Source: (2008) Restorative Justice Online. Washington, DC: PRison Fellowship International.

At a first level, the aim of the comparative analysis is to allow the identification of the diversity of models, practices, programmes, juridical-normative framework, of the restorative justice implementations and, on this basis, to detect the possible synergies as well as good practices accumulated in the field. Such an action provides the answer to a number of questions: What are the theories that found the practices, models and restorative justice practices? What is the relation between the restorative justice and social justice, procedural justice, penal/retributive justice, cultural justice etc.? What are the types of conflicts that can be solved with restorative justice practices? What is the relationship between the restorative justice practices and the formal conflict resolution practices (the courts)? What are the advantages and disadvantages of alternative conflict resolution practices compared to the formal justice system? How are (are not) the rights of the parties that accept to enter an alternative conflict resolution procedure protected? Do the programs and restorative justice practices contribute to the prevention of criminality? What are the practical methods to refer e the cases? What are the politics and models of preparing the practitioners in the field of restorative justice? Etc. In this intervention, I have taken into account the fact that comparative analysis, regarding the implementation of restorative justice programs and practices, must be accomplished within the framework of the current general trend that exist in the European States, but, wider, of the developments in other cultural areas. (excerpt)

Read Full Article