VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERSCRIME, COLONISATION AND COMMUNITIES
Dr. Brian Steels

I. INTRODUCTION
1 and that desistance from crime occurs
With the knowledge that crime can be viewed as ʻ
relationalʼ
away from the criminal justice system2 inclusive of police,courts,prisons,parole and the judiciarymay
be able to improve both process and outcomes by using a variety of restorative justice approaches3.So
too, as M aruna and Immarigeon4 suggest “the major correlates of desistance from crime identified inresearch
involve ongoing,interactive relationships that can take up most of an individualʼ
s wakinglife”.Furthermore,it is noted that relationships developed and supported during restorative encountersand circles are crucial to enable desistance from crime.5

It is also important that discussion takes place around the policies that drive the overuse of thepenal estate in many countries of the region,most notably Australia.Communities have been made nosafer and victimization has failed to be reduced by the building of more prisons and yet policy makers
and politicians view these institutions as the quick fix for many unspoken social ills. If the regionʼscriminal justice systems were to be judged on producing fair and just processes and outcomes, as
experienced by victims and perpetrators and respectful of all human rights,they would most likely befound wanting in both ethics and in their breach of rules regarding integrity.Sadly these self-propelledjuggernauts increase the size of their own bureaucracies out of all proportion to the benefits that they
provide to victims, the community and those who commit harm.
With British colonisation of the Indian continent,Singapore,Burma,Australia,and New Zealand,came the importation of the British legal system with its accompanying public service and burgeoning
bureaucracy. Embedded within this were the assumptions about education, race, crime, property andpower as well as the argument to suggest the superiority of the Western way of life. A frontier
6
mentality challenged Robert Peelʼs notion that “
the police are the public and the public are the police”
slowly transforming a community based service into a paramilitary operation.In turn the ready-madejustice system,driven by self-serving bureaucracies,protected the new landowners,business developers
and industries,ensuring the removal of local populations,especially indigenous peoples throughout theregion,from land and full citizenship.However,this colonization was not only a British move,but one
used for commerce and trade by Dutch, French and Spanish interests who, like their British counterparts,used military force and European systems of law and justice to hold onto land and maintain theexcesses of power.Todayʼs colonizer could be seen as the US,with tentacles of its own brand of justiceexported through literature, commerce, media and politics.
It is within this set of assumptions that todayʼs criminal justice systems are developing, often
imposed throughout the jurisdictions of the region as law and order policies by powerful lobby groups,
politicians and their civil service.Growth in the fear industry creates the conditions for high incarceration rates and more policing, more criminal acts legislated and more charges laid. With an array of
bureaucratic measures that slowly but surely became self-serving a growth industry was born aroundCo-authored with Dr. Dot Goulding.
1Burnside & Baker 1994;Braithwaite 1989.
2Farrall 1995.
3Goulding & Steels 2006.
4M aruna and Immarigeon 2004.
5Goulding and Steels 2006.
6Nazemi 2009.

33

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 93
punishment and incarceration. It is the marginalised, poor and oppressed who are always the first to
be dispossessed and incarcerated,a move that continues today,almost ensuring the removal of people
from their lands to prison cells. M any of the assumptions held during the early years of occupation
throughout the region have found comfort today within bureaucracies and leading political parties.
Among the most obvious are the notions that “once a criminal,always a criminal”and referring to all
people seen as “
the other”with taunts of “
you canʼt trust any of them”.
Although independence and self-government has arrived across most ofthe region,Western assumptions about law and order had already permeated the criminal justice systems of many nations
throughout Asia. These assumptions about crime, society, community and family challenged ways oflife and philosophies of many regional states particularly where Eastern philosophy was held in highregard.An examination of past practices from around the world clearly shows that “both violence andpeacemaking have shaped the overall human experience.In short,human beings are often,at one timeor another, both conquered and conquerors”.7 This binary state of peace and violence is the “starting
point for many nations and communities as they try to live in global peace and harmony
this is abalance not always peacefully achieved”. Furthermore, as the authors note from several developing
projects,notions of reparation and healing of the environment as well as the harm done to others,takes
shape through the broadening of restorative notions and peace-making principles that address thetotality of human activity,relationships and interconnectedness.It is here that we are able to bring into
focus a glimpse across borders, cultures and national concerns and link RJ (Restorative Justice)with
better compliance to rules, fairness in process and just outcomes within diverse cultural contexts.
Western notions of criminal mediation are vastly different to the local Panchayat focus in an Indianvillage or the gatherings of the Pukhtoon Jirga in Afghanistan.
An example of the remnants of the colonial past can still be found in India where reform of its
criminal justice system is crucial to ensure timeliness,fairness and equitable access to legal recourse.
This requires a move from its bureaucratic overburden of red tape and incompetence to responding to
the needs of local people wishing to experience fair process and just outcomes.Within the Buddhist and
Hindu traditions harmony and balance between nature and human activity was sought,informing waysof dealing with rule breaking. Today the Indian criminal justice system fails most litigants as thesystem sinks under the huge demands made upon it to deal with small and localised disputes.It is withinAsiaʼ
s largest democracy that corrupt practices exist and where according to Thilagaraj8 police are“known to extort money at every step”and where tasks are “quite often neglected outright”. The
Indian experience for both victim and offender is often dependent upon status,power and wealth.Quah9
suggests that “corruption results from the combined effect of ample opportunities,low salaries,and thelow possibility of detection and punishment for corrupt behavior”, arguing that this is not a problem
in Japan,Singapore and Hong Kong where corruption is seen as being of high risk and low reward.To
ensure that fair and just processes occur in Indian everyday life a cultural shift has to occur acrosssociety towards restorative and therapeutic practices that can be afforded to everyone living within asociety that is socially aware and just. Privilege, position, power and prestige all too often hold thehallmark of corruption.
That said,the authors note that throughout the region Confucian legal tradition has been noted as
being mostly secular and unofficial, informed by the notion of being harmonious and interconnected
between the human and natural universe where “
ideal harmonious human-society relationships andharmonious human-nature relationships were sought”.10 The conflict between Western legal systems
and the many local jurisdictionsʼways of dealing with legitimacy,compliance and law breaking is now
at a crucial point in the early stages of the 21st century. It is within this contested space where thevalues and practices of restorative justice can be found as commonplace among local people who
recognise crime as belonging to them, or within a government controlled space that forms part offormalized procedures and highly regulated and dominating services where legitimacy is often inquestion and fairness is decreed by the state.
7Steels & Goulding 2012.
8Thilagaraj 2013:201.
9 Quah 2013:31.
10 Lui and Palermo, 2009:52.

34

156TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEM INAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
Hope for change is in the air as communities throughout India and the sub-continent as well as inJapan,Taiwan,China and Indonesia begin to demand fair practices and processes to address the needsof those harmed by perpetrators as well as by lawyers who often try to avoid the full weight of the law
being applied. So it is that hope for a better future lies within each family, community and nation as
they turn to restorative practices across all harm-making from the micro aspect of individuals to themacro aspect of nation building, peacemaking and truth and reconciliation commissions.

II. RESTORATIVE PRACTICES THROUGH THE CRACKS AND
THROUGHOUT THE REGION
The ultimate aim of reducing victimisation and violence,increasing trust in the common good andencouraging support for the social contract can be achieved through the development of new pathways
throughout the region. Restorative justice can and should be viewed as a positive response to combat
crime,anti-social activities and war as these are all behaviours that bring harm to others.RJ can also
be viewed as a crucial tool for the region where local, cultural and gender appropriate practices are
required as the norm in order to foster healing and promote responsibility taking. However, let us
examine the benefits of RJ as seen by Lord M cNally11 who confirmed his support for RJ, stating:
I am an ardent supporter of the principles of restorative justice.It offers an opportunity not only
to assist the rehabilitation of offenders but to give victims a greater stake in the resolution of
offences and in the criminal justice system as a whole. Victim-led restorative justice can allow
us to make inroads into the re-offending cycle, with the triple benefit of victims avoiding thetrauma of future crimes,the tax payer not having to foot the bill ofmore crime,and a rehabilitated offender making a positive contribution to society.
In his address M cNally speaks of “the evidence for the effectiveness of restorative justice”andreferred to his departmentʼ
s analysis of several restorative justice pilots that showed “
85% of victims
who participated were satisfied with the experience and there was an estimated 14% reduction in reoffending”.These results urged him to reaffirm that the government is “
therefore committed to making
use of restorative justice in more areas,and in more circumstances across the criminal justice system”.
Indeed, others have argued that restorative justice is best located within local culture, communities,
customary laws and by-laws12. It has to be responsive to local crime and re-offending through unique
responses.It needs to be driven bythe voices ofthose people harmed as well as those taking responsibility for their actions together with communities and practitioners, academics and respected local
people.13 RJ is all about process and can be considered a participatoryprocess ofhealing that can occur
inside or outside of the criminal justice system. The authors also note the contention that “
the major
correlates of desistance from crime identified in research
involve ongoing,interactive relationshipsthat can take up most of an individualʼ
s waking life”.14 Farrall15 also found that, in general terms,“
desistance occurs away from the criminal justice system”.
In short,social relationships are central to restoring justice both for victims and offenders especiallywhen crime is viewed as a fracture of relationships within a community. This can also be applied tosustainable practices that work best when conducted at grass roots levels by participatory methods
that are centred on relationships and interconnection with others. However, the authors note that
restorative justice often enters the scene through cracks in rigid processes involving state police andprosecution and judiciaries no longer willing to abandon human rights and social justice.It is usually
the cry for fairness and tears of shame that have allowed the light to enter.Although it was never going
to be an easy task to empower victims of crime,make rehabilitation effective and offer an alternative
to all parties.

11 Lord M cNally,British Peer and Parliamentarian,M inister of State for Justice(UK),in his 2012 address to the AllParty

Parliamentary Penal Affairs Group AGM .
12 Steels 2007;Goulding & Steels 2006;Bevan et al. 2005.
13 Steels, Goulding & Abbott 2013.
14 M aruna and Immarigeon 2004:6.
15 Farrall 1995:23.

35

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 93
The status quo with its expansion policies driven by the mantra of tough on crime see these failed
systems as a result of a lack of discipline and social order within the community as well as from within
their own ranks.Blame is laid at the foot ofthe marginalised,poor and oppressed as these systems deny
the evidence that continually highlights ineffective practice.Such criminal justice institutions are lessable to provide a process that is experienced as fair and just whilst they continue to ensure that every
crime is exposed throughout the communities as an act against the state.The argument here is that ingeneral terms restorative justice offers victims,offenders and the community a participatory process,one not generally experienced within traditional criminal justice sanctioning.A working definition by
Cormier (2002)defines restorative justice as:
An approach to justice that focuses on repairing the harm caused by crime while holding theoffender responsible for his or her actions, by providing an opportunity for the parties directly
affected by a crime ― victim［s］,offender and community― to identify and address their needsin the aftermath of a crime,and seek a resolution that affords healing,reparation and reintegration, and prevents future harm.
It has been noted previously16 that the Asia Pacific regions hold the worldʼ
s largest populations,
namely China (1.3 billion) and India (1.1 billion) along with Pakistan and Indonesia. These regions
encompass many diverse cultures and belief systems within a matrix of relationships from Buddhism
with its Four Noble truths,the respectful Shinto temples,the simplicity and complexity of Zen,throughto the mystics of India and the Teaching of the Gita.There are also the teachings of the Quran among
the worldʼ
s most populated Muslim country and the words of the Old and New Testaments ofChristianity as well as the teachings of the Torah. The authors also note that the regions include
ancient Confucianism with its philosophyofrestoring harmonytogether with Taoism and the perpetualneed for balance.All of these belief systems exist within nation states that can “
display the politics
of nationalism, communism, capitalism, juntas, democratic governments and dictatorships”.17 The
authors argue that within such cultural diversity it is still possible to find common ground around bothrestorative justice as well as its relationship to ecological sustainability and the reduction of harm to
the planet.For example,the global ability to help others in times of anguish and disaster that crosses
national boundaries and the protocols that relate to a global reduction on greenhouse gases and global
warming.Trying to keep a balance between yin and yang in the maintenance of harmony impacts upon
the young as well as the elderly and knows no limits. Bloodlines can stretch far across land and seas
and it is these interconnections that highlight the many ancient traditions working together withmodern practices and ambitions of restoring peace, harmony and justice. They bring into the 21stCentury the Asian Pacific practices of harmony and peace with the self, among others, within local
villages, small communities and peaceful co-existence between nations.
Restorative Justice has played a role historically in one form or another in China. RJ has now
developed along with the emergence of principles and standards,especially as the process within somejurisdictions has moved into schools, nursing homes, prisons, rehabilitation centres and other institutions.18 A note of caution is registered here as Braithwaite19 raises the concern that standardization canmean a progression of moves that leads the state to maintain control over a restorative process thathas been produced to empower citizens.The authors suggest that these concerns are real and evident.
However,as practices are established among villages and local communities the hand of the state will
hopefully be one of support rather than control,with a balance to ensure fairness and just outcomes are
not motivated by fear but a willingness to engage freely.
Restorative practices along with responsibility taking have also moved from a purely
criminological focus among individuals to include a focus on a nationʼ
s responsibility to its people,
including environmental concerns that impact on quality of life throughout the region. Harm is often
now redefined across borders as nations begin to cooperate to reduce harm among people,species andthe planet. In addition, victim driven policies are fast becoming commonplace where restitution and
16 Steels & Goulding 2013.
17 Steels & Goulding 2013.
18 M axwell 2007;Newell 2007;Braithwaite 2002;Bazemore & Schiff 2005;van Ness, 2003;Zehr 2002;1990.
19 Braithwaite 2002.

36

156TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEM INAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
reparation are expressed as concerns for victims and the communities harmed by crime.20 Though RJ
practices are among new initiatives for dealing with various types ofoffending in manycountries,there
has been a paucity of evidence-based documentation and evaluation of the actual grass roots use of RJ
practices in mainland China.

III. THE REGION
M ediation (tiaojie)has been practiced as a central principle of social control throughout the Greater
Chinese region and has been referred to as being similar to some of the more fundamental restorative
practices in outcome and process.RJ (hufuxing xifa)is noted by several authors21 as more of a Western
style approach to crime,specific to a more traditional Chinese form of social control.Mok and Wong22
agree with others23 that current restorative practices and regimes are replacing many of the traditional
mediation practices across several areas of China. Again, according to Wong and Mok24 the term
restorative justice (hufuxing xifa)has attracted attention from practitioners and scholars since early
2000.25 However, in most jurisdictions the discourse has continued to show a narrow focus.Generally
speaking, the main focus of RJ has been on juvenile crime, specifically on young, first time offendersof petty criminal activity. Such a narrow view of RJ has discriminated against the many victims ofserious crime by adult offenders by denying victims the opportunity to engage in restorative processes.
In addition,the authors argue that the use of RJ in combination with therapeutic outcomes as well as
its use within penal institutions is the way forward to effectively reducing reoffending and revictimisation.26 The prevailing narrow focus on youth and less serious crimes is seen as problematic.
On the other hand,the authors note several ad hoc examples ofvisionaryand progressive practices.For
example,on a recent visit to India the authors were privileged to see,within one of Indiaʼ
s largest andmost populous prisons,a move towards an environmentallysustainable and healing environment where
the linking of harm to self,others,communities and the planet demonstrated a truly holistic interconnectedness.
In this paper we examine across jurisdictions and national borders how to best transform individuals from convicted persons into people who comply with the social and legal demands surrounding
them as citizens, and how best to have people harmed by crime move to reclaim their identify, often
damaged by crime. The authors note that throughout the region informal as well as formal ways ofdealing with wrongdoing are used. It is in Japan that we see the practice of Ji-dan that has a long
tradition of use as a means of conflict resolution. In contemporary Japan Ji-dan remains as a usefulprocess of negotiation between family members and others as a way to resolve a dispute between two
or more parties.It may mean that no direct face to face meetings will occur but that family or trusted
others will negotiate for a fair and just outcome that will save face and restore harmonious relationships. However, it is pertinent to note that Japanese social organization and cultural practices arecentral to the success of Ji-dan. As Komiya27 points out:
As Japanese have obtained a sense of security by integrating themselves with groups,they had
no choice but to strictly adhere to countless rules for group cohesiveness. In this process, theJapanese have become a patient and orderly people,and have successfully elevated their level ofself-control.
Certainly, we can agree that such elevated levels of self-control as seen in Japan are not apparent
within contemporary Australian society where individual rights continue to subsume notions of thecommon good as a societal and cultural norm. However, we note Kittayarakʼs28 remarks that we“have to be mindful that restorative justice is an evolving concept and there is no definite formula
20 Harris, 2008;Johnstone & Van Wormer, 2008;van Ness, 2007.
21 Leng 2011;Li 2010.
22 M ok and Wong 2013.
23 Zhang, 2013;Wong & Lo 2011.
24 Wong and Mok 2010.
25 Ibid.
26 Goulding & Steels 2013.
27 Komiya 2011:132/133.
28 Kittayarak 2005.

37

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 93
of success
Each country has to find its own recipe which properly balances the conventional roleof criminal justice with this new concept so as to be able to come up with a better way to ensure justiceto all”. The same can be applied to sustainable practices emerging alongside RJ within the notion of
reducing harm. An element of caution should be noted here as all restorative practices and solutions
ought to aim to be compliant with a set of standards as outlined by Braithwaite,29 always cognizant of
human rights.
The discussion is now focused on how the people of the region, including Japan, China, Taiwan,
Indonesia,India and Australia as well as other regional players can take some control over their local
criminal justice systems and their environments whilst power remains invested in the state.Pertinently,
many of these nation states have already established RJ legislation in place and yet do not always
adhere to the basic principles.As Pranis30 suggests,when a community can “
draw on and trust its own
inner resources to discover the validity of a new paradigm,the community is liberated from bondage
from old embedded, fixated ways of being in the world”. It becomes clear that regardless of local
policies and the political ambitions of a few,the community is then,according to Pranis31 “able toembrace the creativity of chaos,the possibility of dreams”.It is from this perspective that she suggests
people are then “empowered to imagine new ways of being, to problem solve on a deep level”.
M eanwhile New Zealandʼs Judge McElrae32 suggests that the criminal justice system will be able to“deliver justice for all, not just for defendants, and that the courts will be left to get on with thejob of judging according to the law and applying principles of respect and compassion for all”.Further
he claims that33
restorative justice offers a quite different view of victimsʼinterests,one that is not necessarily opposed to that of offenders ― and can produce“win-win”outcomes.They are actually what
is aimed at every time.If the Courts could more consistently show that victimsʼinterests can becatered for in meaningful ways (not token ways like victim impact statements), and that theirneeds are better addressed in this way, much of the pressure for tougher sentences would fallaway.
Freiberg34 provides insight to the holistic model when he describes restorative justice joined toproblem-oriented approaches:
The astonishing expansion of restorative justice programs around the world,even in the absenceof solid evidence about their effect on recidivism,indicates that their true appeal is not necessarily utilitarian but symbolic:process is paramount. When this insight is joined with a problemoriented approach which devotes court and service resources to deal with underlying
criminogenic causes, it can provide a powerful alternative to the sterile, costly and ultimately
counter-productive punitive approaches which have resulted in dispirited court and correctional
officers and bursting gaols.
Alternatively, Kittayarak35 claims that the future for restorative practices in the region is only
going to be as good as services allow it to be. There will always be a need for policing and court
services with a separation of the legislators and judiciary,quality prosecution and exemplary lawyers,
and we are all aware of the question mark hanging over much of current practice throughout theregion.We should also be aware that in some instances long court lists,delays in claims for reparationand the marginalization from justice for the marginalized and powerless ensure that many people
currently do not experience fair treatment or just outcomes. However the authors contend thattransformation is occurring, mostly due to the call for change from the grass roots where the impact
29 Braithwaite 2002.
30 Pranis 2010:4.
31 Ibid.
32 Judge McElrae 2010:3.
33 Judge McRae 2010:2.
34 Freiberg 2001:9.
35 Kittayarak 2005.

38

156TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEM INAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
or war,conflict and crime requires people to engage at local levels where solutions can inspire personaland community transformation, reduce harm among families as well as communities and acrossborders. Social and cultural change is often driven by local people immersed in the aftermath of
conflicts and crime, policy makers and politicians signing up to international agreements and neighbouring states showing that restorative practices can reduce the strain on the courts whilst offering
procedures that are fair,timely and healing.For the region,restorative justice offers a very important
opportunity to invest in procedural fairness with outcomes that are socially just. It is within the vast
bureaucracies of India and China that we see glimmers of hope as current situations are no longer
tolerable for both the leadership or for the local people. As Van Wormer36 points out, the traditional
Chinese emphasis is on “
harmonybetween persons and on the unityofhumanitywith nature.Influenced
by Confucian communitarian ideology,the Chinese criminal justice system relies on grassroots committees to provide social control and to resolve conflict”.
Villages and other small communities can participate in empowerment strategies and working forthe common good as they engage in social justice,community education and an awareness of restorative benefits. They can turn to restorative justice practices to heal many conflicts including theaftermath of interpersonal and relational crime, communal violence, public disorder and grievances.
This may lead to a sense of purpose for individuals and communities seeking out solutions that assist
in building the communityʼ
s capacity to create harmony whilst reducing crime and anti-social behaviours. Being valued by leadership and having leadership value its citizens will also bring about thetransformation of the region. Tylerʼ
s37 argument supports this:People value affirmation of their status by legal authorities as competent, equal citizens andhuman beings,and they regard procedures as unfair if they are not consistent with that affirmation. To understand the effects of dignity, it is important to recognise that government has animportant role in defining peopleʼ
s view about their value in society. Such a self-evaluation
shapes oneʼs feelings of security and self-respect.
Tylerʼ
s words link the actions of procedural fairness and just outcomes as found within restorative
practices with security and self-respect. They also relate to other practices such as sustainability asmuch as restorative solutions, giving hope to the idea that collectively the region can lead the worldin embracing restorative solutions to relationships between people as well as how we relate to ourenvironment, our communities, other species and the planet.

IV. VICTIMS OF CRIME
Victims of crime, war and community violence are often the unheard voices during the aftermathof such harmful events yet RJ often appears to focus on those who do the harm.Whilst the rehabilitation of perpetrators of crime is crucial for community safety so too is the care of victims. Victim
participation in the aftermath of crime is however clearly identified by various bodies.38 These
documents continue to encourage jurisdictions to provide a broad interpretation. They also set thescene to allow and encourage the voice of victims in various guises.Today we ask that consideration
be given by governments to encourage victim driven RJ practices. Victim driven processes allow
victims to request an encounter with their perpetrator at a date,time and place to suit them in a processof their choice. Such a process would seek to find out how best to encourage and develop RJ into ameaningful and empowering exercise of choice for victims albeit with the supports necessary to ensure
safety, recovery and a full return to community participation.
UN Standards call for the support of victims of war, terrorism and crime. The Rwandan experiences following its civil war demonstrates that victims of crime together with the perpetrators can act
in a fair and just way following conflict. Gacaca is the system of community justice used throughout
36 Van Wormer 2008:3.
37 Tyler 1996:10.
38 Council Framework Decision of the European Union (2001/220/HA);the United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles

of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power (1985);the Council of Europe Recommendations for Victims of Crime(R (85)11).

39

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 93
villages in Rwanda. Rules are few and processes clear whereby all parties listen to each other andaccept the groupʼs decision following apology,restitution and compensation.It is among these village
gatherings where victims find resolution and empowerment as well as having their voices heard.
Sadly,this is not true of all jurisdictions throughout the region.For instance,in Western Australia(WA)victims are only able to participate in an RJ process under the terms set out by the legislatorsand then only with juvenile first time offenders.Victims of repeat offenders and/or adult offenders are
denied the opportunity to meet and participate in restorative processes.The Juvenile Justice Teams area bureaucratic response to restorative justice within the Juvenile Justice legislation but this pseudo
restorative programme fails to answer the needs of victims of crime.And so it is with victims of adultoffenders, as these victims canʼt engage in any restorative process apart from a victim impact statement.For the most part these victims are captured as the witness,a role with limited voice and one thatis unable to transform into participant of a restorative encounter.This is especially true for Indigenous
women,as victimsʼservices are often unavailable outside ofthe major cities and where violence against
women is commonplace. Whilst there have been many calls for restorative justice to be offered as a
response to crime in WA, apart from a successful pilot project,little has been done to ensure that all
victims of crime have an opportunity to participate in a process of their choice.
According to Edwards39 there are four styles or practices whereby a victim of crime can participate
in restorative justice processes. Edwards sees the first as control. This is the most empowering stylethat enables victims to lead the process and make a choice of method of participation.Victimsʼneeds
are catered for with the choice of practice and style of facilitator or mediator at a particular place tomeet and at a time to suit the victim rather than the prosecution and court.The implication here is thatthe criminal justice system will provide for the victimʼ
s preferences.The obligation is on the authorities
to make this happen,an issue that is often raised as criminal justice systems around the region continue
to have few options available. Innovation has to be found within the bureaucratic and legalistic
processes for this to occur. The second style that Edwards suggests is that of consultation whereby
authorities are obligated to find out what the victim wants in terms ofavailable participation processes
and for the system to act accordingly.This consultation often means that the system remains in control
and can only invite the victim to participate in what is already in place. The third style is throughinformation provision whereby victims are obliged to supplyanyinformation that theymayhave to thepolice and prosecution whilst being used as the “body witness”, the “body specimen”or the “bodydamaged”. Edwardʼ
s fourth style is expression whereby victims can express their wishes but theauthorities may or may not act on them.Edwardsʼcontinuum from empowered to controlled can be auseful additional tool in the evaluation of services and together with Braithwaiteʼ
s Standards40 are able
to provide an insight into the degree of participation and values associated with victims of crime.

V. PROCEDURES AND STANDARDSBraithwaite41 argues that throughout human history “restorative justice has been the dominantmodel of criminal justice”. Bottoms42 on the other hand, suggested that threats, punishment andcoercion were the order of the day for settling disputes in pre-modern societies. The authors suggest
instead that a degree of restoration and restitution may have existed as a notion of the common good.
These notions of justice are woven through the social connections between communities,families andkin,holding together the values that lend themselves to the larger social and moral order.Tyler43 andhis work around Restorative Justice and Procedural Justice sees a major link between social compliance, rule breaking and restorative processes. He contends that:
Procedural justice research suggests that there is another possible route to effective social
regulation besides punitive punishment (Tyler, 1990;Tyler & Huo, 2002). This route involves
39 Edwards, I., (2004). An Ambiguous Participant: The Crime Victim and Criminal Justice DecisionM aking. British

Journal of Criminology, 44, 967-982.
40 Braithwaite, J., (2002b). Setting standards for restorative justice. British Journal of Criminology 42, 56377.
41 Ibid.
42 Bottoms 1999.
43 Tyler, 2003;2006.

40

156TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEM INAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
treating people with procedural justice and respect. When people are so treated,they view law
and legal authorities as more legitimate and entitled to be obeyed. As a result, people become
self-regulating, taking on the personal responsibility for following social rules. This approachhas been labelled a process-based model of regulation.
Interestingly,with regard to processes following disputes,including apology,Tavuchis44 notes that“no matter how sincere or effective,an apology does not and cannot undo what has been done.And yet,in a mysterious way and according to its own logic, this is precisely what it manages to do”. The
authors experiences within prisons,courts and communities has demonstrated that whilst science cantry to control and predict, determine and state, the human spirit is able to astonish us with its
complexity of responses to crime, including the ability to let go.
Braithwaite45 identified three types of standards for assessing and maintaining the quality of RJ
practices with the following caution “
whether a restorative justice programme is up to standard
is best settled in a series of regulatory conversations with peers and stakeholders rather than by rote
application of a rulebook”.Braithwaiteʼ
s first tier identifies“
constraining standards”and includes nondomination, empowerment, equal concern for all stakeholders, respectful listening, honouring legally
specific upper limits on sanctions and the respect for human rights. The second tier highlights the“maximising standards”such as the restoration of human dignity,property loss,restoration of humanrelationships freedom,compassion peace sense ofcitizen duties and other social support and preventionof future injustice. Braithwaiteʼ
s third tier standards are the “emergent standards”such as remorseover injustice, apology, censure of the act, forgiveness of the person and mercy. Braithwaite46 states:
The constraining list are standards that must be honoured and enforced as constraints; themaximizing list are standards restorative justice advocates should actively encourage in restorative processes;the emergent list are values we should not urge participants to manifest ― they
are emergent properties of a successful restorative justice process. If we try to make themhappen,they will be less likely to happen in a meaningful way.These,especially when linked tosustaining an effective strategy for compliance with the law, lead to a better understanding ofprocesses that are experienced as fair and just.
Also, Tyler,47 when dealing with compliance, suggests that we would “
benefit from being in asituation in which people have additional reasons for obeying the law beyond their fear of being caught
and punished for wrongdoing”.
Throughout the many regional criminal justice systems the legitimacy of authority is often questioned and frequently made worse by processes that are mandatory and at times used without goodreason other than to maintain control. To provide processes that are participatory, fair and just, as
well as being used for the safety of everyone within the community, is a major point that is often
overlooked in the process of rehabilitation within the courts and penal estates. Tyler48 illustrates thepathways that people walk from non-compliance to compliance as they recognize and act on procedural fairness and legitimacy of the authority. Tyler49 also claims that:
One way to encourage people to view law as legitimate is for legal authorities to act inprocedurally just ways. For example, studies suggest that procedural justice during personal
experiences with authorities is important because it builds the social value of legitimacy(Tyler,2004). Legitimacy, once activated, then encourages everyday compliance with the law. Hence,legal authorities receive more citizen cooperation when people generally view them as legitimate. People, who have more supportive social values, are easier for legal authorities to deal
with during personal encounters.
44 Tavuchis 1991.
45 Braithwaite 2002.
46 Braithwaite 2002:571.
47 Tyler 2006:210.
48 Ibid.
49 Tyler 2006:312.

41

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 93
Not only do Tylerʼs words underpin the need for legitimacyto be recognized and experienced within
the community but also within the criminal justice system.Tyler explains compliance in direct relation
to being treated fairly and justly.This includes being given the opportunity to engage in positive social
values and shown a direction by a legitimate authority such as from parole,police and prison officers
and other professional staff and officers. Legitimacy is often questioned of poor quality policing andis at the core of non-compliance among many people. Again Tyler50 adds to this by suggesting that:
Experiencing procedural justice, either in particular personal experience or in the everyday
functioning of the law,is important because it encourages feelings of responsibility and obligation to follow the law―i.e., it increases the legitimacy of the law and the legal system. Hence,
procedural justice suggests that possibility of a legal system based more heavily upon voluntarycooperation of process-based regulation.
As a cautionary measure it is important to note that a sense ofpurpose is something that we all needand so it is with the criminal justice systems of the region,for the system itself needs criminals and has
to continually create rules and regulations that criminalize and remove people from society.In doing
so the criminal justice system often fails to address the systemic issues that underpin crime.These areissues such as poverty, homelessness and dispossession. The authors also contend that the prevailingpromotion of restorative justice through a “Western”view of processes and methodologies perpetuatesa purely Western hegemony that diminishes the underpinning values of restorative justice.We continually note rigidity and conformity, which presents a “west is best”criminological discourse throughliterature and practices.Therefore it is pertinent here to reflect on Braithwaiteʼ
s51 standards that speak
to the empowerment of participants and the opposing control by services over them.
Evidence and innovation from below instead of armchair pontification from above should be what
drives the hope ofrestorative justice to replace our existing injustice system with one that actuallydoes
more to promote justice than to crush it.

VI. A PROCESS OF EMPOWERING AND HEALING:RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
Restorative justice is about people who have been harmed and people who have harmed them,
together with support from both parties. As a process RJ doesnʼ
t have to be encumbered by tightregulations,yet attempts are often made to make it so.52 The RJ process doesnʼ
t have to be inflexible
although departments within the system often demand that certain victims cannot be given theopportunity to meet the person who harmed them due to the nature and severity of the crime, or theoffenderʼs perceived lack of remorse, unsuitable demeanour or closeness to the victim.It is as though
the victim does not know best or is acting in a way that is likely to decrease the sentence. These
predominantly “
western standards”engulf community practices as Steels53 noted whilst developing acommunity response to crime where the autonomy of local people was challenged by service providers
operating under regulatory and bureaucratic parameters from outside of the local community.This isoften the case among poor and marginalised communities that wish to be a part of the solution to local
crime and want a say in how the processes are to operate.However,with the urgent call from victims
of crime and their supporters, far from the trappings of power, many government agencies andacademics are beginning to note the call to break from dominating parameters and limited flexibility
that often engulf the innovative, local and culturally balanced processes.
The above practices provide opportunity to break from what Braithwaite terms “domination”
within restorative practices.In defining domination,Braithwaite54 argues that domination means “if astakeholder wants to attend a conference or circle and have a say, they must not be prevented from
attending. If they have a stake in the outcome, they must be helped to attend and speak”. Further,
50 Tyler 2006:313.
51 Braithwaite 2002:569.
52 Steels 2008.
53 Ibid.
54 Braithwaite 2002:565.

42

156TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEM INAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
Braithwaite55 maintains that, “any attempt by a participant at a conference to silence or dominate
another participant must be countered”. It is within the understanding of domination and liberation
within restorative solutions that both regimes will be constantly engaged as both have to contend withprisoner and staff movements and their attendant training and practices.
On the one hand, governments have moved closer to restorative justice practices but,on the other
hand, they have often redefined RJ by building it into existing and often closed regimes.This is donewith limited foresight as well as a lack of insight into the broader applications of the process.In turn,many jurisdictions have attempted to keep tight control,lessening the ability to empower and support
those most harmed and decreasing opportunities for all participants to tell their stories.How governments respond to crime through their courts and justice services is often a concern with regards tohuman rights and fair process. If governments are to produce quality restorative practices, then newservices will have to be designed,delivered and regulated to reflect liberating rather than controlling
governance, striking a balance between the needs of offenders with the needs and aspirations ofvictims.Without such safeguards new practices and services can end up as what Pelikan56 describes as
overtly legalistic formalities and regulatory controls that fail to deliver a high degree of satisfactionin terms of access, process, timeliness and outcomes.
Early restorative practices began as a voluntary encounter between a person who has harmed
someone and the person who experienced that harm.Nils Christie57 claimed that conflict should be seenas the property of those with an interest in it.That is,the offender and the person(s)offended against
rather than the property of the state. Over a period of time these processes have often become“all-encompassing diversionary practice”58 far removed from families and communities and theirproblem-solving responses to crime. A good example of this style of bureaucratic diversionary
measures comes from Western Australia where strict state control determines and limits access to any
restorative practice. On the other hand, good examples flourish internationally and it is these breakaway processes from the tightly controlled and institutionalised criminal justice systems that form
where conformity is most often demanded.They are the light getting into the cracks of strict control.

VII. THE HEART OF RJ:STORY TELLING AND NARRATIVES
Set at the heart of the restorative encounter and within any of the restorative justice or healing
circles59 is the period of time in which all participants are encouraged and supported to share examplesof their life,leading up to and including the recent events that have brought them together with othersin the aftermath of crime, war and/or conflict. This is best described as unscripted story telling or
free-flow conversations where facilitators encourage empathy, support questions and allow for pastand current narratives. Steels and Goulding60 argue that it is through participation in restorative
encounters,first among those who have produced harm together with their family and then among all
those who have been harmed that we are presented with an opportunity to consider our conduct as itpresents;
the ability to reflect rationally upon our actions and those of others is often the starting
point after we have caused harm or experienced being harmed by another.It is a crucial time to
be able to have the space to review our lifestyle, to think of cause and effect, to think of what
has occurred and to go over in our heads those often catastrophic and defining moments.61
It is within this balance of personal and shared space where reflection and admission,hurt and fear

55 Ibid.
56 Pelikan 2000.
57 Nils Christie 1997.
58 Pelikan 2000:150.
59 Steels and Goulding suggest that three circles are used in any RJ process. The first is with the harmmaker and theirfamily and supportive people,the second is with the people most hurt,injured or harmed,together with their family andsupport, and the final circle or encounter is set among all of the participants from the first two circles.
60 Steels and Goulding 2013:388.
61 Ibid.

43

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 93
all build up into a greater awareness and where the personal and often tragic storylines begin. As
Braithwaite62 notes in his essay Setting Standards for Restorative Justice, the process allows people tofeel empowered regardless of socio-economic status, age or gender.63 Braithwaite further highlights
Pranisʼsuggestion64 that people will listen to those in high office or power but will ignore those thatare not.Restorative justice allows all those involved a chance to tell their story and for those aroundthem to listen. In this way giving the storyteller a sense of empowerment. These encounters help tocreate an environment of trust and fairness throughout the circle,giving balance in terms of time andfrequency with a talking piece. It is among these circles where passion and emotions flow, that
Braithwaite65 sees the presence of “
relatives, friends or a personally relevant collectivity”act tochallenge personal actions and make amends for the future largely because“repute in the eyes of closeacquaintances matters more to people than the opinions or actions of criminal justice officials”This
also compliments Tylerʼs66 notions that where encounters increase the motivation to transform andchallenge the immediate behaviour as well as any future actions in a way that encourages respect fromclose family and associates. It also enhances self-image and leads to compliance with the law in the
future.
For many people the free-flowing process within these series of circles provides an opportunity forparticipants to engage in a way that seeks to heal the aftermath of crime,resolve various questions andenable discussions to take place with regard to future directions and positive outcomes.For some,thisprocess comes a little easier when it is shared within a safe environment and where only one or two
rules exist. One very important rule is to ensure that only one person speaks at a time. Another is to
ask that truth be spoken without fear or prejudice but with respect. To enable these stories to assist
in the problem solving restorative and healing process the following ideas may be of use. They areoften used by the authors within and outside of the formal justice system and can be used in conjunction
with story-telling or other ceremonies. With all story-telling and yarning circles a good amount ofsilence is encountered. This is to be honoured and respected as a part of the ceremony. Flexibility is
the key to this restorative encounter that may last longer than most restorative justice encounters.It
may be spread over days or hours rather than a rushed event especially when it is dealing with serious
and repeat offending from within a smaller community or large family.Timeliness is crucial for courts
and justice services but not always so for many traditional or customary circles.
The cross over and mix of traditional and modern or between Western and Eastern processes shows
the flexibility of facilitators, participants and process. It should be able to accommodate people ofdifferent or no religious faith, various cultural backgrounds and cross-cultural communities. Stories
are often so rich that they give life to the encounter in a way that more formal courts are unable toprovide.

VIII. THERAPEUTIC COURTS AND THERAPEUTIC COMMUNITIESThe authors note from Tylerʼ
s67 that to treat people badly or to give them an experience of injusticein the early stages of contact with the criminal justice system often means that they, together withfamily and friends,fail to be compliant and respectful of the law in the future.Fairness always needs
to remain crucial to any restorative encounter as well as the legitimacy of the criminal justice process
for being unfairly treated disrupts “the relationship of legitimacy to compliance”even more than
68 .All participants must be in a position to feel that they are being treated“receiving poor outcomes”
fairly and respectfully.Combined,the therapeutic,restorative and procedural justice concepts provide
all parties with an opportunity to feel satisfied with both the process and outcome. In addition,
processes should not bring about harm.Winick (2003:26)claims that therapeutic jurisprudence “shouldvalue psychological health, should strive to avoid imposing anti-therapeutic consequences whenever
62 Braithwaite 2002:564.
63 In Pranis 2007.
64 Ibid.
65 Braithwaite 1989.
66 Tyler 2006:pp. 307326.
67 Tylerʼs work 1990.
68 Ibid.

44

156TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEM INAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
possible, and when consistent with other values served by law should attempt to bring about healing
and wellness”.Combined with restorative justice and the participation of people who have experienced
harm the therapeutic jurisprudence process is a good companion for restorative justice practices wheresuch ideals are seen as the sum total of the circle process for all participants.
When preparing for the first circle,or the first part of a meeting or conference,facilitators should
be aware of Sykes and M atza69 processes of neutralisation that include;denial of responsibility;denialof injury; denial of victim; condemnation of the condemners and appeal to higher loyalties. If not
exposed,these notions will continue to deflect blame on others rather than allow a space for offenders
to take responsibility.Alternatively they may then erupt or lay dormant just under the surface during
the first circle.
Focusing on one specific group of people as offenders within the criminal justice system can be
helpful if the process used is one that is culturallyappropriate,respectful to traditional law,and doesnʼ
tproduce further harm especially among those people who are victimized bythe crime.But it also brings
limitations and assumptions about the court process. Whilst it is a positive move to engage withperpetrators in a manner that is respectful perhaps even in a special First Nation court with local
Elders,the process may leave out cultural,traditional and customary representations for First Nation
or Aboriginal victims of crime. If the person most harmed by the crime is a First Nation person thena number of safeguards must come into being.The first is that a fair and just process is provided,onethat protects their right to be heard in a safe and secure environment. The second is that they are
assured of protection from re-victimization and further abuse. Victim support services in rural andremote areas of some states find themselves lacking the resources to engage with even the mostseriously victimized people. With regard to a perpetratorʼ
s family there could be good reason for theperpetrator and his/her family to be provided with an opportunity to engage in ceremonies that heal
the group,assist with an apology and restitution and acknowledge the shame that has descended uponthem.
The authors pose the question of how this process might work in a cross cultural situation wherethe victim of crime is a member of a First Nation or Aboriginal person and the perpetrator is not.Do
we ensure that the court acts respectfully and in a culturally appropriate manner towards the victim
of crime,including the treatment of them bythe media?One wayto ensure that we treat all participantsin a criminal justice process fairly, justly and in a culturally respectful way is to offer a restorative
process to all people who are willing and able to participate.This includes listening to victims of crime
who ask for a facilitated encounter with their offender even when the prosecution opposes such apathway. It would also assume that any victim of crime, not only victims of first offenders,would be
invited to attend or able to request an encounter with the perpetrator and the perpetratorʼ
s family.This
would serve to provide all victims of crime with the same opportunities to participate.In this way all
people are treated respectfully with recognition of their cultural, traditional and customary needs.
Finally we strongly advocate for restorative processes to be made available in every court, linked tothe philosophy and practice of therapeutic jurisprudence where the voices of all participants in a
restorative encounter are able to be heard.
The following diagram shows restorative justice and therapeutic interventions from the point ofcontact with the police to breaking away from the criminal justice system.To be effective it requires
a high degree of procedural fairness.

69 Sykes and Matza 1957:664670.

45

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 93

Sadly and all too often the authors note a connection to the criminal justice system at an early age
followed by further connections leading to and from juvenile detention centres and later the adultprison system.This is particularly true of the Australian and New Zealand systems.Scholars attribute
this cycle of crime to various inter-connected factors. Individual behaviours are questioned together
with a lack of societal discipline70 poor socioeconomic conditions within families and communities
together with a lack of support;71 colonisation and intergenerational trauma,72 and other structural
factors due to geographic location,language,under-employment and drug and alcohol fuelled violence.
Whilst any one or more of those conditions may be prevalent within a family home or community it
may also be attributed to current “
tough on crime”policies widely heralded across Asia.However,itis also due to the enormous gap referred to by Casey73 as he highlights the gap in social and economic
wellbeing between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. Casey reports on the Australian situation
noting that “
the discrepancy between the social and economic well-being of Indigenous and nonIndigenous people could be described as a vast gulf, rather than a ʻgapʼ”. As Indigenous people
throughout the region find themselves more and more marginalized especially in India,Taiwan,Japanand China, restorative practices may assist them to have their voices heard.
The results of these regional policies are but a warning of the danger of building more courts andprisons whilst failing to use therapeutic,problem solving and restorative environments.It is important
to consider a policy redirection towards effective solutions that apply smart, fair and just processes.
The evidence to date suggests that therapeutic and restorative interventions help to provide empathy
for others, improve social connections, are inclusive of victims and look to local and community
solutions.Problem-solving courts,restorative practices and therapeutic communities seek answers,canplace the criminal act within a context,listen to solutions and are focused on healing the aftermath ofcrime whilst aiming to reduce re-victimization.They challenge offending or harmful behaviour whilst
providing support. They include all stakeholders and empower participants. Perhaps cynically, theauthors question whether the problem with these progressive, problem solving ideas is that they will
reduce imprisonment whilst allowing funds to be channeled where they are needed―to victims,
perpetrators and their networks―our communities.
70 Weatherburn et al., 2003.
71 Blagg 2005;Steels 2008;Goulding et al., 2006.
72 Atkinson 1990;Steels 2008;Cunneen 1999.
73 Casey 2007.

46

156TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEM INAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS

IX. PRISONS OF THE FUTURE:RESTORATIVE, SUSTAINABLE AND
PROBLEM SOLVING
Victims of crime throughout the region are often not fully compensated for the harm and losses thatthey incur and the overuse of imprisonment fails to make their communities feel safer.Further,victims
of crime seldom have a role to play in the penal estate apart from ad hoc occasional circumstances.
Regionally,prisons do not reduce crime but conversely are often themselves criminogenic,providing alearning environment among people who have already been convicted of crime. Goulding, Hall andSteels suggest that the community gains few benefits from prisons “because the continued high cost ofincarceration eats into the public purse with ever increasing imprisonment rates”.74 Their economic
cost demands a thorough examination in terms of social and economic costs. For example, currently
the cost of keeping each adult prisoner in custody in Western Australia is $115,000 per year (DCS,WA,
Annual Report 2010-2011)and rising.
Alternatively, restorative processes throughout the prison can offer victims, offenders and thecommunity greater participation and improved outcomes than traditional criminal justice processes.
The restorative prison, according to Coyle75 is able to “present prisoners with a series of duties,
challenges and learning opportunities”.A key factor in a restorative prison is an environment of safety
for prisoners and prison staff.There is no doubt that many obstacles have to be overcome in transforming current prisonsʼpunitive regimes to restorative practice. This is something that we are now
undertaking in collaboration with partners from Europe. Newell76 contends that the tension between
restorative processes and traditional prison modes are still troublesome,maintaining that “restorative
justice requires respect, the assuming of responsibility and the freedom to solve problems by those
involved in the conflict”.Another conflict facing many jurisdictions keen to design innovative restorative practices within the penal setting is risk averse government ministers and their departments.
Attempting to balance risk with progress often sees good ideas shelved, although our science on the
topic is improving. Whilst the process is difficult it is worthy of closer examination.
A restorative prison would continually challenge criminal behaviour in order to and reduce revictimization through comprehensive and effective, restorative and transformative programmes. All
members of a holistic prison environment including residents in custody, management and staff arecalled upon to act respectfully and restoratively in all communications thus ensuring fair and justprocesses and outcomes that are more likely to encourage compliance and pro-social behaviour,within
and outside of the prison environment. These holistic processes would include facilitated encounters
between victims and their supportive others, prisoners and their family and/or peers and members ofcommunities of interest. Encounters such as these are an effective way to encourage victim empathy
and improve self-image.M aking an apology to family and friends is often the first step towards taking
complete responsibility for our actions, and the beginning of the journey towards the encounter withthe person most harmed and victimized.A restorative justice prison is one that is able to successfully
engage in restorative practices with the accompanying underpinning philosophy of harm reduction,
reparation and restitution.Manyofthe prisonʼs activities would involve victims,communityreparation
projects and skill-development activities that are pro-social and civic minded.The activities ought tobe designed to encourage respect for others and increase a desire to take on board responsible
citizenship.
All prisons should be instilled with the desire to be experienced as a restorative justice prison thatis seriously looking to provide a wholly restorative environment with fair and just processes andpositive outcomes. These processes and outcomes can be measured through the personal experiencesof residents in custody, victims of crime and prison management teams. Through restorative andtransformative environments, these prisons could reduce further victimization whilst generating agreater interest in family connections, social responsibility and civic pride. In terms of prisoner
experiences,a holistic restorative prison environment could provide an example of being treated fairly
and justly with respect and understanding.This can in turn present opportunities to look at the self as
74 Goulding, Hall & Steels 2008.
75 Coyle 2001.
76 Newell 2001.

47

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 93
a respected social being with responsibility who can reflect on the harm that has been caused to others―victims and their own family and relatives.Restorative practices usually encourage personal growth,maturity and integrity on the journey to a better understanding of how we respond to ourselves andothers,especially in times of crisis and conflict.These are critical life skills that can assist those who
reside in custody to make amends,put their lives in order,understand others and look at being valued
by others.
In terms of prison management, restorative practices offer prison staff the opportunity to be
pro-active in encouraging responsible living in harmony with others.We seldom hear of peacemaking
and responsibility taking within penal institutions but that is what is called for from the prisonʼsleadership as prison staff move among residents who may not have experienced being treated with
dignity and respect.As a management tool restorative philosophy and practices can initiate potential
for growth and transformation of key workers,senior staff,prison officers and people held in custody.
In turn this can lead all participants towards positive relationships and lifestyles. Restorative justiceprisons can provide more than just a glimmer of hope―they offer a journey of transformation. As
previously mentioned, the authors recently visited Tihar Prison in Delhi in order to see first-hand theprison as a place of environmental sustainability. This visit runs parallel to the research being
undertaken in Western Australia. Already Tihar management have noted a marked change in the
behaviour of residents working within their sustainable projects.Residents are able to focus on the finebalance of climate, human activity and food security, ensuring that the jail is not a burden or is notproducing further harm to the planet.
Although these are small examples they serve to highlight the link with harm to self and victim,
harm to family and community with harm to the future of life on earth.In typical Asian style it shows
the interconnectivity and inter-dependency of species and clearly demonstrates that harming anotherhuman being brings harm to many others.The focus on these others does in turn assist the prisoner tolearn more about life than crime.

X. CONCLUSION:RJ;SUSTAINABLE PRISONS;THERAPEUTIC AND
PROBLEM SOLVING COURTS
With the Asian region taking account for the worldʼ
s most populated land masses,diverse languages
and well defined national identities, there is always going to be major functional differences withinjurisdictions,especially around restorative solutions to crime and compliance to law.This is underpinned by a variety of philosophies and religions,Indigenous,colonised and mixed populations and legal
support or restrictions placed on human rights and democratic processes. Most importantly forordinary people wishing to own their crime, for those who want to make things rights and for thosewanting to share their stories of their fear and harm, many regional governments and services are
beginning to listen. The future does hold hope for restorative encounters and free-flowing conversations facilitated between harm doers and those most harmed in a willingness to ensure that harmony
prevails.The how,where and when we can all see restorative justice providing the regionʼs people witha safer way to live without fear of crime,is with us now.We need to seize the opportunity.We are all
empowered to take control of crime,work towards healing its impact and restoring good relationships.
This paper is just the first of many steps to take in personal,national and international transformation.
It should lead us all to a greater understanding,compassion and fairness among families and communities.Restorative justice can come into its own once empowered by the all-encompassing bureaucratic
criminal justice systems and treated as a mainstream,genuine response to healing crime.Its ability tohave people move towards future compliance and to experience their governmentʼ
s processes as fair
will in future bring local and national rewards of safer and peaceful communities. However, none ofthis occurs overnight. Crime still occurs, wars continue and justice remains lost to many and yet it is
the most crucial relationships between the victim of crime and the harm-doers that we have to focus
on today. These restorative solutions present not only a way out of crime for those participants
entering an encounter but it offers whole communities and governments a more effective and less costly
way of healing the harm.
References
Atkinson, J 1990, ʻViolence against Aboriginal women:Reconstitution of community lawʼ, Aboriginal48

156TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEM INAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
Law Bulletin, vol.2, pp. 6-9.
Australian Bureau of Statistics
www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs＠.nsf/Latestproducts/4517.0Main%20Features22008?opendocument&tabname＝Summary&prodno＝4517.0&issue＝2008&num＝&view＝>, 18 March 2009.
Beven,J.,Hall,G.,Froyland,I.,Steels,B.,& Goulding,D.,(2005)Restoration or Renovation? Evaluating
Restorative Justice Outcomes, in Psychiatry,Psychology and the Law,Vol 12,Issue 1,pp 194-206,
June 2005.
Blagg,H.,(2005),A new way of doing justice business?Community justice mechanisms and sustainable
governance in Western Australia, Law Reform Commission of WA, Background Paper no. 8,
January 2005, p.1.
Braithwaite,J.(1989)Crime, Shame and Reintegration, Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press.
Braithwaite, J., (2002b). Setting standards for restorative justice. British Journal of Criminology 42,
563-77.
Burnside.J.,and Baker.N.,(1994)Relational Justice:Repairing the Breach.Waterside Press.Winchester.
Casey, D., (2007)Report on the Review of the Department of Indigenous Affairs (2007)12.
Department of Corrective Services, WA Monthly Graphical Report: March (2009), available at
http://www.correctiveservices.wa.gov.au/ files/AG Report 0903.pdf>.
Cormier, R., (2002) HEUNI Papers, United Nations Programme Network Institutes Technical Assistance Workshop, Rapporteurʼs Report. No 17, April 17th 2002, Vienna.
Coyle, A. (2001)Restorative Justice in the Prison Setting. Conference Paper. Driebergen, The Netherlands:International prison Chaplains Association Conference.
Christie, N., (1977)British Journal of Criminology Vol 17 (1):1-15.
Cunneen,C.,(1999),ʻ
Genocide,reparations and restorative justice:Responding to the stolen generationʼ
,paper presented to the Restorative Justice and Civil Society Conference, ANU, Canberra, Feb
1999.
Farrall, S. (1995) Why do people stop offending Scottish Journal of Criminal Justice Studies, 1:51-9.
Freiberg, A 2001, ʻ
Problem solving courtsʼ
, Journal of Judicial Administration, 2001, pp. 8-12.
Goulding, D., & Steels, B. (2006)Developing, Implementing and Researching a Communitarian Modelof Restorative and Transformative Justice for Adult Offenders in M agistratesʼCourts, in (Eds)
King, M . and Auty, K., The Therapeutic Role of MagistratesʼCourts, M urdoch eLaw Journal
Special Series, Vol 1, 2006 pp27-50. http://elaw.murdoch.edu.au>.
Goulding, D., Hall, G., & Steels, B., (2008) ʻ
Restorative Prisons:Towards Radical Prison Reformʼ
, inCurrent Issues in Criminal Justice, Vol 20, No 2, November 2008.
Goulding, D., & Steels, B., (2013)Ten Years On, the ʻThree Circleʼmodel of Restorative & Transformative Justice:a tool to combat victimization and recidivism,in Asian Journal of Criminology,
Special Issue Restorative Justice In Asia, December 2013.
Himona. R., (2001)The First Maori Website 1995 http://maaori.com>retrieved Jan 14, 2013.
Liu, J., and Palermo, G.B., (2009) ʻ
Restorative Justice and Chinese Traditional Legal Culture in the49

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 93
Context of Contemporary Chinese Criminal Justice Reformʼ
,in Asia Pacific Journal of Police &Criminal Justice, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2009.
M aruna, S. and Immarigeon, R. (2004)After Crime and Punishment:Pathways to Offender Reintegration. Willan. Devon UK.
Nazemi.S.,(2009)The Nine Principles of Peelian Policing.Los Angeles CommunityPolicing.Retrieved
Sept 30 2012 http://www.lacp.org/2009-Articles-Main/062609-Peels9Principals-SandyNazemi.
htm>.
Newell,T.,(2001a)Responding to the Crisis:Belgium establishes restorative prisons.Conference Paper.
London.
Pelikan, C. 2000, Victim-Offender-Mediation In Domestic Violence Cases ― A Research Report, United
Nations Crime Congress Ancillary Meeting,Vienna,Austria.Available online at: http://www.
restorativejustice.org/rj3/UNBasic Principles/AncillaryM eetings/Papers/RJ UN CPelikan.
htm>.
Pranis,K.,(2007)ʻ
Restorative Valuesʼ
,in Handbook of Restorative Justice, (eds)G Johnstone and D Van
Ness. London:Willan Publishing.
Quah (2013:31)Curbing Corruption and Enhancing Trust in Government:Some Lessons from Singaporeand Hong Kong, in Jianhong, L., Heberton, W., and Susyan, J., (2013)(Eds)Handbook of Asian
Criminology, Springer. New York.
Steels,B.,(2008)Imprisonment of the many:Capacity building or community demolition?In Ngoonjook:a Journal of Australian Indigenous Issues, no. 32, 2008
Steels,B.,and Goulding,D.,(2013)Restorative Justice in the Asia Pacific Region:Acting Fairly,Being
Just.in Jianhong,L.,Heberton,W.,and Susyan,J.,(2013)(Eds)Handbook of Asian Criminology,
Springer. New YorkSteels,B.,and Goulding,D.,(2009)When itʼs a Question of Social Health and Well-Being,The Answer
is Not Prison”, IndigLawB 21;(2009)7(12)Indigenous Law Bulletin 15.
Sykes, G., and M atza, D., (1957) ʻTechniques of neutralisation: A theory of delinquencyʼ
, American
Sociological Review, 22, 664-670.
Thilagaraj,R.,and Latha,S.,(2013:201)Human Trafficking in Asia,in Jianhong,L.,Heberton,W.,and
Susyan, J., (2013)(Eds)Handbook of Asian Criminology, Springer. New YorkTyler, T., (1990:172) Why People Obey the Law, Yale University Press. New Haven.
Tyler,T.,(2006)Restorative Justice and Procedural Justice:Dealing with Rule Breakingʼ,in Journal ofSocial Issues, vol 62, no 2, pp 307-326.
Weatherburn D, Fitzgerald J & Hua J (2003). Reducing Aboriginal over-representation in prison.
Australian Journal of Public Administration 62(3):65-73
Winick. B., (2003) A Therapeutic Jurisprudence Model for Civil Commitment in K Diesfeld and I
Freckelton (eds),Involuntary Detention and Therapeutic Jurisprudence p 26.Ashgate Publishing.

50