A Holistic Approach to Restorative Justice

Restorative justice conferencing preceded by rehabilitative programming within an indeterminate sentencing model will reduce recidivism and victim satisfaction more than punitive measures alone, rehabilitation alone, or the combination of the two. Restorative justice is a rehabilitative approach that involves “conferencing” – a process that comprises stakeholders involved in a crime focusing on repairing the damage done in a manner that promotes empathy in the offender and trauma-healing in the victim. The proposed paradigm shift from retributive/punitive approaches to restorative justice can reduce recidivism rates while fostering social cohesion within a framework that emphasizes rehabilitative and goal-oriented sentencing and the healing of victim trauma. Prevailing criminal justice philosophy must dismiss dogmatic retributive justice approaches in favor of a multidisciplinary system that prioritizes reintegration and recidivism reduction as the primary goal of sentencing. Traditional justice philosophy tends to reject restorative justice as implicitly lenient on crime; however, the method enables proactive criminological insight, provides a mechanism to address the root cause of crime, and equips reintegration efforts with tools to prevent relapse. The limited research of the efficacy of restorative justice is promising, particularly in the case of Shem-Tov’s 2024 study of 143 youthful offenders convicted of medium impact felonies such as burglary and assault . The results showed a 44% decrease in recidivism probability within the first six months of release when compared to a control group who were exposed to standard sentencing models.

The most recent data indicates over 1.2 million Americans are serving a prison sentence, with approximately 96% of those serving sentences in excess of one year . The most recent data from the same source indicates an additional 469,200 Americans were sentenced to prison terms in 2022, representing an increase of 20,000 from the previous year. Although recidivism estimates vary by source and there is no singular database to track statistics, conservative estimates suggest that at least 27% of those offenders will be subject to recidivism following their release . These statistics represent a class of offenders and victims that could be reduced with effective intervention. Recidivism numbers have largely maintained an upward trajectory, aside from a deviation following the 2008 Second Chance Act, suggesting that prevalent retributive sentencing models and current rehabilitative efforts are largely ineffective. The proposition of this topic is a multidisciplinary approach that involves restorative justice conferencing, enabled by intensive rehabilitative efforts under the structure of indeterminate sentencing.

Amanda Wilson highlights a critical flaw in contemporary theory surrounding guilt and shame in restorative justice. She posits that shame currently serves as the primary vehicle to reach the ends of restoration; however, guilt is a more effective means to reach the goal. The author certainly delves deeper into the psychology of the approach than other research, but she stops short of exploring the sociological factors present in criminology. Wilson’s writings differentiate and define guilt as “primitive” or “mature”. Mature guilt is one’s belief that their actions were improper and is coupled with an associated remorse for the transgression, whereas primitive guilt stems from the discovery, or threat of discovery, of the transgression by others. Primitive guilt draws from embarrassment at the discovery of one’s actions. An acknowledgement of the source of the embarrassment is critical to understanding the offender’s psychological shortfall, which is necessary for treatment through restorative and rehabilitative interventions. Perhaps a barrier to treatment success is the misunderstanding of the source of embarrassment. An offender may understand that their actions are counter to social norms without understanding why their actions were wrong. Here is where sociology factors into the equation, particularly in high-crime neighborhoods.

Social Learning Theory suggests that propensity for delinquent behavior is influenced by the environment, imitation of peers and negative role models, and acceptance of deviant social norms. This exposure can influence an offender’s moral development, leading them to perceive certain criminal acts as acceptable or justified. Recent research suggests that consideration for sociological factors in the planning and execution of rehabilitative plans may increase their efficacy and better prepare offenders for release . Critics of restorative justice would typically protest at this juncture, as the approach is often seen as “soft on crime” and this caveat to its development appears to excuse the crime due to socio-economic factors. However, dismissal of these considerations as contributing factors ignores prime rehabilitative opportunities that reach further than superficial treatment and attacks the source of delinquency. This approach does not suggest that sociological influences might serve as a mitigating factor at sentencing but considers those factors in rehabilitative planning. Pifferi cites the ignorance of these influences as a contributing factor for prison overcrowding. Punishment remains the goal of criminal justice; however, punishment alone is seldom corrective, and the current prison population and recidivism rate indicates that retributive models are ineffective in both deterrence and correction. It is from this premise that the proposal of research takes form.

Under circumstances influenced by aberrant sociology, the offender’s deviation from a greater social norm will serve as the catalyst for guilt instead of the actual belief that their actions were wrong. If this theory holds true, rehabilitation cannot begin without moral reconation, and restoration cannot be effective without rehabilitation. Therefore, Moral Reconation Therapy will serve as a precursor to rehabilitative victim impact therapy prior to the commencement of restorative conferencing. These pursuits, alongside adjacent therapeutic interventions that treat specific contributing factors, reach critical mass in an intensive restorative justice complex. The totality of these efforts rounds out the mature formation of the superego that is likely undeveloped or underdeveloped in many offenders. The mature development of the superego entails a full accountability and responsibility for oneself and actions, which manifests in propensity for atonement and reconciliation. Presently, the most effective means to round out the development of the superego is restorative justice conferencing that offers direct insight into an offender’s capability for reconciliation with their victim. However, the conglomerate of these approaches can prove timely and release prior to their completion may be detrimental, or even counterproductive, to complete rehabilitation. Thus, indeterminate sentencing should be utilized to provide flexibility, greater breadth of treatment options, and a mechanism for progress-based release instead of arbitrary timelines.

The National Academy of Sciences produced research that adds another perspective to holistically address recidivism through restorative justice. The study found a 13% reduction in recidivism over a ten-month period in a variable group whose parole officers underwent empathy training as compared to a control group whose parole officers received no additional training . The research does not include data on the type or length of treatment, criminal demographics, or socioeconomic factors. Although the inclusion of this data would be helpful to inform the results and future studies, the present data is promising. The parole officers in this study serve as a vital link in the chain of rehabilitation that proceeds beyond incarceration into the community release phase. Studying restorative justice methods after release can inform training for parole officers that bolster the impacts of the proposed method of intervention. Another meta-analysis indicated additional recidivism reduction in re-entry programs that began during confinement and continued after release, with a minimum duration of thirteen weeks . If post-release intervention alone can demonstrably reduce recidivism, it can be inferred that the combination of post-release therapies alongside the proposed restorative justice intervention would act synergistically to compound the already significant results.

A parallel goal of restorative justice is to aid in the healing of victim trauma through provision of a mechanism to offer closure and perspective taking with their perpetrator. Victims are often forgotten once the gavel drops in retributive justice systems. Aside from impact statements and testimony in open court, the victim has no interaction with the judicial or correctional process and is left to fend for themselves in their pursuit of healing and closure. A 2022 metadata analysis found positive impacts on, “post-traumatic symptomatology, on the emotions and emotional needs resulted from victimization, as well as on the victims’ perceptions of their offenders. ” The overarching goal of criminal justice is to enforce accountability from offenders through modalities that prioritize a repayment of a debt to society. However, in many cases, society is not the victim, and the target of the crime is not made whole by the process. Instead of shirking the responsibility to the individual victim, the criminal justice system must shift focus from retribution to healing. However, restorative justice conferencing alone cannot heal victim trauma and must be coupled with a system of therapeutic intervention for the victim.

Although Nascimento’s work indicates promise in restorative interventions, intersection of victim healing and offender rehabilitation cannot be readily defined or guided by scientific principles, formulas, or calculations. An offender’s preparedness to take part in conferencing without the victim’s parallel readiness further complicates the methodology. Often-cited barriers to participation in restorative justice programs are fear of victims’ reactions and disbelief in the victim’s ability to forgive . Without preliminary rehabilitation on the part of the victim, the offender’s barrier of fear will elevate, risking the success of the approach and presenting the potential for adverse effect on the superego development underpinning the goal of the restorative justice approach. Further, the evidence to support the efficacy of the modality is mixed and is yet to be widely studied. The most comprehensive evaluation available did indicate a 33% reduction in recidivism within six months of the completion of restorative justice interventions, but these datapoints can appear skewed as the approach is commonly utilized in cases of low-level offenses and has not been extensively studied against crimes such as murder and sexual offenses. Additionally, the long-term effects have not been thoroughly tested, and available data is scarce and unreliable. Although Nascimento’s work is convincing enough to mandate additional research, the process and collection modalities require refinement in future studies to round out results. Further, mechanisms must be identified and tested to register victim readiness prior to the commencement of conferencing processes.

The approach to restorative justice conferencing has not been thoroughly studied, tested, or standardized which exposes the practice to variables that may impact outcomes and artificially skew results. A 2017 study critically examined the efficacy of restorative justice techniques and found a void in research as to how restorative justice should be applied practically. The study indicated that “adequate preparation, ensuring the victim’s voice is heard, establishing a realistic outcome plan that reinforces accountability, and follow up action” are the core components for a successful restorative justice conferencing application. However, the literature examines the preparation of convenors of restorative justice conferencing and offenders without thorough consideration of the preparation of victims. The study cites a necessity to prepare victims’ perceptions of the punishment and the criminal justice process but does not explore the victim’s preparation from a standpoint of therapeutic rehabilitation for the trauma caused by the crime. Without preparatory work to begin the healing process, conferencing may serve as a trauma trigger, leaving victims in an even more vulnerable state within a framework that requires the offender to be more vulnerable. Additionally, a negative reaction on the part of the victim can reinforce barriers to participation at a stage in the process that is possibly beyond salvaging once interrupted. Follow-on studies to measure the effectiveness of techniques are inadequate or non-existent, leaving an unstudied art that could prove useful for victims and rehabilitation of offenders. Although the topic of restorative justice has been studied for current efficacy, there appears to be little development of a standardized methodology that can be researched and refined to increase the efficacy. The approach is often critiqued for its underwhelming body of research, but resources must be committed to develop the approach and thoroughly study its efficacy.

Contemporary literature on restorative justice does not consider the criminological impact of conferencing and the work leading up to conferencing. The perspective-taking approach of the process is typically rejected in the justice system as it gives the illusion of mitigating or excusing the offense . However, the approach allows researchers to more thoroughly understand the root cause of various crimes and enables ample opportunity for criminal psychology study. As previously stated, there must be an intensive workup prior to the conferencing stage of the proposed restorative justice approach. Throughout this stage, data can be collected and studied to inform intelligence-led policing efforts, rehabilitative studies, and re-entry methods. This practice may be particularly effective in gang-related crimes by offering gang members insight to the perspective of rival factions and understanding the broader perspective that influences their environment. Self-awareness, reflection, and identifying commonality with rivals are counter to gang culture and the development of these skills may prove critical to criminal intervention, particularly in youthful offenders. This is another area where literature is lacking and requires further study to determine the potential impact in both criminology and gang intervention. A single meta-analysis was identified that partially studied the impact of mediation on gang violence . The research found mixed results from the intervention techniques; however, the study was focused on community mediation and was not influenced by emerging criminology or a defined framework that influences the method and timing of intervention. The study should be repeated based on a control group of gang members and a variable group that underwent restorative justice conferencing as a mediary with members of rival gangs. This proposed study does not serve to explore the greater gang violence issue but studies the impact on individual offenders.

Restorative justice approaches have been attempted and evaluated sparingly with varying results and miniscule data for review and utilization as a basal framework for future development. One such example is the RESTORE Program which involved prosecutorial referral of perpetrators of sexual offenses ranging from misdemeanor to felony level conviction. Subjects had to be referred by the prosecuting attorney and voluntarily entered the program. This program’s approach typically convened in an extra-penological setting and involved victims voicing the impact the crime had on them, conferencing, and the creation of a corrective action plan that was evaluated over a one-year period. Research reinforces the lack of consideration for differences in youthful and adult offender approaches, victim demand for validation in the criminal justice process, and associated barriers to participation . The referenced study found that post-traumatic stress disorder criteria confirmation decreased from 82% pre-conferencing to 66% post-conferencing in victims and 83% of victims found the conferencing to be a positive experience. The study provided minimal data on conferencing’s effect on recidivism rates although it did identify two-thirds of felons and 91% of misdemeanor cases did execute the conferencing process and successfully completed the one-year supervision period. The RESTORE Program found noteworthy results in the areas of study but the program itself is lacking a holistic approach and presents a barrier to entry by not allowing self-referrals. Additionally, the length of study (one year) does not provide an adequate body of research to ascertain the effectiveness of restorative justice conferencing on recidivism rates.

Restorative justice conferencing is in an infantile state of research and development and is largely applied to low-impact crimes such as theft, vandalism, burglary, et cetera. Additionally, the majority of the research is focused on youthful offenders and, although juveniles are more susceptible to this type of rehabilitation, the lack of research should not be conflated with lack of promise in adult offenders. If there is hope for the approach to become a prevailing modality for rehabilitation, victim trauma healing, and recidivism reduction; it is necessary to research and examine the propensity for effectiveness of conferencing in high-impact crimes such as murder and sexual assault within an adult cohort. However, the art is not mature enough for application to those crimes yet. The ends must be clear, and the research must be ramped up to thoroughly explore the limits of restorative justice, identify a standard application, and certify convenors as professionals in the field. Once there is sufficient data and testing to support a baseline, the approach can begin fielding tests on high-impact crimes. The implications of the research have already indicated promise in being a new standard for sentencing techniques and rehabilitative pursuits. However, restorative justice cannot stand alone as a one-size-fits-all approach and must be combined with indeterminate sentencing, preparation through rehabilitative victim impact training, treatment for associated mental health or personality disorders, and a mechanism to rehabilitate and thoroughly prepare a victim for conferencing. Contemporary research is largely lacking on this topic and deserves a greater breadth of study and resourcing to identify the means of application.

Carson, E. A., & Kluckow, R. (2023). Prisoners in 2022 – Statistical tables.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/prisoners-2022-statistical-tables

Council of State Governments Justice Center. (2024). Council of State Governments

Justice Center report highlights positive impact of the Second Chance Act on recidivism. https://www.georeentry.com/council-state-governments-justice-center-report-impact-recidivism/

Koss, M. P. (2014). The RESTORE Program of Restorative Justice for Sex Crimes:

Vision, Process, and Outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(9), 1623–1660. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513511537

Li, M., Leidner, B., & Fernandez-Campos, S. (2019). Stepping into Perpetrators’ Shoes:

How Ingroup Transgressions and Victimization Shape Support for Retributive Justice through Perspective-Taking With Perpetrators. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(3), 424-438. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219858652 (Original work published 2020)

Mellgren, C., Rostami, A., Gerell, M., Sturup, J., Hartvigsson, T., Munthe, C., Bring, J.,

Hellberg, U., Jonsson, A. K., Fundell, S., & Sundell, K. (2024). Psychosocial Interventions Preventing Gang-Related Crime Among Young People: A Systematic Review. Research on Social Work Practice, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/10497315241305779

Nascimento, A. M., Andrade, J., & de Castro Rodrigues, A. (2022). The Psychological

Impact of Restorative Justice Practices on Victims of Crimes—a Systematic Review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24(3), 1929-1947. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380221082085 (Original work published 2023)

Ndrecka, M. (2014). The impact of reentry programs on recidivism: A meta

analysis [Doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati]. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=ucin1407406587

Okonofua, J. A., Saadatian, K., Ocampo, J., Ruiz, M., & Oxholm, P. D. (2021). A

scalable empathic supervision intervention to mitigate recidivism from probation and parole. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(14), e2018036118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2018036118

Peleg-Koriat Inbal, & Weimann-Saks, D. (2024). Restorative Justice Behind Bars:

People in Custody’s Facilitators and Barriers to Participating in Restorative Justice. Criminal Justice and Behavior., 51(10), 1493–1510. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548241257608

Pifferi, M. (2024). The Historical Origins and Evolution of Rehabilitative Punishment.

Crime and Justice A Review of Research., 53(1), 103–160. https://doi.org/10.1086/733432

Ramponi, A., & Tessitore, M. E. (2025). Educational programs and crime: A

compartmental model approach. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.17831

Shem-Tov, Y., Raphael, S., & Skog, A. (2024). Can Restorative Justice Conferencing

Reduce Recidivism? Evidence From the Make‐it‐Right Program. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society., 92(1), 61–78. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA20996

Suzuki, M., & Wood, W. R. (2017). Restorative Justice Conferencing as a ‘Holistic’

Process: Convenor Perspectives. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 28(3), 277–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2017.12036075

Wilson, A. (2022) What a shame! Restorative justice’s guilty secret. Howard Journal of

Crime & Justice, 61(1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/hojo.12460