Restorative Justice: What's in it for Prosecution

This page is archived material and is no longer updated. It may contain outdated information and broken links. The material presented on these pages is the product of five regional symposia held on restorative justice between June 1997 and January 1998.

  1. Minor cases from problem addresses (multiple calls in previous year) are more effectively handled by referral to a community dispute resolution center than by criminal justice processing (Harrisburg, PA). Subsequent court time is not required.
  2. A number of studies of restorative practices (restitution, mediation, family group conferences, victim impact panels) indicate that recidivism decreases.
  3. Giving victims choices at all stages returns a sense of control to them, and decreases fear.
  4. In some research studies (at least one county in N. Carolina) a reduction in court caseload can be measured when victim offender mediation is offered. (CAUTION: care should be taken to insure several points of referral exist, so most or all eligible cases are referred. Often, this is not so).
  5. More options generally will enhance the plea negotiation process.
  6. Victims are demanding a fuller role; restorative approaches provide it, and leave victims more satisfied.
  7. The politically powerful victim movement can be allies for positive system change.
  8. All justice professionals have some responsibility to improve the system, and RJ offers a common umbrella under which many disciplines and the community can work together.
  9. Restitution agreements are reached and met more fully with RJ approaches.
Date Created: December 5, 2007