEA), Serious Crime – Attachment 2 (2007) Australian Attorney General’s Department, <> 2 April 2009.

Jack Greene, The Encyclopedia of Police Science (2006) 338,

US Department of Justice, Report to the Nation on Crime and Justice (2nd ed, 1988) 2.

Mark Findlay, Ralph Henham, Transforming International Criminal Justice: Retributive and Restorative Justice in the Trial Process (2005) 278282,

Declan Roche, ‘Retribution and Restorative Justice’ in Gerry Johnstone & Daniel Van Ness (eds), Handbook of Restorative Justice (2007) 75-80,

Weitekamp, above n 6, 66,

Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England: Volume 1 of the Rights of Persons (1765) 54-57,

Sir James Stephen, A Digest of the Criminal Law (Indictable Offences) (1950) 28.

Eugene McLaughlin, Restorative Justice: Critical Issues (2003) 205,

Gerry Johnstone & Daniel Van Ness, ‘The Idea of Restorative Justice’ in Gerry Johnstone & Daniel Van Ness (eds), Handbook of Restorative Justice (2007) 13.

Weitekamp, above n 6, 72,

McLaughlin, above n 20, 198,

George Mead, ‘The Psychology of Punitive Justice’ (1918) American Journal of Sociology 23, 577-602.

Johnstone, above n 2, 90,

Weitekamp, above n 6, 29,

Margarita Zernova, Restorative Justice: Ideals and Realities (2007) 37.

Elliott, above n 2, 262,

Walgrave, above n 2, 132-133,

Jane Dickson-Gilmore & Carol La Prairie, Will the Circle be Unbroken? Aboriginal Communities, Restorative Justice, and the Challenges of Conflict and Change (2005) 81-83.

Weitekamp, above n 6, 66,

Sullivan, above n 12, 499,

Strang, above n 4, 49,

Weitekamp, above n 6, 1.

Kay Pranis, ‘Restorative Values’ in Gerry Johnstone & Daniel Van Ness (eds), Handbook of Restorative Justice (2007) 62,

Zehr, above n 5, 19,

Elliott, above n 2, 234.

Pranis, above n 25, 62,

Zehr, above n 5, 19

Elliott, above n 2, 234.

Pranis, above n 25, 62,

Zehr, above n 5, 19,

Elliott, above n 2, 234.

Pranis, above n 25, 62,

Zehr, above n 5, 19,

Elliott, above n 2, 234.

Todd Clear & David Karp, What is Community Justice? Case Studies of Restorative Justice and Community Supervision (2002) 101-103,

Weitekamp, above n 6, 51,

Zehr, above n 5, 11,

Sullivan, above n 12, 239.

Zernova, above n 22, 69.

Sullivan, above n 12, 92,

Strang, above n 4, 22.

Braithwaite, above n 13, 46,

John Blackler, Ethical Issues in Policing (2005) 154,

McLaughlin, above n 20, 6.

Daniel Shapiro, ‘Pre-empting Disaster: Pre-Mediation Stategies to Deal with Strong Emotions in Margaret Herrman (ed), The Blackwell Handbook of Mediation: Bridging Theory, Research & Practice (2005) 216-218.

Pranis, above n 25, 62,

Zehr, above n 5, 19,

Elliott, above n 2, 234.

Johnstone, above n 2, 36-47 & 172-174,

Barbara Raye & Ann Warner Roberts, ‘Restorative Processes’ in Gerry Johnstone & Daniel Van Ness (eds), Handbook of Restorative Justice (2007) 211.

Rugge, above n 2, 266-277,

Tanya Rugge & Robert Cormier, ‘Restorative Justice in the Case of Serious Crimes: An Evaluation’ (Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Restorative Justice ‘Best Practices in Restorative Justice’, Vancouver, British Columbia, 1-3 June 2003) 2,

Elliott, above n 2, 15,

Aertsen, above n 5, 174.

Elliott, above n 2, 15,

Perry, above n 12, 96,

Allison Morris & Gabrielle Maxwell (eds), Restorative Justice for Juveniles: Conferencing, Mediation and Circles (2001) 270,

Weitekamp, above n 6, 1,

Ruth Morris, Stories of Transformative Justice (2000) 248.

W Schurink, I Snyman & W Krugel, Victimization: Nature & Trends (1992) 475-477,

Heather Strang, Repair or Revenge: Victims and Restorative Justice (2002) 8-24,

Mike Maguire & John Pointing, Victims of Crime: A New Deal? (1988) 127-137.

Schurink, above n 38, 475,

Braithwaite, above n 13, 47,

Maguire, above n 38, 127-137.

Schurink, above n 38, 476,

Zehr, above n 5, 72,

Maguire, above n 38, 127-137.

Schurink, above n 38, 476,

Maguire, above n 38, 127-137.

Schurink, above n 38, 476,

Maguire, above n 38, 127-137.

Schurink, above n 38, 476,

Maguire, above n 38, 127-137.

Schurink, above n 38, 477,

Maguire, above n 38, 127-137.

Charles Figley, Trauma and its Wake: The Study and Treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (1985) 91,

Andrew Karmen, Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimology (6th ed, 2007) 250 & 304.

Walgrave, above n 2, 132-133.

Walgrave, above n 2, 133.

Walgrave, above n 2, 133,

Elliott, above n 2, 15,

Perry, above n 12, 96,

Morris , above n 37, 270,

Weitekamp, above n 6, 1,

Morris, above n 37, 248.

Zehr, above n 6, 1-15,

Lode Walgrave, ‘Restorative Justice: An Alternative for Responding to Crime?’ in Shlomo Shoham, Ori Beck & Martin Kett, International Handbook of Penology and Criminal Justice (2007) 628-629.

Walgrave, above n 2, 133,

Elliott, above n 2, 15,

Perry, above n 12, 96,

Morris , above n 37, 270,

Weitekamp, above n 6, 1,

Ruth Morris, above n 37, 248.

Ruth Morris, above n 37, 248,

Weitekamp, above n 6, 72,

Karmen, above n 45, 26-27.

Schurink, above n 38, 475-477,

Strang, above n 38, 8-24,

Maguire, above n 38, 127-137.

Weitekamp, above n 6, 158,

Walgrave, above n 2, 169,

Sullivan, above n 12, 150.

Yvon Dandurand & Curt Taylor Griffiths, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Handbook on Restorative Justice Programmes (2006) 56-61,

Johnstone, above n 2, 153,

Maguire, above n 38, 164-165.

Dandurand, above n 54, 56-61,

Johnstone, above n 2, 153,

Maguire, above n 38, 164-165,

Sullivan, above n 12, 52-67.

Elliott, above n 2, 39-46,

Braithwaite, above n 13, 52-59.

Charles Barton, Restorative Justice: The Empowerment Model (2003) 48-62,

Margarita Zernova & Martin Wright, ‘Alternative Visions of Restorative Justice’ in Gerry Johnstone & Daniel Van Ness (eds), Handbook of Restorative Justice (2007) 99.

Dandurand, above n 54, 55-67,

Elliott, above n 2, 193-199,

Strang, above n 4, 49-55.

Dandurand, above n 54, 55-67,

Elliott, above n 2, 193-199,

Strang, above n 4, 49-55.

Braithwaite, above n 13, 45,

Strang, above n 4, 131,

Zernova, above n 22, 14,

Simon Green, ‘The Victims Movement and Restorative Justice’ in Gerry Johnstone & Daniel Van Ness (eds), Handbook of Restorative Justice (2007) 177-178.

Green, above n 60, 174,

Schurink, above n 38, 475-477,

Strang, above n 38, 8-24,

Maguire, above n 38, 127-137.

Ted Wachtel, ‘Restorative Conferencing for Serious Offences: An Exploration’ (Speech delivered at the International Conference on Serious Violence and Restorative Justice, Bar Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel, March 2006),

Rugge, above n 36,

Tanya Rugge, ‘Restorative Justice in Cases of Serious Crime’ (Research Summary Volume 10/4, Public Safety Canada, 2005) <> at 2 April 2009,

Elliott, above n 2, 245-303.

Wachtel, above n 62,

Rugge, above n 36,

Rugge, above n 62,

Elliott, above n 2, 245-303.

Wachtel, above n 62,

Rugge, above n 36,

Rugge, above n 62,

Elliott, above n 2, 245-303.

Wachtel, above n 62,

Rugge, above n 36,

Rugge, above n 62,

Elliott, above n 2, 245-303.

Wachtel, above n 62,

Rugge, above n 36,

Rugge, above n 62,

Elliott, above n 2, 245-303,

Johnstone, above n 3, 598-610.

Strang, above n 4, 56-58,

Karmen, above n 45, 370-372,

Johnstone, above n 2, 29-31,

McLaughlin, above n 20, 182-194.

Strang, above n 4, 56-58,

Karmen, above n 45, 370-372,

Johnstone, above n 2, 29-31,

McLaughlin, above n 20, 182-194.

Johnstone, above n 2, 94,

David Spencer & Michael Brogan, Mediation Law and Practice (2006) 151-152,

Jo Goodey, Victims and Victimology: Research, Policy and Practice (2005) 93-94,

Curt & Anne Bartol, Current Perspectives in Forensic Psychology and Criminal Behaviour (2008) 78,

South Australia Police Sexual Assault Unit, Sex Crime Investigators Handbook (1992).

Strang, above n 4, 56-58,

Karmen, above n 45, 370-372,

Johnstone, above n 2, 29-31,

McLaughlin, above n 20, 182-194.

Heather Strang & John Braithwaite, Restorative Justice and Family Violence (2002) 56,

Braithwaite, above n 13, 137-138.

Wes Crenshaw, Treating Families and Children in the Child Protective System (2004) 21-24,

Braithwaite, above n 13, 58,

David Levinson, Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment (2002) 1390.

Strang, above n 4, 56-58.

The author’s experience as a sex crime investigator with SAPolice.

Strang, above n 4, 56-58.

Sullivan, above n 12, 217,

Wachtel, above n 62,

Rugge, above n 36,

Rugge, above n 62,

Elliott, above n 2, 245-303,

Johnstone, above n 3, 598-610.

Robert Rotberg & Dennis Thompson, Truth v Justice: the Reality of Truth Commissions (2000) 79-80,

Green, above n 60, 174,

Schurink, above n 38, 475-477,

Strang, above n 38, 8-24,

Maguire, above n 38, 127-137.

Aertsen, above n 5, 241,

Sullivan, above n 12, 217,

Wachtel, above n 62,

Rugge, above n 36,

Rugge, above n 62,

Elliott, above n 2, 245-303,

Johnstone, above n 3, 598-610.

Weitekamp, above n 6, 75,

Bartol, above n 69, 81.

Johnstone, above n 2, 94,

Goodey, above n 69, 214.

Shapiro, above n 33, 214-218,

Braithwaite, above n 13, 66.

Elliott, above n 2, 268,

Levinson, above n 72, 1392.

Sullivan, above n 12, 60,

Zehr, above n 5, 357.

Elliott, above n 2, 189,

Sullivan, above n 12, 55,

Aertsen, above n 5, 143.

Barton, above n 57, 117-118,

Zernova, above n 22, 122-123.

Dandurand, above n 54, 104-105,

Mark Umbreit & Robert Coates, ‘Restorative Justice: Mediated Dialogue’ in Margaret Herrman, The Blackwell Handbook of Mediation: Bridging Theory, Research & Practice (2005) 178,

Rugge, above n 2, 268.

Johnstone, above n 2, 95, 99-104,

Beck, above n 2, 231,

McLaughlin, above n 20, 10,

Dandurand, above n 54, 11.

Clear, above n 29, 92,

Albert Roberts, Critical Issues In Crime and Justice (2003) 401-402,

James Day & William Laufer, Crime, Value and Religion (1987) 91,

Crenshaw, above n 72, 95,

Perry, above n 12, 3.

Brian Williams, Working with Victims of Crime: Policies, Politics and Practice (1999) 48,

American Prosecutors Research Institute, Investigation and Prosecution of Child Abuse (2003) 176.,

United Nations Human Settlements Programme, Enhancing Urban Safety and Security: Global Report on Human Settlements (2007) 76,

Sue Richardson & Heather Bacon, Creative Responses to Child Sexual Abuse: Challenges and Dilemmas (2003) 169.

Johnstone, above n 2, 100-104.

Day, above n 89, 91,

Perry, above n 12, 3,

James Whitman, Harsh Justice (2005) 20-25.

Karmen, above n 45, 250.

John Braithwaite, ‘Restorative Justice and a Better Future’ (1996) 1(76) Dalhousie Review 9, 9-31,

Johnstone, above n 2, 99.

Braithwaite, above n 94, 9-31,

Johnstone, above n 2, 99-104.

Braithwaite, above n 94, 9-31,

Johnstone, above n 2, 99-104.

Griffiths, above n 2, 11-12,

Elliott, above n 2, 19,

Braithwaite, above n 12, 54.

Braithwaite, above n 93,

Gerry Johnstone, A Restorative Justice Reader: Texts, Sources, Contexts (2003) 462-464,

Umbreit, above n 87, 178,

Council of Europe, Rebuilding Community Connections – Mediations and Restorative Justice in Europe (2004) 61.

Johnstone, above n 3, 606-610,

Johnstone, above n 98, 462-464,

Zehr, above n 5, 205-209,

Weitekamp, above n 6, 63.

Johnstone, above n 3, 606-610,

Johnstone, above n 98, 462-464,

Zehr, above n 5, 205-209,

Weitekamp, above n 6, 63.

Johnstone, above n 3, 606-610,

Johnstone, above n 98, 462-464,

Zehr, above n 5, 205-209,

Weitekamp, above n 6, 63.

Johnstone, above n 3, 606-610,

Johnstone, above n 98, 462-464,

Zehr, above n 5, 205-209,

Weitekamp, above n 6, 63.

Sue Reid, Crime and Criminology (1982) 416,

Lode Walgrave, ‘Building a Global Alliance for Restorative Practices and Family Empowerment’ (Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Conferencing, Circles and other Restorative Practices, Veldhoven, Netherlands, 28-30 August 2003) <> at 2 April 2009.

Zehr, above n 5, 107-118,

Mara Schiff, ‘Satisfying the Needs and Interests of Stakeholders’ in Gerry Johnstone & Daniel Van Ness (eds), Handbook of Restorative Justice (2007) 228-234, 240-241.

Zehr, above n 5, 107-118,

Schiff, above n 104, 228-234, 240-241.

Zehr, above n 5, 107-118,

Schiff, above n 104, 228-234, 240-241.

Zehr, above n 5, 107-118,

Schiff, above n 104, 228-234, 240-241.

Zehr, above n 5, 107-118,

Schiff, above n 104, 228-234, 240-241.

Zehr, above n 5, 155-172,

Schiff, above n 104, 235-238,

Michael Hadley, The Spiritual Roots of Restorative Justice (2001) 49-50.

Zehr, above n 5, 155-172,

Schiff, above n 104, 235-238,

Hadley, above n 109, 49-50.

Zehr, above n 5, 155-172,

Schiff, above n 104, 235-238,

Hadley, above n 109, 49-50,

Braithwaite, above n 13, 98-99.

Zehr, above n 5, 155-172,

Schiff, above n 104, 235-238,

Hadley, above n 109, 49-50,

Braithwaite, above n 13, 98-99.

Jean Piaget, The Moral Judgment of the Child (1999)197-230.

David Loy, The Great Awakening: A Buddhist Social Theory (2003) 82 & 130,

Marshall Rosenberg, Speak Peace in a World of Conflict: What You Say Next Will Change the World (2005) 43-44, 101 & 106.

Walgrave, above n 2, 84, 108-109 & 118.

Zehr, above n 5, 107-118,

Schiff, above n 104, 228-234, 240-241,

Walgrave, above n 2, 84, 108-109 & 118.

Braithwaite, above n 13, 98-99,

Zehr, above n 5, 107-118,

Schiff, above n 104, 228-234, 240-241,

Walgrave, above n 2, 84, 108-109 & 118.

Braithwaite, above n 13, 98-99,

Zehr, above n 5, 107-118,

Schiff, above n 104, 228-234, 240-241.

Robert Regoli & John Hewitt, Exploring Criminal Justice: The Essentials (2009) 323-324,

Sullivan, above n 12, 134-146,

Burt Galaway & Joe Hudson (eds), Restorative Justice: International Perspectives (1996) 58-60.

Rotberg, above n 77, 79,

Mark Amstutz, International Ethics: Concepts, Theories, and Cases in Global Politics (2005) 67-68,

Roche, above n 19, 77-80,

Johnstone, above n 98, 69 & 173.

Johnstone, above n 98, 264,

Zehr, above n 5, 87.

Levinson, above n 72, 1392,

Galaway, above n 120, 250,

Elliott, above n 2, 189.

Findlay, above 19, 278,

McLaughlin, above n 20, 43,

Elliott, above n 2, xxi,

Sullivan, above n 12, 119.

Regoli, above n 120, 323-324,

Sullivan, above n 12, 134-146,

Galaway, above n 120, 58-60.

Strang, above n 4, 56-58,

Karmen, above n 45, 370-372,

Johnstone, above n 2, 29-31,

McLaughlin, above n 20, 182-194.

Johnstone, above n 3, 606-610,

Johnstone, above n 98, 462-464,

Zehr, above n 5, 205-209,

Weitekamp, above n 6, 63.

Zehr, above n 5, 107-118,

Schiff, above n 104, 240-241,

Aertsen, above n 5, 241,

Sullivan, above n 12, 217,

Wachtel, above n 62,

Rugge, above n 36,

Rugge, above n 62,

Elliott, above n 2, 245-303,

Johnstone, above n 3, 598-610.

Ruth Morris, above n 37, 248,

Weitekamp, above n 6, 72,

Karmen, above n 45, 26-27.

Crenshaw, above n 72, 22.

Ruth Morris, above n 37, 248,

Weitekamp, above n 6, 72,

Karmen, above n 45, 26-27.

Crenshaw, above n 72, 22.

Zehr, above n 5, 155-172,

Schiff, above n 104, 235-238,

Hadley, above n 109, 49-50,

Braithwaite, above n 13, 98-99.

Levinson, above n 72, 1392,

Galaway, above n 120, 250,

Elliott, above n 2, 189.

Weitekamp, above n 6, 332,

Pranis, above n 25, 62,

Zehr, above n 5, 19,

Elliott, above n 2, 234.

Pranis, above n 25, 62,

Zehr, above n 5, 19,

Elliott, above n 2, 234,

Wachtel, above n 62,

Rugge, above n 36,

Rugge, above n 62,

Elliott, above n 2, 245-303.

Restorative Justice and Serious Crime

This is a preview of the whole essay

Crenshaw, Wes, Treating Families and Children in the Child Protective System (2004) Routledge, USA.

Lash, Joseph, Eleanor Roosevelt: A Friend’s Memoir (1964) Doubleday, United States.

Levinson, David, Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment (2002) Sage Publishing, USA.

Heads of Commonwealth Operational Law Enforcement Agencies (HOCOLEA), Serious Crime – Attachment 2 (2007) Australian Attorney General’s Department, <> 2 April 2009.

Gwendolyn Cuizon, What is Justice: Socrates' Non-consequentialist View on Justice (2009) <> at 22 March 2009.

Heads of Commonwealth Operational Law Enforcement Agencies (HOCOLEA), Serious Crime – Attachment 2 (2007) Australian Attorney General’s Department, <> 2 April 2009.

Wes Crenshaw, Treating Families and Children in the Child Protective System (2004) 21-24,

David Levinson, Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment (2002) 1390.

Joseph Lash, Eleanor Roosevelt: A Friend’s Memoir (1964) 304.

Document Details

Related Essays

SCHOOL BULLYING & RESTORATIVE JUSTICE: THE LEGAL ISSUES FOR GOVERNMENT SCHO...

Law and Justice

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAW & JUSTICE: A PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVE

Private and Public Spheres. Should our autonomy be traded in for protectio...