Punitive Restoration and Restorative Justice
127
offender with the wider community. This goal is built on a view that there is a wrong to be made right and an injustice between affected persons requiring closure. If this is the case, then it is unclear why restorative justice requires a criminal offence where there may be injustices requiring repair. For example, restor- ation may bring benefits to individ- uals and communities, even though no crime has taken place. There may be a need for providing support to overcome addictions or enable greater financial independence—yet this support might only be available to restore those affected should there have been a crime. Short of offending, individuals may lack access to support they need, benefiting them- selves and their community. Another example is the case of restorative approaches used in schools for chil- dren to resolve conflicts and to promote healing. If this is our goal, then crimes can be incidental to whether restoration is required.
Restorative justice approaches bring several potential benefits that include higher victim satisfaction, more effective crime reduction, and at lower costs. These benefits are not without their own costs. Restorative justice approaches are difficult to pin- point and provide anything but broad comparisons, given their diversity. They have limited applicability, limited public confidence, operate with limited options by excluding prison, and are subject to a serious problem concerning what is restored and by which community.30
Restorative justice approaches may be worth defending, but we require a new approach to yield the potential benefits while avoiding these obstacles. Otherwise, restorative justice approaches might remain an underutilized resource at the margins of mainstream criminal justice policy. This situation might change if there is a new formulation of restorative justice that could address these challenges.