Lode Walgrave

Reintegrative shaming and restorative justice

ConclusionShaming can be a powerful aspect in the informal process that brings the victim and the offender together in their search for a just restorative solution to their conflict. If, however, it is judged that an offence has to give rise to coercive judicial action, then the role of the justice system must be clearly defined. As far as we can see, it cannot and should not be expected that the judiciary will engage in shaming, nor that the reintegration of the offender should be the principal aim of intervention. Justice should neither shame nor reintegrate, it should simply establish responsibilities and contribute towards the conditions that promote restoration. Besides that, one can only hope that the cultural climate in society as a whole, and in social institutions in particular, will evolve in the direction of more communitarianism, leading to the emergence of a climate that allows for the inducement of shame because harm has been caused, the creation of a willingness for restoration and, if necessary, an obligation to restore as an opportunity of reintegration. This cannot, however, be established through formal public rules, but only through the human and relational ways in which they are applied.Reintegrative shaming is about the positive power of human relationships to deal with offenses and other types of behaviour that jeopardize harmonious community living. Restorative justice concerns the way in which the formal social response to offenses should contribute towards a context in which a constructive response can be made to these offenses. These are complementary coucepts, but they should not be fused together to form a single concept of ‘restorative shaming’. This area is complicated and confused enough as it is.

An adventure is taking off. Why Restorative Justice: An International Journal?

The idea of creating an international journal on restorative justice is not particularly new. In the last ten years, and even before that, ideas were exchanged and plans made on a number of occasions concerning the possibility of such an initiative. Various international restorative justice organisations, practitioners and networks of researchers put forward proposals in this respect. However, the necessary human and financial resources and an appropriate environment to take up such an endeavour were simply lacking. That is, until recently. Today, following extensive consultation with and support from a large group of key international experts, but also with the professional guidance of a well-respected and visionary publisher, we are delighted to launch this journal. It is our belief that the time has come for an international medium offering in-depth, sophisticated and high-quality forms of communication about restorative justice the world over. Restorative justice has developed as a field of innovative ideas, evolving practices and research that is of crucial relevance to the way justice is done and, more broadly, to working towards a more just world. It is obvious indeed that restorative justice is expanding rapidly. Within a few decades it has grown from a little-known idiom to a broad and ever ‘widening river’ (Zehr, 2002: 62) of innovative practices and empirical evaluations, and has become a central issue in theoretical, legal and socio-ethical debates. While its origins can be traced back to seeking ‘alternative’ ways of dealing with minor juvenile delinquency in North America, nowadays restorative justice practices are applied to an increasingly wide range of crimes in all parts of the world. They are no longer limited to petty or non-violent crimes, but extend to cases of serious attacks on the physical and moral integrity of

Restorative Dimensions in Belgian Youth Justice

The revised Belgian Youth Justice Act (YJA) (2006) is featured as a case study due to the important restorative justice dimensions that it has introduced. The legal system in Belgium is dominated by a civil law regime with a deep-seated tradition in youth justice characterized by an almost exclusively ‘treatment’-oriented approach. Whilst the implementation of the revised YJA has encountered some challenges, it has also revealed that it is possible to prioritize restorative processes within a conventional civil law regime. That being said, the fundamental change that the Act aspired to achieve is only made possible by the application of additional measures.

Why restorative justice matters for criminology

This editorial is written on the occasion of the ‘official’ launch of Restorative Justice: An International Journal at the annual conference of the European Society of Criminology, held in Budapest in September 2013. While there is no clear-cut definition of criminology, for the sake of this editorial it may help to look at the topics presented in Budapest this year under the label ‘criminology’. The conference programme covers a wide range of issues, from the individual characteristics of those who have committed crimes or have become victims, through gender violence and disciplinary problems in schools, diverse violations of human rights and international crimes (such as genocide), and international criminal networks, to sentencing procedures, prevention of drug use, the impact of urban development on crime, capitalist globalisation and punitive populism and, indeed, the potential of restorative justice. Almost all scientific, social and normative disciplines are involved, and it is often difficult to indicate precisely the disciplines or specialisations that are implicated. Criminology is gradually developing its own theoretical and methodological approaches. The Budapest conference programme witnesses the wide scope of criminology as a field of scientific research and scientifically guided practice. What is common in the contributions is that they all deal with matters that are directly or indirectly related to the concept of crime and/or criminal justice. Against this background, we think that the emergence of restorative justice in recent decades is beneficial for criminology as a whole. We see at least four reasons for this, which we would like to discuss briefly in this editorial: credibility of the criminal justice system, normalisation of criminal behaviour, normative choices to be made, and the setup of a laboratory for research.

Restorative Justice and Adolescent Health

In this chapter, two questions are asked: (1) Whether a restorative justice approach is complementary to a more traditional welfare orientation to youth justice and (2) whether restorative justice responses as such can contribute to the mental health of adolescents. Welfare-oriented youth justice systems appear to be under pressure, while restorative justice is emerging as a possible third way in responding to youth crime. Additionally, we explore how restorative justice practices fit a legal and rights-based discourse, and how the underlying socio-ethical grounds of restorative justice can inspire more comprehensive reflections regarding youth and welfare. Finally, we examine the feasibility and ‘efficacy’ of restorative justice practices based on empirical research, and we describe and argue how restorative justice can contribute to the well-being of adolescents who offend.

A snapshot of Restorative Justice: An International Journal after three years

In the spring of 2013 the first issue of Restorative Justice: An International Journal (RJIJ) appeared. As we are writing this editorial, in January 2016, three volumes are out and nine issues have been published as was initially planned. As an Editorial Team we considered this to be a good moment to take a snapshot and see where we stand, to critically look back at what we started and to reflect on the future of this ‘adventure’. Our editorial in the first issue set forth great ambitions. We wrote: ‘It [the journal] aims to become the essential medium for presenting theories, visions, practices and research findings on restorative justice’ (Aertsen et al., 2013: 9). To achieve this, we created an Editorial Board and an International Advisory Board both composed of the fine fleur of restorative scholarship; we believed these would be the perfect go-betweens with the field, to ensure good international coverage and provide adequate ‘checks and balances’ for our initiative. We hoped and expected that our own position in the field, added to the Boards members’ reputations, was strong enough to motivate potential authors to submit texts and share their research in this journal. We were confident that Hart Publishing would be the perfect partner to produce a highquality journal. But we also knew that it would take some time before the journal would really reach the high standards and status it aspired to. The question now is where do we stand after three years? Are we on track? We seek answers to these questions through some quantitative data and a few qualitative comments.

Positive criminology, criminology of trust and restorative justice

Most restorative justice advocates are concerned about the predominantly repressive way of responding to crime in current criminal policies. They are not alone. Also in other criminological fields, scholars are searching for more constructive attitudes and interventions. This is witnessed, among others, through the appearance of two books entitled Positive criminology, one published shortly after the other. The authors and editors of both belong to different academic networks, the volumes deal with different subjects and nothing in the publications suggests that there has been any exchange between them. Obviously, something makes criminologists feel the need for a ‘positive’ approach to their discipline. They fear the risk of their discipline being dragged down in the defensive approach to their domain, and they seek alternatives that preserve and enhance the quality of social life.

Domestic terrorism: a challenge for restorative justice

As a usual suspect in promoting a maximalist understanding of restorative justice, I feel challenged by the recent terrorist attacks in Paris and Copenhagen and by the public responses to them. Advocates of maximalist restorative justice promote priority for restorative approaches to all forms of crimes whenever possible (Walgrave, 2008). But the terrorist attacks in Paris of 5 January 2015 and similar events in the sphere of terrorist threats as in Belgium and Denmark the weeks after seem to mark the limits of restorative justice. Are such atrocious terrorist attacks beyond the reach of opting first of all for possible reparative actions? Would this be where even Nils Christie accepted ‘absolute punishment’ to express the massive grief and mourning after terrible crimes (Christie, 1981)? It is a challenge that I cannot leave unanswered. The following is a theoretical exercise, not the outcome of a systematic exploration and not a fully-fledged article. The aim is to submit my reflections and thoughts to the reader, in order to trigger debate on the reach of restorative justice and on the depth of the underlying socialethical vision. The starting point is my earlier definition of restorative justice as ‘an option for doing justice after the occurrence of an offence that is primarily oriented towards repairing the individual, relational and social harm caused by that offence’ (Walgrave, 2008: 21). Giving priority does not mean giving monopoly. Limits to the potential of restorative justice are thus recognised. The most important, but not exclusive, tool for achieving reparation as much as possible is the respectful dialogue among the stakeholders in the

Youth, crime and human rights

Within the United Nations system for the promotion and protection of human rights, the Committee on the Rights of the Child is especially responsible for the design and the follow up of human rights for children, children’s and youth rights, and for the social response to youth crime. This Committee is charged with the implementation and the observation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which was adopted unanimously in 1989 by the United Nations General Assembly. It took 10 years of difficult debates to create the CRC as a separate tool to address the peculiarities in children with regard to human rights. But once accepted, the CRC enjoyed a huge international support. Currently, in fact, only the USA and Somalia are the two only countries that have not yet ratified the Convention. In this chapter, we will discuss some basic provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child as they relate to delinquency committed by young people, who are to be understood as persons under the age of 18, and to juvenile justice in general. At the same time, we will also formulate some critical comments in relation to these provisions and to children’s rights in general.