In spite of the scepticism mentioned above, for about ten, fifteen years, forms of restorative justice have been used in each of the six partner countries – Austria, Denmark, Finland, Greece, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom - [including] in cases of IPV. Nevertheless, this instrument is not well established in all countries. In Denmark, for example, only very few IPV cases were referred to RJ.
Since RJ practices have become an alternative (or in some countries, a complementary instrument) to formal criminal justice procedures, especially feminist scholars and practitioners have pointed out problems emerging when such measures are used in cases of IPV. The dynamic of IPV creates particular challenges for the practice of RJ, not only in various countries in Europe, but also in Australia, New Zealand, North America, and other parts of the world.
In cases of coercive control victim-offender mediation can be dangerous, but in case of situational violence the use of RJ/ mediation can turn out to be helpful and effective, especially when children are involved. Therefore, flexibility in how to deal with different types of offenders, victims and kinds of relationships is necessary.
In this [Section] we look for supporting and counter arguments to use RJ in cases of IPV. Before that, we give a sketch of the historical background of RJ and stress differences between RJ in IPV cases and RJ interventions as a reaction on public crime (crimes committed outside the private sphere). (Citations removed)