Bazemore, G. & Walgrave, L. (1999). Restorative juvenile justice: In search of fundamentals and an outline for systemic reform. In G. Bazemore & L. Walgrave, L. (eds.), Restorative justice for juveniles: repairing the harm of youth crime (pp. 45-74). Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.
Braithwaite, J. & Pettit, P. (1990). Not just desert. A republican theory of criminal justice.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Soulou, K. (2022). La réponse restaurative à la criminalité. Regards internationaux et comparatifs entre la France et le Brésil (PhD Dissertation). Aix-Marseille Université, France.
Suzuki, M. & Wood, W. (2018). Is restorative justice conferencing appropriate for youth offenders? Criminology and Criminal Justice, 18(4), 450-467.
Von Hirsch, A. (1998). Penal theories. In M. Tonry (ed.), The Handbook of crime and punishment (pp. 659-682). New York: Oxford University Press.
Walgrave, L. (2008). Restorative justice, self-interest, and responsible citizenship. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
-
1 The book contains also texts co-authored by Lode Walgrave and others.
Lode Walgrave, Being consequential about restorative justice, The Hague: Eleven, 2021, 333pp, ISBN: 978-94-6236-235-2 (hc), 978-90-5189-164-5 (ebook).
If ‘the literature of restorativism needs not yet greater enthusiasm, but more reflection’, as von Hirsch (1998: 676) suggests, then Lode Walgrave is certainly among the scholars and intellectuals who take this suggestion seriously. Being consequential about restorative justice is a collection of selected texts,1x The book contains also texts co-authored by Lode Walgrave and others. in fact a compilation of Walgrave’s reflections primarily on restorative justice ‘as part of a broader criminological and social agenda’ (284) but also on the field of criminology in general (see especially Chapters 14 and 15). Repetition is sometimes unavoidable in this book. However, the reader can clearly follow and understand the emergence, development and evolution of Walgrave’s thinking and positions over the years.
Walgrave’s writing style is both straightforward and pedagogical. He often writes as if he was speaking to his reader. Although his reflections are rich, deep and complex, they rely on explicit, hypothetical, rhetorical – and sometimes provocative – questions or real-life examples and are structured accordingly. This makes them easy to read and at the same time stimulating, interactive and interesting. This ‘dialogical’ style of writing is supported in particular by two chapters of the book, where Walgrave ‘responds’ to the critical reflections of two authors, Paul McCold (Chapter 4) and Anthony Duff (Chapter 6).
Walgrave’s interest in restorative justice and his journey towards it began with his work on juvenile justice. Although the relevance of the restorative approach to responding to juvenile delinquency has recently been questioned (Suzuki & Wood, 2018), particularly because of the particularities and characteristics of this population and its needs, Walgrave believes that ‘restorative justice holds great promises for the future of juvenile justice’ (72), going beyond traditional rehabilitative and punitive approaches. Nevertheless, throughout the book, Walgrave’s reflections go far beyond the issue of juveniles, as they mainly focus on the theoretical development and deepening the understanding of restorative justice. His contribution in the development of the restorative justice theory internationally is important: although the very extensive literature on restorative justice comes mainly from researchers in English-speaking countries, Lode Walgrave presents a clear Eurocentric vision and position on the subject. Indeed, the author expresses the ‘European’ feeling that the theoretical framework of restorative justice needs to be deepened and critically elaborated in order to go beyond the ‘diversionist’ understanding of the subject developed mainly by Anglo-Saxon doctrine (see Chapter 4).
Walgrave can be considered the ‘father’ of the so-called maximalist approach to restorative justice, which he defines as ‘an option for doing justice after the occurrence of an offence that is primarily oriented towards repairing the individual, relational and social harm caused by that offence’ (Walgrave 2008: 21). It may surprise the reader, however, that the term ‘maximalist’ does not appear in the title of this book, although it is used most frequently in the texts of this collection. It is the author’s choice to replace this term with the term ‘consequential’, and he explains this choice in the introduction and conclusion of his book, where he writes while being aware of his status as a ‘veteran’ of restorative justice.
Being consequential about restorative justice means ‘opting for a shift of the priorities in current criminal justice’ (319) and ‘includes the eventuality of coercion in the restorative scope’ (291). How did the author arrive at these positions? In the pages of the collected texts, the reader can discover, or better understand, how the author’s maximalist-consequential approach to restorative justice came about. In my opinion, there are many factors that can explain this, which I would like to summarise as follows: Lode Walgrave is a socially engaged, European criminologist. Let me explain.
First of all, Walgrave is aware of his ‘social and ethical responsibility’ (272) as a social scientist and criminologist for ‘shaping the quality of social life’ (276). For him, the quality of social life is of paramount importance, a central and crucial theme in his thinking, and ‘depends on the commitment of individuals’ (181) or, rather, ‘on how we relate to each other’ (239, 282, 320). Thus, his interest and sensitivity to the quality of social life contributed to not only his interest in restorative justice in the 1990s but also to his developing and proposing socio-ethical foundations for restorative justice, which he calls ‘common self-interest’. This is a central concept in Walgrave’s thinking and analysis. For the author, ‘developing citizens’ commitment to the project of common self-interest is based on three basic attitudes, respect, solidarity and active responsibility’ (181).
The fact that the above-mentioned ‘socio-ethical attitudes are more inherent to restorative justice than to the punitive apriorism’ (183) – as he puts it – may explain the author’s commitment to the development and expansion of the application of restorative justice to criminal offences. Indeed, his maximalist-consequential approach to restorative justice has been informed by his ‘ambition to change the punitive premise in current criminal justice’ (174). The current ‘punitive apriorism’ is often opposed to – and should be replaced by – a ‘restorative apriorism’ (Bazemore & Walgrave, 1999). Drawing on the concept of common self-interest and the socio-ethical foundations he sees in restorative justice, which also shape his normative approach to restorative justice, Walgrave offers interesting reflections on the theory and concept of punishment. Walgrave, however, is pragmatic: ‘giving priority does not mean giving monopoly’ to restorative justice, which means that ‘limits to [its] potentials are thus recognised’ (259). Moreover, by making a clear distinction between punishment and judicial coercion, Walgrave accepts the use of coercion in restorative justice to achieve wider application, even in the most serious cases. The difference he sees between ‘restorative justice sanctions’ and punishment is twofold: the first is the intention in inflicting pain, and the second is that ‘punishment is a means, while restoration/reparation is a goal’ (299). As he writes, ‘coercive restorative sanctions can only be imposed under a system of controllable legally based rules and procedures’ (146).
Indeed, despite Walgrave’s theoretical influence by the ‘Anglo-Saxon communitarians’, such as the concept of ‘dominion’ as developed by Braithwaite and Pettit (1990), or his experiences and visits to non-European countries (especially his experiences in New Zealand shaped him), the author’s continental European roots have informed his understanding of justice and institutions in general and, consequently, his understanding of restorative justice. This may explain why he believes that ‘restorative justice should include not only the community dimension but also the state dimension’ (143) and why its ‘starting point [should be] the occurrence of an offence, as it is defined by the authorities’ (197). In particular, the author is aware that although restorative justice challenges the way law is understood and framed, it does not – and should not – take place entirely outside the world of law. As he notes, ‘restorative justice cannot simply rule out criminal justice: a number of principles, models and concerns within criminal justice must be taken seriously’ (141). But not only that: ‘restorative justice-in-action’, he writes, ‘is confronted with questions for which partial answers may be found in the criminal justice model’ (140). However, he believes that ‘the principles for a punitive system cannot be transferred unchanged to a restorative justice system, just as one cannot transfer the rules of chess to checkers’ (304). He therefore urges legal thinkers to give new meaning to some fundamental principles of criminal justice, such as the principle of proportionality, principle of legality, principle of fair trial and so on, from the perspective of restorative justice theory. Moreover, Walgrave believes that law and legal safeguards are important in restorative justice, and I agree with him that ‘the platform on which to erect the legal construct for restorative justice is the conception of restorative justice as inversed retribution’ (305) or as ‘horizontal retribution’ (Soulou, 2022: 248).
Overall, Walgrave’s rich reflections collected in this book can pique the interest of a very diverse audience, especially those working in juvenile justice, criminologists, legal thinkers and practitioners, social and political scientists, psychologists, even philosophers, and introduce them to the ‘universe’ of the restorative justice theory, approach and culture. In my opinion, this book is essential reading for all those who want to discover and/or deepen their understanding of restorative justice, especially from a Eurocentric perspective. Through the eyes and reflections of Lode Walgrave, this book is also of historical significance for the restorative justice movement, as it allows us to recall or follow the international discussions on its theorisation.
