Restorative Justice: Can Brief Restorative Justice Interventions Truly Make a Difference?

For many, justice means punishment – going to jail, paying fines, or “doing the time” for the crime committed. But what if punishment is not the most effective way to build accountability or reduce the likelihood of someone committing a crime in the future? According to Park University, the goal of restorative justice is to provide a solution where all parties win. This approach not only encourages those who committed a crime to develop accountability for their actions and amend their wrongdoings, but it also gives victims the opportunity to be heard and facilitate their healing process. One way this is practiced is through brief restorative justice interventions (bRJIs): economical programs part of the restorative justice system designed for those who commit crimes to gain a clearer understanding of restorative justice and the harm their actions have caused to society. These interventions feature self-evaluations to increase awareness of the harm caused during the crime and evaluations of victim statements to enhance sympathy. Moreover, some bRJIs operate without victims present, but do require participants to write letters of apology that are not sent out but are used as a tool to help take accountability for their actions and assist with the healing process. While these interventions may sound promising, the question remains: Do brief restorative justice interventions effectively lower the likelihood of someone committing a crime in the future and increase remorse in those who commit crimes?

The article “The Role of Perceived Restorative Justice Understanding and Sympathy in a Brief Restorative Justice Intervention in Prison” by Duryea and colleagues (2024) presents a study involving 1,631 people incarcerated in several state prisons in the Great Plains. Participants who voluntarily enrolled for one of 289 bRJI offerings inside eight state prisons took an assessment one week before and one week after participating in restorative interventions. These assessments measured changes within their sympathy and evaluated whether participants bettered their understanding of restorative justice. The results of this experiment indicated significant improvements one week after participating in an intervention of both sympathy levels and perceived comprehension. Specifically, participants rated their insight as a 3 on a 5-point scale prior to the intervention, which increased to an average of 4.6 after. Similarly, the average ratings of understanding of harm caused reported by offenders increased from a 2.8 before interventions to 4.7 afterwards. These results suggest that the brief restorative justice interventions are quite effective in helping offenders develop a better understanding of restorative justice and in elevating their sympathy levels.

Though brief restorative justice interventions may not be preferred by the public, the potential of these interventions to promote rehabilitation rather than recidivism should be given more attention. Unlike punishments, which take an entirely different approach, brief restorative justice interventions help those who commit crimes recognize the harm caused by their actions and gives them the meaningful opportunity to re-integrate into society through rehabilitation.