Restorative Justice Principles

Overview

Restorative justice represents a fundamental paradigm shift in how societies understand and respond to harm. Rather than asking “What law was broken? Who broke it? What punishment do they deserve?” — the conventional retributive framework — restorative justice asks three profoundly different questions: “Who has been harmed? What are their needs? Whose obligations are these?” This reorientation from punishment to healing, from isolation to reconnection, from state monopoly on justice to community participation, has proven to be one of the most significant developments in criminal justice, education, and community building over the past fifty years.

Howard Zehr, widely regarded as the grandfather of restorative justice, articulated the core insight in his landmark 1990 work Changing Lenses: crime is fundamentally a violation of people and relationships, not merely a violation of abstract laws. This understanding, while novel in Western legal contexts, draws deeply from indigenous justice traditions that have practiced relational accountability for millennia — from Navajo peacemaking courts to Maori family group conferences to Ubuntu philosophy in Southern Africa. The evidence base for restorative approaches has grown substantially, with meta-analyses showing significant reductions in recidivism, higher victim satisfaction, and stronger community cohesion compared to conventional justice processes.

The expansion of restorative justice beyond criminal courts into schools, workplaces, and communities reflects a growing recognition that the principles of accountability, repair, and reconnection apply wherever harm occurs. Understanding these principles is essential not only for those working in justice systems but for anyone seeking to build healthier relationships and more resilient communities.

Foundational Framework: Zehr’s Three Pillars

Harms and Needs

The first pillar of restorative justice centers on the recognition that crime and conflict create harms, and that these harms generate needs. Victims need information, truth-telling, empowerment, and restitution — both material and symbolic. Offenders need accountability that addresses the causes of their behavior, skill development, and a pathway back to community. Communities need safety, social cohesion, and confidence that harm will be addressed meaningfully. Zehr’s framework insists that justice processes must attend to all of these needs simultaneously, rather than privileging one stakeholder over others.

This needs-based orientation contrasts sharply with the retributive model, which focuses almost exclusively on the offender — determining guilt and imposing punishment — while leaving victims as mere witnesses to the state’s case and communities as passive spectators. Research consistently shows that victims who participate in restorative processes report higher satisfaction, reduced fear, and fewer symptoms of post-traumatic stress compared to those who go through conventional court proceedings (Strang et al., 2013).

Obligations and Accountability

True accountability in the restorative framework means taking responsibility for the harm caused, understanding its impact on others, and taking concrete steps to repair the damage. This is fundamentally different from passive punishment, where an offender “does time” without necessarily engaging with the consequences of their actions. Restorative accountability requires facing the people one has harmed, hearing their pain, and working actively to make things right.

The obligation to repair harm extends beyond the individual offender to the broader community. Restorative justice recognizes that harmful behavior often emerges from conditions of structural violence — poverty, marginalization, trauma, inadequate support systems. Communities therefore share an obligation to address these root causes, not as an excuse for individual behavior but as a recognition that justice requires systemic as well as interpersonal repair.

Engagement and Participation

The third pillar emphasizes that all stakeholders — victims, offenders, and community members — should have the opportunity to participate directly in the justice process. This participation must be voluntary, informed, and supported. Victims choose whether to engage; offenders must genuinely accept responsibility (not merely plead guilty as a strategic calculation); community members participate as supporters, witnesses, and holders of accountability.

This participatory dimension is what gives restorative justice its transformative power. When people sit in a circle and speak their truth — when a victim describes what it was like to come home to a ransacked house, when an offender explains the desperation that led to theft, when a community elder speaks about what is expected of community members — something happens that no courtroom procedure can replicate. Identities shift. Stereotypes dissolve. Empathy becomes possible.

Circle Processes

Peacemaking Circles

Peacemaking circles, drawing from First Nations traditions — particularly Ojibwe and other Anishinaabe peoples — represent one of the most widely used restorative practices. In a peacemaking circle, participants sit in a circle, and a talking piece is passed sequentially, ensuring that each person has the opportunity to speak without interruption. A circle keeper (not a judge or authority figure) holds the space and guides the process through opening ceremonies, storytelling rounds, consensus-building, and closing.

Kay Pranis, a leading practitioner and theorist, identifies several types of circles: talking circles for building understanding, healing circles for processing grief or trauma, sentencing circles for determining appropriate responses to crime, and celebration circles for honoring achievements and transitions. The circle format creates equality — there is no head of a circle — and the sequential speaking order with a talking piece slows conversation to a pace where deep listening becomes possible.

Sentencing Circles

Sentencing circles emerged in Canadian courts in the early 1990s, most notably through Judge Barry Stuart’s work in the Yukon. In a sentencing circle, the judge, prosecution, defense, victim, offender, and community members all sit together to discuss the offense and determine an appropriate sentence. The sentence typically combines elements of conventional sentencing (supervision, conditions) with restorative elements (restitution, community service, healing programs, cultural reconnection).

Research on sentencing circles in Canadian indigenous communities has shown mixed but promising results. Participants consistently report higher satisfaction with the process, and sentences tend to include more rehabilitative and community-based components. Critics note the potential for power imbalances within circles, particularly in small communities where family dynamics may complicate participation.

Healing Circles

Healing circles focus specifically on processing collective grief, trauma, or loss. These may follow a specific incident — a community tragedy, a school shooting, a natural disaster — or address historical and intergenerational trauma. In indigenous communities, healing circles often incorporate traditional ceremonies, prayers, and cultural practices that ground the healing process in collective spiritual tradition.

Victim-Offender Mediation and Conferencing

Victim-Offender Mediation (VOM)

Victim-offender mediation, also known as victim-offender dialogue, brings victims and offenders together with a trained mediator to discuss the offense, its impact, and what can be done to repair harm. The first formal VOM program began in Kitchener, Ontario in 1974, when a probation officer arranged for two young vandals to meet each of their victims and agree on restitution. This simple innovation spawned a global movement.

Mark Umbreit’s extensive research at the University of Minnesota has documented that VOM participants — both victims and offenders — report significantly higher satisfaction with the justice process compared to those in conventional court proceedings. Victims report reduced fear and anxiety, a greater sense of fairness, and higher rates of receiving agreed-upon restitution. Offenders demonstrate better understanding of the impact of their actions and higher rates of completing restitution agreements.

VOM has been applied successfully even in cases of severe violence, including homicide. In these “crimes of severe violence” dialogues, preparation may take months or years, and facilitators undergo specialized training. The Victim-Offender Mediation Association (VOMA) has developed detailed guidelines for these high-stakes encounters, emphasizing that participation must be entirely voluntary and that the process must be survivor-driven.

Family Group Conferencing

Family group conferencing (FGC) originated in New Zealand through the 1989 Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act, which mandated a restorative approach for youth offending rooted in Maori cultural values, particularly the concept of whānau (extended family). In an FGC, the young person who caused harm, their family/whānau, the victim and their supporters, police, and social workers come together to develop a plan that addresses the harm and supports the young person’s rehabilitation.

The New Zealand model has been adapted worldwide, most notably in Australia (through the Wagga Wagga model developed by police sergeant Terry O’Connell) and in the United States (through the Balanced and Restorative Justice model). Research consistently shows that FGC reduces reoffending rates, increases victim satisfaction, and produces more creative and holistic outcomes than conventional youth court processes (Maxwell & Morris, 2001).

Community Conferencing

Community conferencing expands the circle of participation beyond the immediate victim and offender to include affected community members. The Community Conferencing Center in Baltimore, founded by Lauren Abramson, has developed a model used in schools, neighborhoods, and workplaces. Community conferences address not only the specific incident but the broader relational and contextual factors that contributed to it.

Indigenous Justice Traditions

Navajo Peacemaking

The Navajo Nation’s peacemaking court system (Hózhóójí Naat’aanii) offers perhaps the most fully developed example of indigenous restorative justice operating within a modern legal framework. Navajo peacemaking is rooted in the concept of hózhó — a term that encompasses beauty, harmony, balance, and right relationship with all beings. When harm disrupts hózhó, the peacemaking process brings affected parties together with a naat’aanii (peacemaker) to talk things out, restore relationships, and reestablish harmony.

Unlike Western mediation, Navajo peacemaking draws on traditional narratives, teachings, and ceremonies. The peacemaker is not a neutral facilitator but an active teacher who uses traditional stories to help participants understand their situation and find resolution. The process addresses relationships, not just incidents, and outcomes are measured by the restoration of hózhó rather than the imposition of consequences.

Maori Traditions and Whānau Conference

Maori justice traditions emphasize collective responsibility, shame as a mechanism of social regulation, and the restoration of mana (spiritual power/prestige) that is diminished when harm occurs. The marae (meeting house) serves as a sacred space where justice processes unfold, and tikanga (customary practices) guide every aspect of the encounter. The institutionalization of these values in New Zealand’s youth justice system through family group conferencing represents one of the most successful examples of indigenous justice principles informing state policy.

Ubuntu Philosophy

The Southern African concept of Ubuntu — “I am because we are” — provided the philosophical foundation for South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Ubuntu emphasizes the fundamental interconnectedness of human beings and locates individual identity within the web of communal relationships. Justice, in the Ubuntu framework, cannot be achieved through isolation and punishment; it requires the restoration of broken relationships and the reintegration of the individual into the community.

School-Based Restorative Practices

From Zero Tolerance to Restorative Schools

The adoption of restorative practices in schools represents one of the most promising applications of restorative justice principles. Schools using restorative approaches have documented significant reductions in suspensions, expulsions, and disciplinary referrals — disparities that disproportionately affect students of color and students with disabilities. The International Institute for Restorative Practices (IIRP) has developed a continuum of restorative practices for schools ranging from informal (affective statements, restorative questions) to formal (restorative conferences, circles).

Research from Oakland Unified School District, Denver Public Schools, and numerous other jurisdictions shows that restorative practices can reduce suspension rates by 40-60% while improving school climate, academic engagement, and student-teacher relationships (Gonzalez, 2015). Critically, these approaches address the racial disparities in school discipline that the zero-tolerance approach exacerbated.

Daily Restorative Practices

Effective restorative schools don’t just use circles and conferences after harm occurs — they build relational culture proactively. Daily community circles, restorative check-ins, peer mediation programs, and explicit social-emotional learning curricula create the relational foundation that makes restorative responses to harm possible. When students and teachers already have strong relationships and practiced communication skills, addressing conflicts restoratively becomes natural rather than exceptional.

Evidence for Recidivism Reduction

The evidence base for restorative justice has matured significantly over the past two decades. Lawrence Sherman and Heather Strang’s comprehensive meta-analysis of restorative justice conferencing found consistent reductions in repeat offending across multiple jurisdictions and offense types, with the strongest effects for violent offenses. The RISE (Reintegrative Shaming Experiments) project in Canberra, Australia — one of the few large-scale randomized controlled trials of restorative justice — found that conferences reduced recidivism by approximately 15-20% compared to conventional court processing (Sherman et al., 2015).

A 2019 RAND Corporation review found that restorative justice programs were associated with significant reductions in recidivism, improved victim satisfaction, and cost savings compared to conventional justice processes. The Smith Institute’s analysis in the UK estimated that for every pound spent on restorative justice, the criminal justice system saved approximately nine pounds through reduced reoffending and reduced use of incarceration.

Clinical/Practical Applications

Restorative justice principles can be applied across virtually any context where harm occurs. In healthcare settings, restorative approaches to medical errors — including transparent disclosure, genuine apology, and fair compensation — have been shown to reduce malpractice litigation while improving patient outcomes. In workplaces, restorative practices address harassment, discrimination, and interpersonal conflict more effectively than purely punitive HR processes. In families, restorative principles guide therapeutic approaches to domestic violence (with careful attention to power dynamics and safety) and family conflict.

Practitioners emphasize that restorative justice is not a “soft” option — it requires offenders to face the people they have harmed, take genuine responsibility, and make tangible amends. Many participants report that restorative processes are more demanding than conventional punishment precisely because they require authentic engagement rather than passive compliance.

Four Directions Integration

• Serpent (Physical/Body): Restorative justice addresses the physical dimension of harm — bodily injury, property damage, disrupted sleep, stress-related illness — through concrete restitution and repair. Circle processes engage the body through sitting together in physical proximity, the tactile experience of holding a talking piece, and the somatic regulation that occurs through being witnessed and held by community.

• Jaguar (Emotional/Heart): The emotional core of restorative justice is empathy — the capacity to feel into another’s experience. Victims express anger, fear, grief, and bewilderment; offenders may feel shame, remorse, and their own unresolved pain. The restorative process creates a container strong enough to hold these powerful emotions without being destroyed by them. The transformation occurs when empathy flows in multiple directions.

• Hummingbird (Soul/Mind): Restorative justice engages the soul through meaning-making — helping participants understand why harm happened, what it reveals about broken relationships and unmet needs, and how the story of harm can be re-authored into a story of healing and transformation. The narrative dimension of restorative justice — the telling and retelling of stories — is soul work.

• Eagle (Spirit): At its deepest level, restorative justice is a spiritual practice — a lived expression of interconnectedness, of Ubuntu, of the recognition that no one is disposable and every person’s humanity includes the capacity for both harm and healing. Indigenous traditions that ground restorative justice in ceremony, prayer, and cosmological understanding point to this spiritual dimension explicitly.

Cross-Disciplinary Connections

Restorative justice connects to trauma-informed care (understanding that both victims and offenders may be carrying trauma), somatic experiencing (the body’s role in processing harm and healing), community psychology (systems-level analysis of harm and repair), moral development theory (Kohlberg, Gilligan), attachment theory (harm as attachment disruption), neuroscience of empathy and moral reasoning, peace studies, conflict transformation, Indigenous studies, and liberation theology. The movement also intersects with abolition philosophy and transformative justice frameworks that address the structural conditions producing harm.

Key Takeaways

• Restorative justice asks who was harmed and what they need, rather than what law was broken and what punishment is deserved
• Howard Zehr’s three pillars — harms and needs, obligations and accountability, engagement and participation — provide the foundational framework
• Circle processes, victim-offender mediation, and family group conferencing are the primary restorative practices, each with extensive evidence bases
• Indigenous justice traditions — Navajo peacemaking, Maori whānau processes, Ubuntu philosophy — are the ancestral roots of modern restorative justice
• School-based restorative practices reduce suspensions by 40-60% while addressing racial discipline disparities
• Meta-analyses consistently show 15-20% reductions in recidivism compared to conventional court processing
• Restorative justice is not “soft” — it demands genuine accountability, face-to-face engagement, and concrete repair

References and Further Reading

• Zehr, H. (1990). Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice. Herald Press.
• Zehr, H. (2002). The Little Book of Restorative Justice. Good Books.
• Pranis, K. (2005). The Little Book of Circle Processes. Good Books.
• Umbreit, M. S., Vos, B., Coates, R. B., & Lightfoot, E. (2005). Restorative justice in the twenty-first century: A social movement full of opportunities and pitfalls. Marquette Law Review, 89, 251-304.
• Sherman, L. W., Strang, H., Mayo-Wilson, E., Woods, D., & Ariel, B. (2015). Are restorative justice conferences effective in reducing repeat offending? Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31(1), 1-24.
• Strang, H., Sherman, L. W., Angel, C. M., et al. (2013). Restorative justice conferencing (RJC) using face-to-face meetings of offenders and victims. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 9(1), 1-59.
• Maxwell, G., & Morris, A. (2001). Family group conferencing and reoffending. In A. Morris & G. Maxwell (Eds.), Restorative Justice for Juveniles. Hart Publishing.
• Gonzalez, T. (2015). Socializing schools: Addressing racial disparities in discipline through restorative justice. In D. Losen (Ed.), Closing the School Discipline Gap. Teachers College Press.
• Bluehouse, P., & Zion, J. W. (1993). Hózhóójí Naat’aanii: The Navajo justice and harmony ceremony. Mediation Quarterly, 10(4), 327-337.