Source: (2003) Utah Law Review. 2003(1): 15-42. University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law. Downloaded 13 October 2003.

A chief argument for restorative justice, write Heather Strand and Lawrence Sherman, is that "the jurisprudence of retribution" has ignored victims' interests. In contrast, restorative justice would include victims in ways that victims and the public prefer, and would focus on repairing and preventing the harm of crime rather than exacting a just measure of pain from offenders. With this in mind, Strang and Sherman examine key claims about what victims want and what the public thinks they should have in relation to the disposition of offenders. In this regard, they present evidence from randomized field tests comparing restorative justice to conventional justice. Their overall aim is to explore whether a new jurisprudence should be developed around a model of justice that treats victims more fairly without harming offender rights or public safety.