Restorative Justice:

An Examination of Value, Process, Theory, Shame, Relationships and Community

Name: Zhe (Daniel) Wang

Student number: 301167572

Instructor: Brenda Morrison

TA: Dorota Salvail

Criminology 315: Introduction to Restorative Justice

Date: April 10, 2015

The state-based justice system and the traditional justice system are two significant social

frameworks that influence trends in social justice. Both the state-based justice system and the

traditional justice system aim to serve justice in society, but both systems have adopted different

approaches on how to do so. The social control model and the state-based justice system focus

on punishing offenders to maintain social order within society. The traditional justice system is

influenced by the social engagement model, which focuses on offenders making reparations to

victims (Morrison, 2015). This paper will critically examine restorative justice in terms of

theories, processes, values and laws, focusing on how restorative justice contributes to the justice

system. The paper will discuss the idea of a sense of community and the use of shame and

trauma in restorative justice. The paper will present an analysis of the criminal justice systems in

Japan, Finland, China, and the U.S. in order to provide an understanding of the benefits of the

restorative justice system.

Retributive Justice vs. Restorative Justice

The retributive justice system was developed within state-based societies and it focuses

on the punishment of offenders based on the offender deserving to be punished as a way of

retributions to victims (Elliott, 2011). If the evidence against the offender is obvious, there is no

need for the offender to accept that he committed the crime and understand why his behaviour

was unlawful. When someone is injured, the main legal questions ask who was responsible for

the injury and to what extent. Before criminal activity is punished, mens rea and actus rea,

should be considered, which are both necessary elements of crime (Roach & Sharp, 2009). Mens

rea is defined as “guilty mind,” meaning that the offender must have intentions of committing the

crime before actually committing it. Actus rea is defined as “guilty act,” meaning that the

offender had to commit the act that was formulated within his or her mind. According to the

1

retributive justice process, the crimes always focus on actus rea but ignore mens rea. Mental

planning alone cannot result in an actual crime. The retributive justice system does not care for

offenders, for it believes that people who violate the law are bad people, no matter what their

intentions are. Offenders who go through the retributive justice system will lose the opportunity

to authentically resolve the conflict and the harm they have caused (Dzur, 2003). They have no

chance to explain their behaviour and the reasons behind their actions, and they cannot apologize

directly to their victims.

The restorative justice process is a more humane and cooperative process that brings all

parties—including offenders, victims, families, and communities—together to discuss wrongful

behaviour and find a solution that respects every participant’s needs (Johnstone, 2009). Victim-

offender conferences, family group conferences, and the circle approach are three important

approaches in the restorative justice process (Zehr, 2002). Unlike the regular court process in the

retributive justice system, the restorative justice system involves many dialogues between the

offenders, victims, and community members. The open dialogue between participants fosters an

environment that allows all participants to learn and grow (Elliott, 2011). Everyone is treated

equally and has the opportunity to speak honestly. Instead of focusing only on the offenders’

wrongdoings, the healing circle method in restorative justice is based on the “problem-solving

approach” (Elliott, 2011). The aim of restorative justice is not to blame the offenders for the

crimes they committed, as people do not have the ability to alter the past.

My participation in circle gathering tutorials in restorative justice classes gave me a deep

understanding of this method. I felt respected and comfortable in the circle-gathering

environment. In pervious tutorials, we had to actively engage and speak in front of the class in

order to earn participation marks. The TA marked how many times a person spoke in every

2

tutorial on the attendance sheet to calculate an individual’s participation score. Some students

were more likely to speak in front of the class than others. I felt afraid to speak in front of the

class and I felt stressed when I noticed some of my classmates dominating the discussion in the

tutorial. I could not focus on what others said because I had to think about what could I say to get

my participation mark. If I did not say anything, I would lose points. In the restorative justice

tutorial, students sat close together and formed a small circle. We held a “talking piece”

whenever we wanted to say anything, and then we passed the “talking piece” to the next person

who wanted to make a comment. I felt that this method of discussion facilitated an emotional

connection with others in the circle. The “talking piece” gave everyone an equal opportunity to

speak. If a person did not have a comment to make, he or she could pass the “talking piece” to

the next person in the circle. I felt comfortable because there was no external pressure that forced

me to speak, and I felt that I had a responsibility to actively listen to others’ opinions. Through

participating in the gathering circle, I felt that I overcome my difficulties with speaking in front

of the class and become a more responsible individual. I developed my listening skills and

learned how to understand others. The class-gathering circle inspired me and helped me grow,

and I firmly believe that the healing circle in restorative justice can encourage individual growth

and responsibility.

The Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Restorative Justice

Restorative justice and formal criminal justice interrelate in Canadian democracy. The

Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedom is the most important constitutional document

in Canada. The Canadian Charter encourages the government to provide greater equality and

human dignity to citizens (Roach & Sharpe, 2013). Restorative justice is compatible with the

principles espoused by the Canadian Charter of Human Rights (Restorative justice is the law,

3

2012). Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982), states, “Everyone has

the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except

in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” Restorative justice gives offenders,

victims, and community members an opportunity to openly communicate in the circle process.

This approach embodies the principles of equality and respect for human dignity. The Canadian

Charter affects all areas of Canadian criminal law. Section 718(d)(e) of the Purpose and

Principles of Sentencing states that the purpose of sentencing is to provide reparations for harm

done to victims or to the community and to assist in rehabilitating offenders. Stigmatization

caused by the harsh punishments of the retributive justice system impairs the reparation process.

The harsh methods of the retributive justice system cause offenders to feel anger and seek

revenge against society. However, restorative justice is a humane process. The aim is to educate

offenders and encourage them to take responsibility for their actions. Connecting offenders,

victims, and community members through open dialogue can activate and awake some internal

values to cultivate moral development (Elliott, 2011). In my opinion, moral development and

positive internal change are successful rehabilitation outcomes. The philosophy of restorative

justice on the healing perfect matches the purpose of sentencing on repatriation.

The Value of Restorative Justice

Restorative justice is intended to fix relationships and focuses on reparation, healing,

taking responsibility, remorse, apology, and forgiveness to achieve better justice (Braithwaite,

2002). Values have the power to shape the way that people relate to and interact with others.

Remorse, guilt, shame, and empathy are some of the key emotions that restorative justice

encourages offenders to feel, while fear, anger and humiliation are emotions that the restorative

justice system avoids. Individuals are respected and treated as subjects rather than objects in the

4

restorative justice system (Elliot, 2011). This implies that restorative justice does not give up on

any participants because every individual’s rights are being respected.

Empathy is one of the core values that restorative justice focuses on. Empathy is an

important tool for building healthy relationships to generate safety from personal violence

(Elliot, 2011). People are more likely to trust people who are empathetic. Compassion shows that

someone is an active listener and sincerely cares for others, which leads people to better

understand each other. The experience of genuinely understanding one another engages people to

share more personal stories and build more trust. Developing empathy for others can help

reconnect relationships and develop better relationships, while compassion represents kindness

and encourages individuals to see beauty in others’ hearts (Tippett, 2011). Restorative justice

adopts a humane approach and encourages caring and compassion between offenders, victims,

and community members. This approach has a positive healing function, as it transforms

emotions from anger and frustration to calmness and peace.

Offenders are primarily responsible for restoring offenders and victims relationships.

Offenders providing a genuine apology for the wrongdoing might reduce the victim’s anger and

help them develop empathy toward the offender (Allan, Beesley, Attwood, & Mckilop, 2012).

Restorative justice provides offenders with guidance on how to apologize, such as writing an

apology letter and using the three-steps-to-apology technique. This technique involves taking

responsibility for one’s actions and apologizing, explaining the motivation for the actions, and

ultimately showing empathy. Offenders in the retributive justice system are simply punished,

whereas offenders in the restorative justice system gain a better understanding of their actions

and what influenced them to behave that way in the first place. Offenders’ sense of autonomy is

strengthened because their compensatory actions are a result of their own decisions, rather than a

5

product of the forced regret that is common in retributive justice. In other words, offenders

develop empathy for their victims and apologize to them due to their own determination to do so,

not because someone has told them that they should.

An offender’s apology and a victim’s forgiveness are both voluntary. These actions only

have meaning if they are genuine (Braithwaite, 2002). Forgiveness and apologies are precious

gifts in restorative justice. Forgiveness must not be expected. Similarly, if remorse is forced out

of offenders, there will be lack of emotional involvement with others. There is no true restorative

power to mend damaged relationships. Forgiveness and apologies are a way for people to release

themselves from the hurts of the past and to bring hope that moving on is possible. If a person

died, there will be no ways for bringing the person back to life. People should not live in the rest

of life with full of anger and revenge; these negative emotions will bring people to unhealthy

lifestyles, such as addiction to drugs and alcohol. A restorative justice approach that involves

apology and forgiveness gives individuals closure and the ability to resume a normal life.

Restorative justice encourages people to challenge unfair and cruel authority and to do

the right thing because it highly values empathy. Elliott (2011) mentions the example of Mr.

Fishes, who taught his students the importance of standing up against oppression by

pretending to humiliate a student and then pointing out that no one in the class tried to

stop him. Thus, adopting restorative justice improves communication among different

social classes and encourages different classes to follow their hearts to what they really

believe in.

Shame, Labeling Theory, and Social Identity Theory

Shame is one of the key components in the rehabilitation process that improves

collaboration processes and offender-victim relationships (Elliot, 2011). Restorative justice

6

focuses on conflict resolution processes. Participants in the conflict resolution process must

understand and recognize emotions, such as shame, and then release these emotions in order to

move into the final step of the resolution process. It is important to understand what shame is.

People use the words “shame” and “guilt” interchangeably, but they have different meanings.

Shame focuses on people and how they feel ashamed and sorry for the mistakes they made.

Guilt, however, is related to behaviour. People feel guilt when admitting that they made a

mistake (Brown, 2012). Shame is a more intense emotion than guilt because shame is internal

rather than external. Shame is part of a family of emotions that include humiliation and

embarrassment and it is an “affective response to a social situation” (Elliot, 2011, p. 155). The

ability to feel shame shows that people have empathy and feel connected to others. People who

do not feel shame lack this sense of empathy and connection with others. Restorative justice aims

to repair relationships between offenders and victims and offenders and the community, and

shame is a catalyst for improving relationships.

Research indicates that societies have lower crime rates if they communicate shame

effectively (Braithwaite, 2000). The relationship between shame and crime rates indicates that it

is important to understand and manage shaming appropriately. Reintegrative shaming and

stigmatizing shaming are two types of shaming that have completely opposite results. Retributive

justice focuses on harsh punishment that turns shame into a way of responding to disrespect and

dishonour (Elliot, 2011). Stigmatizing shaming is disrespectful shaming that motivates people to

act in violent ways. This type of shame threatens the offenders’ identities and forces them to give

up moral values. Restorative justice focuses on rehabilitation and treating offenders with love

and care. Reintegrative shaming has a positive influence on offenders, encouraging them to take

responsibility for their actions and apologize to victims. Reintegrative shaming is a process

7

through which offenders are supported by the community; as a result, offenders can decide to

change themselves to do the right thing.

In retributive justice, shaming is stigmatizing rather than integrative (Elliot, 2011).

Labeling theory is important for understanding the function of shaming. According to labeling

theory, meaning and the conception of “self” are socially constructed. People’s identities are

formed based on social interaction (Braithwaite, 2000). People behave well if they feel

respected; however, stigmatizing makes people behave poorly. In addition, secondary

deviance is caused by others stigmatizing and stereotyping an individual makes the stigmatized

individual likely to develop a deviant self-concept (Winter, 1996). Offenders suffer

psychological and physical pain during imprisonment and are more likely to behave in a deviant

way. Since the goal of retributive justice is to balance the benefits between offenders and

victims, shaming is used as a tool to humiliate offenders and thus creates a secondary form of

trauma. Retributive justice uses the negative power of shame to punish offenders and steal their

rights to self-ruling and freedom. Punishing goal action has been defined as “reeks of curtly”

because it is not about justice but rather about ensuring that the wrongdoers suffer (Kutz, 2004,

p. 732). Punishment turns offenders into tools for general social control instead of viewing them

as real human beings. Some offenders commit crimes due to previous traumatic experiences and

stigmatization, and shaming can actually increase their feelings of fear and helplessness. These

feelings can encourage offenders to engage in further criminal behaviour.

China and the US state of Arizona dole out harsh punishments to offenders, stigmatizing

and shaming them in order to prevent them from further criminal wrongdoing (Wildon, 2002).

The “Three Strikes Law” in Arizona reflects the belief that strong punishment is necessary for

crime prevention. The government believes that tough criminal law is suited for tough people

8

and that there is no room for sympathy for offenders. Prison inmates receive two cold meals a

day, and male offenders are forced to wear pink underwear and socks (Smith, 2006). This

humiliating and stigmatizing treatment causes inmates to feel anger and actually provokes them

to seek revenge and act more violently if they ever have the chance to go back to regular society.

Meanwhile, China also believes in strict punishment of offenders. The Chinese police are

eager to arrest and torture suspects until they confess to crimes. Offenders are locked up in

highly supervised prisons where they must follow strict rules under the governance of wardens

and guards. Isolation makes prisoners afraid of losing touch with reality, and many offenders

believe that prisons are a form of psychological torture (Wildon, 2002). Offenders are treated as

objects and are labeled as bad people who do not deserve to have normal lives. The unsupported

individuals around them further diminish their moral standards, and this stigmatizing shaming is

more likely to lead to the rejection of those who disapprove. As a result, offenders feel less

connected to society and may end up doing something that will further damage their social

relations. Offenders are more favourable to crime and fall down to the criminal subcultures

categories under stigmatizing shaming.

Reintegrative shaming theory (RST) provides a theoretical explanation for restorative

justice’s effectiveness in reducing crimes. Reintegrative shaming, which does not label the

person as evil, is respectful of the person (Harris, 2006). Restorative justice focuses on

rehabilitation by providing victim-offender conferences, family group conferences, and the circle

approach to engage stakeholders’ interactions through respectful dialogue (Braithwaite, 2000).

Some expectations that disapproval might bring shame related emotion, which is an important

quality for interactions (Harris, 2006). In the restorative justice approach, reintegrative shaming

is an effective deterrent for offenders committing future crimes. Engaging in crime poses a threat

9

to relationships that the offender values, such as family relationships. Reintegrative shaming

causes offenders to feel afraid of losing face in front of people they care about and can help

offenders realize that certain behaviours are wrong. Offenders build internalized controls and

gain empathy through listening to stories and interacting with different groups of people (Harris,

2006).

Japan and Finland utilize reintegrative shaming in the rehabilitation process. Both

countries have the lowest crime rates in the world (Wildon, 2002). Reintegrative shaming is

more widespread in societies where communities are strong (Braithwaite, 2000). Group

association is one of the most important core values in Japanese culture (Terrill, 2013). Social

cohesiveness and a harmonious relationship between individuals are highly important in Japan.

For instance, every employee spends an hour a day cleaning the street in front of his or her

business. If they do not clean the street, they are embarrassed because the dirty street causes

shame to their families and communities (Wildon, 2002). Instead of being sent to prison, first-

time criminal offenders are brought in front of the community, including the offenders’ friends,

families, and employees. Offenders have to show remorse for their actions and make a public

apology, promising not to commit further crimes (Wildon, 2002). This method of reintegrative

shaming is an effective deterrent to offenders committing further crimes. Community values are

important in Japan. Offenders do not want to disappoint their family or be seen as untrustworthy

in the eyes of the community. Invoking emotions of shame and guilt encourages offenders to

behave lawfully in the future in order to maintain strong social ties with families and

communities. Finland also focuses on reintegrative shaming through restorative justice. The

Finnish government believes that treating offenders gently and humanely can encourage

offenders to behave in a gentle and humane way as well (Wildon, 2002). Offenders are allowed

10

to live with their children, and no fences separate prisons and communities. Community

members are prepared to welcome prisoners back to the community, and offenders hope to return

to society as better citizens (Wildon, 2002). The examples provided above illustrate how

reintegrative shaming helps offenders learn the error of their ways and deters them from

committing further offenses.

Trauma, Brain Development and Restorative Justice

Recent neurochemical studies show long-term histories of abuse, and trauma can

influence people’s brain chemicals by decreasing their dopamine and serotonin levels (National

Institute on Drug Abuse, 2014). These two chemical compounds impact happiness. When

dopamine and serotonin levels decrease, people are likely to feel negative emotions such as

sadness and sorrow. They are also more likely to have low self-control and behave impulsively,

which increases their chances of acting in an anti-social manner. Illegal drugs are one way to

increase dopamine and serotonin levels, and counselling therapy and meditation are other ways.

However, the effect of the latter two is apparently not as effective as illegal drugs. Based on this

type of thinking, offenders and victims are connected to each other because they have likely

experienced similar types of trauma at different times. Practicing restorative justice enables

victims to reduce the fear and anger they feel toward offenders, as they get to know their

offenders on a personal level. This connection can make them work as a team to overcome the

difficult situation they are now both facing. Research also indicates that the amygdala is key to

the experience of empathy and that the brain is capable of changing (Reisel, 2014). How to

change one’s mindset and the amygdala have important meanings for the criminal justice system

because emotions are related to brain functions, which influence people’s behaviour. Brains are

sensitive to stress, and high stress levels correspond to lower levels of brain development (Reisel,

11

2014). This implies that the need of restorative justice is because the structure of restorative

justice involves caring and rehabilitations create a less stressful environment, which are more

benefits for offender’s brain development.

A Transformative of definition: Restorative justice

Restorative justice is a transformative form of justice that focuses on how individuals live

and relate to each other in daily life (Johnstone, 2009). This definition implies that restorative

justice can benefit societal institutions such as schools and non-profit organizations, as the

essence of restorative justice is improving relationships. Restorative justice benefits community

development overall, and active participation by community members is necessary to the

restorative justice process. Community-based restorative justice approaches address social justice

issues and inequality in societies (Dzur, 2003). Restorative justice advocates believe that

individual and group behaviours are regulated by informal social control systems, such as

families, neighbours, and community social organizations (Elliott, 2011). Restorative justice

produces a valuable approach to return responsibility for conflict resolution to communities.

Therefore, the community has an important role in offering avenues for reintegrating into the

norm-abiding life of society. Restorative justice addresses social capital, which refers to “a way

of defining the benefits of relationships to general well-being (Elliott, 2011, p. 192). Social

capital is important for community development and can make lives more productive. Social

capital promotes social responsibilities, mutual respect, and support through enforcing the

collective value (Faulkner, 2003).

Communities and Groups

Human action is generated in a context of shared social expectations. Community-based

restorative justice promotes action on behalf of the common good (Elliott, 2011). Restorative

12

justice encourages community participation and facilitates caring, encouraging victims and

offenders to form a strong social bond. Strong social bonds can encourage people to behave

appropriately in order to fit in with the group. In contrast, retributive justice focuses on harsh

punishment with no community involvement. Offenders are isolated in prison and are pushed

away from the social group of their community. Their social bonds become weaker, and people

would start to think that there is nothing important and behave immorally. Imprisonment

encourages offenders to associate with other people who have violated the law. Deviant groups

might form in prison, and people could continue to engage in illegal behaviour because they

believe this illegal behaviour is “normal” within the context of their group (Smith, 2006). For

example, the fighting and drug dealing that regularly occurs in prisons are a result of constantly

being surrounded by a bad group.

From my personal experience, I understand that group behaviour has a tremendous

influence on an individual’s thoughts and actions. When I transferred to SFU in my second year,

one of my friends introduced some of his friends to me. They did not study and just got drunk

everyday. As a result of being around them, I did not feel any pressure to succeed in school—I

thought that as long as I could pass all of my courses, I would be fine. I socialized with the group

every day. Whenever I was working on course assignments, my friends told me to finish quickly

so that I could party with them. They did not spend any time on studying, and they did not

understand why I wanted to study so seriously. I knew that they were all waiting for me at the

party, so I wrote my assignments as quickly as I could and produced assignments that were of

poor quality. This particular group of students believed that students were supposed to be party

animals and should drink everyday to express that they were young and energetic. I did not want

them to be disappointed in me, so I tried to fit in with the group by doing what they normally did.

13

I eventually stopped coming to school and partied excessively with the group. I was put on

academic probation at the end of that semester, and I realized that I had to change myself and

find a new group of people to associate with. Shortly after, I found a new group that took

studying seriously and enjoyed healthy activities. The more I hung out with them, the more we

encouraged and supported each other to work hard. This new group facilitated a healthy and

positive environment and encouraged me to work hard. My grades improved significantly, and I

even started to volunteer in the community. After comparing the two groups I associated with, I

now understand that having a healthy and positive group can change one’s mind and behaviours.

In my opinion, a community is just a big group. Restorative justice encourages community

participation, which gives offenders the opportunity to listen to community members and try to

make their community a healthy and positive place.

Restorative Justice in Education

Due to restorative justice’s focus on improving relationships, the practice of restorative

justice can apply to many areas outside of the criminal justice system. Autonomy, order, and

relatedness are the three pillars of human need, and students may do extreme things to fulfill

those needs (Evans & Lester, 2013). Restorative justice can help people understand that unmet

needs can cause conflict and violence (Evans & Lester, 2013). For example, restorative justice in

the school system addresses the drug and alcohol problem in schools by strengthening social ties

and restoring relationships (Stinchcomb et al., 2006). The restorative approach encourages

school officials to meet students’ needs rather than punish them.

Traditional zero tolerance policies in schools promote accountability without compassion

(Stinchcomb et al., 2006). Instead of focusing on punishing students, restorative practices

promote accountability within a supportive and compassionate learning environment. This makes

14

students more likely to take responsibility for their actions and has more educational impact than

zero tolerance policies. The most important goal of restorative justice in the school system is to

provide open conversations between students, teachers, and administrators. All three groups can

collaborate to come up with solutions that bring healing and restoration to the school community

(Suvall, 2009). Restorative justice views conflicts as a learning opportunity. Students and

teachers both learn and grow from the open conversation approach. Social interaction not only

influences cognitive development, but also creates the cognitive structure and thinking process

(Suvall, 2009). Social interaction stimulates students’ moral thoughts, and the ability to think

morally may continue to grow during the period of social interaction. Restorative practice in the

school system provides a great opportunity to maximize social interaction, which has benefits for

the development of students with moral thoughts.

In my opinion, implementing restorative justice approaches can supply retributive

justice with a sense of humanity, community, and the importance of treating humans with

respect. People are complicated, and there are no perfectly evil or good people. There are reasons

behind people’s behaviours, whether their behaviours are good or bad. The butterfly effect,

which stipulates that all actions are the result of a complicated pattern of chain reactions, makes

situations even more complex. Retributive justice ignores this complexity and simply assumes

that individuals who do immoral things must be inherently immoral. This mode of thinking ends

up favouring the authorities and the powerful because those who have power experience fewer

traumas than those who are poor and of low socio-economic status. Retributive justice only

serves as a control method by the people in charge at the top against all those below them; thus,

it often does not actually solve social problems but merely suppresses them.

15

This paper focused on examining restorative justice’s relationship to law and values. The

paper provided readers with a comprehensive understanding of the definition of restorative

justice from the process, values, and transformative points of view. Restorative justice’s

emphasis on the value of respect has important meanings for rehabilitation purposes. Labeling

theory and reintegrative shaming theory provide evidence as to why the restorative justice

approach is effective in crime prevention. Community involvement is also a necessary

component of the restorative justice approach. Shared values and the formation of strong social

ties in communities alter offenders’ thoughts and behaviours. Lastly, restorative practice should

be incorporated not just in the criminal justice system. Restorative justice’s emphasis on open

dialogue promotes social justice and ensures equal rights among different types of groups.

16

References

Allan, A., Beesley, S. M., Attwood, B., & Mckillop, D. (2013). Apology in restorative and

juvenile justice. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 21(2), 176-190.

Braithwaite, J. (2000). Shame and Criminal justice. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42(3),

281-298.

Braithwaite, J. (2002). Setting standards for restorative justice. British Journal of Criminology,

42(1), 563-577.

Brown, B. (2012). Listening to shame [video file]. Retrieved from

http://www.ted.com/talks/brene_brown_listening_to_shame?language=en#t-

27976

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, s 7, Part 1 of the Constitution Act 1982, being

schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, C11.

Dzur, A. W. (2003). Civic implications of restorative justice theory: Citizen participation and

criminal justice policy. Policy Sciences, 36(2), 279-306.

Elliott, E. M. (2011). Security With Care: Restorative Justice and Healthy Communities. Black

Point, NS: Fernwood Books.

Evans, K. R., & Lester, J. N. (2013). Restorative justice in education: What we know so far.

Middle School Journal, 44(5), 57-63.

Faulkner, D. (2003). Taking citizenship seriously: Social capital and criminal justice in a

changing world. Criminal Justice, 3(3), 287-315.

Harris, N. (2006). Reintegrative shaming, shame, and criminal justice. Journal of Social Issues,

62(2), 327-246.

17

Heartspeak (producer). (2012). Restorative Justice is The Law [video file]. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OGgm_U96D8

Johnstone, G. (2009). Talking Justice [video file]. Retried from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylnjvIbRbWM

Morrison, B. (2015). Restorative Justice: Values and Processes [lecture slide], Simon Fraser

University.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2014, September). The Science of Drug Abuse and Addiction:

The Basics. Retrieved from

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/media-guide/science-drug-abuse-

addiction-basics

Reisel, D. (2014). The neuroscience of restorative justice [video file]. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzJYY2p0QIc

Roach, K., & Sharpe, R. J. (2009). The Charter of Rights and Freedoms (4th ed.). Toronto, ON:

Irwin Law.

Sherman, L. W. (2003). Reasons for emotion: Reinventing justice with theories, innovations, and

research. The American Society of Criminology 2002 Presidential

Address. Criminology, 41(1), 1-38.

Smith, D. R. (Producer/Director). (2006). Lockdown: Total Control [Video recording]. USA:

National Geographic Channel.

Stinchcomb, J. B., Bazemore, G., & Riestenberg, N. (2006). Beyond zero tolerance: Restoring

justice in secondary schools. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4(2), 123-147.

Suvall, C. (2009). Restorative justice in schools: Learning from Jena High School. Harvard Civil

Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 44(1), 547-569.

18

Terrill, R. J. (2013). World criminal justice systems: A comparative survey. Waltham, MA:

Anderson Publishing.

Tippett, K. (2011). Reconnecting with compassion [video file]. Retrieved from

https://www.ted.com/talks/krista_tippett_reconnecting_with_compassion?

language=en#t-138009

Wildon, S. (Producer), Freed, J. (Director), & Kalina, J. (Director). (2002). To Kill or To Cure

[Video recording]. Canada: Galafilm Productions.

Winter, M. F. (1996). Societal reaction, labeling and social control: the contribution of Edwin M.

Lemert. History of The Human Sciences, 9(2), 53-77.

Zerh, H. (2002). The Little Book of Restorative Justice. Good Books.

19