Anger Management and Restorative Justice

What is Restorative Justice?

Restorative justice (RJ) is an approach to dealing with offending that focuses on repairing the harm caused to victims, communities, and relationships, rather than simply punishing the offender. It brings together offenders, victims, and — where appropriate — community representatives in a structured process of dialogue, reflection, and agreed action. The philosophical basis shifts from retribution (what punishment does the offender deserve?) to restoration (what can be done to repair the harm?).

Key Forms of Restorative Justice

• Victim-offender mediation: direct or indirect dialogue between the victim and offender, facilitated by a trained mediator. The offender hears first-hand how their actions affected the victim; the victim may receive answers to questions and a direct apology.
• Community conferencing: a wider group is convened — including family members, supporters, and community stakeholders — to discuss the offence, its impact, and what should happen next.
• Circles of support and accountability: trained community volunteers provide ongoing support and accountability for high-risk offenders (notably sex offenders) after release, reducing isolation and supporting reintegration.

In all forms, participation is voluntary for both offender and victim. An agreed outcome — which may include an apology, reparation (practical or financial), community service, or a behaviour change plan — is produced by the process rather than imposed by the court.

Research Evidence

Sherman and Strang (2007)

Sherman and Strang conducted a large systematic review of restorative justice programmes internationally. They found that RJ produced lower recidivism in several contexts compared to conventional sentencing, and — most consistently — significantly higher victim satisfaction. Victims who participated in RJ reported feeling more fairly treated, more satisfied with the outcome, and less fearful of revictimisation than those who went through traditional court processes.

Shapland et al. (2008)

In a UK Ministry of Justice-funded study, Shapland et al. evaluated seven RJ schemes across England. They found that offenders who participated in RJ had a 27% lower frequency of reoffending compared to matched controls who received conventional sentencing. The effect was consistent across crime types. The study also reported significant cost savings when reduced reoffending was factored into criminal justice costs.

Strang et al. (2013)

Strang et al. conducted a meta-analysis of RJ studies and found a significant overall reduction in reoffending associated with RJ participation, alongside consistently higher victim satisfaction. Effects were particularly pronounced for violent crime, where face-to-face RJ showed stronger results than for property crime.

Evaluation

Victim-centred strengths: RJ explicitly addresses the needs of victims — a group largely marginalised by the conventional criminal justice process. High victim satisfaction rates (Sherman & Strang, 2007; Strang et al., 2013) are a consistent and robust finding. Victims report closure and reduced fear.

Limitations: RJ is not appropriate for all offences. For serious violence or sexual assault, requiring a victim to meet their offender carries significant retraumatisation risk and may be experienced as revictimisation if handled poorly. RJ requires voluntary participation from both parties, limiting its reach. Effectiveness varies by crime type — Strang et al. (2013) note stronger effects for violence than property crime, but not all reviews agree. Public and political perception that RJ is 'soft on crime' creates resistance to its widespread adoption. Training mediators to an adequate standard is resource-intensive.

Comparison with custody: MoJ data show 48% recidivism within one year of release from custody; Shapland et al.'s 27% reduction suggests RJ substantially outperforms custody as a rehabilitative intervention for many offenders. However, RJ does not fulfil the retributive or incapacitation aims of sentencing and is unlikely to replace custody for serious offences.