Restorative Justice was widely introduced into the United States through the criminal legal system. While none of these researchers critique the framework, tenets, and practices of Restorative Justice itself, there are critiques of data collection and colonization of the Indigenous practices.

Tauri (2014) states that since the 1970s, many White folx have taken Restorative Practices and not fully and correctly articulated this historical significance when using them, basically colonizing the practices. These same White folx have also used Restorative Practices in systemically racist environments. These systems, such as the criminal legal and education, continue to harm and punish folx. Restorative Practices traditionally have been used in response to harm, not a proactive measure to prevent it.

Takagi and Shank note that much of the data is lacking “since the offenders and probation officers are seldomly assigned to the experiential and control groups” (2004, p.161).

I am a Restorative Practices Program Specialist for a mid-sized suburban school district on the West Coast. I have found that most teachers and administrators want to use restorative practices for students with Tier 3 needs. Mika et al. (2004) note that community is one of the essential principles of Restorative Justice because there needs to be a community connection to repair.

Tiered Restorative Practices

References:

Mika, H., Achilles, M., Halbert, E., Amstutz, L., & Zehr, H. (2004). Listening to victims: A critique of restorative justice policy and practice in the United States. FEDERAL PROBATION, 68(1), 32.

Takagi, P., & Shank, G. (2004). Critique of Restorative Justice. Social Justice, 31(3 (97)), 147–163.

Tauri, J. (2014). An Indigenous Commentary on the globalisation of Restorative Justice. British Journal of Community Justice, 12(2), 35–55.