Source: (2002) In, Lode Walgrave, ed., Restorative Justice and the Law. Devon, UK: Willan Publishing. Pp. 168-190.
Restorative justice theory and initiatives have developed dramatically in recent years around the world, with increasing influence at many levels of criminal justice policy-making: international; governmental; and sub-governmental within a wide range of criminal justice agencies. With this growth, observes Dignan, certain significant “fault lines,â€? or tensions and divergences, within the restorative justice movement have become starkly apparent. Dignan identifies three “fault linesâ€? that delineate different strands of restorative justice thinking: process versus outcome definitions; “civilianâ€? versus “communitarianâ€? perspectives; and “separatistâ€? versus “integrationistâ€? tendencies. Reflecting on these tensions and divergences, he also draws out some of their policy implications. All of this leads to his discussion of the roles of non-custodial penalties and imprisonment within a systemic model of restorative justice.
Your donation helps Prison Fellowship International repair the harm caused by crime by emphasizing accountability, forgiveness, and making amends for prisoners and those affected by their actions. When victims, offenders, and community members meet to decide how to do that, the results are transformational.
Donate Now