International Journal on Criminology Volume 4, Number 2, Winter 2016 | Page 142

Restorative Justice
latter, for example, can have a tendency to use the promise of healing to attract users
to restorative practice, a highly questionable, and even dangerous, approach (Borton
and Paul 2015).
Recidivism
In the first part of this article, it was established that links between restorative
justice and nonrecidivism now seem increasingly clear. However, because it is hard
to discuss restorative justice in general terms, there is still the need to decide exactly
which restorative measure is being discussed. Take, for example, the case of family
group conferences (Braithwaite 2002). Since their revival in the 1990s, these measures
have affirmed their intention to achieve a sharp drop in recidivism rates among young
offenders, especially minors (Cario 2014). In the early 2000s, the success of these
measures appeared to have been convincingly demonstrated (Latimer, Dowden, and
Muise 2005; Luke and Lind 2002): however, it was still impossible to determine the
exact nature of the elements within the conferences which were responsible for such
success on the recidivism rate.
A study by Duwe (2012) has provided some very interesting distinctions
on the link between restorative justice and recidivism. In this case, a restorative
model based on a reentry experience in Minnesota produced a significant reduction
in recidivism rates generally. The restorative program apparently had a significant
impact on the possible repetition of a similar act, as well as on the possibility that
a new arrest or accusation for another offense would occur (so long as it did not
involve an arrest due to breaking parole conditions, the type of measure which
restorative justice seems to impact very little). The primary reason for the decrease
in recidivism was then studied by the author: the success clearly came from the fact
that the program had enabled the offender to develop a strong social support system
after his/her return to society (including, for example, access to employment and
participation in social support activities).
It is important to understand here that to establish the link between restorative
justice and recidivism, more specific observation criteria have to be identified. In the
conference example above, research has also demonstrated that only some forms
of recidivism have been avoided. In addition, nonrecidivism seems to have been
greater when the conference was very specific in the way it was conducted. It was
not participation in a conference, generally, that determined the reduction in the
recidivism rate, but much more the fact that the conference concluded with or without
a consensus, on the one hand, and that the offender felt particularly repentant and
filled with remorse during the conference, on the other hand (Hayes and Daly 2004).
Of course, such observations may also apply to a criminal or restorative mediation: it
is probably not the mediation itself that provides the hope of nonrecidivism, but the
quality of the way it is carried out—even more than its conclusion. This observation
condemns researchers then to a certain measure of frustration: it is now no longer a
matter of focusing research on knowing whether or not a measure of restorative justice
141