Exploring The Different Restorative Justice Measures In South African Criminal Proceedings

Background

Restorative justice is a widely discussed topic, particularly from the scholars involved in reformist criminal justice research and debates. The theme of restorative justice is basically on a group of models of justice. Essentially, it is deemed as the third way, which is present between the two models of Rehabilitative Justice And Retributive justice (Sherman and Strang, 2007). These two are focused on punishment and offence. The theme of punishing is to stop the offender from being involved in instances of reoffending. With rehabilitative model, the offence is deemed as a symptom and the offender is placed in middle of this very meaning. When the state rehabilitates an offender, it is deemed that the person is being treated (Roche, 2013).

As against the two criminal law theories stated above, the restorative justice theory is based on the need to focus on the victims that are present in the criminal justice system (Leyh, 2011). This is because the restorative justice lens looks at the victim and the harm that is done to them and to the society. Therefore, the theme is that with crime, the social interactions between people are disrupted, and the same happens with the community members, which in turn causes a lot of harm. Therefore, when a crime is undertaken, it is deemed as a disruption to the relationship between offenders and victims, instead of only looking at it as a breach of law. This is true even when prior to the crime, the victim and offender were not known to each other, as the crime creates a relation requiring repair (Johnstone and Van Ness, 2013).

In the South African setting, the restorative justice practices are adopted, which is somewhere due to the fact that the traditional African manner of administering justice is on similar grounds as restorative justice (Mangena, 2015). One of the measures adopted for doing so is Victim Offender Mediation. In this method, the offender and victim are given the option of meeting in a structured and safe setting so as to take part in discussion with regards to the crime that has been undertaken against the victim, and for this, the assistance is taken from a trained mediator. The participation of victim in this entire procedure is voluntary. A discussion is mediated by the mediator whereby the offender learns about the impact of crime and gets to take the responsibility that resulted from the harm caused by such a perpetrator. Through this mode, the parties get a chance of preparing a plan for addressing the harm (Zehr, 2015).

Another method that is used in the South African jurisdiction is the Family and Victim Offender Group Conferencing. Similar to the previous method, this method also involves a discussion between offender and victim, but also involves other parties like friends, families and even the main supporters of both the victim and offender so as to address the crime’s aftermath (Fox, 2018). The goal of this is to get the victim such an opportunity whereby they are able to have a direct involvement in responding to crime. This leads to increase the awareness of offender regarding the impact their behaviour had so as to allow them to be responsible for their actions. The support system of the offender gets involved in making required amends and also in shaping the future behaviour of the offender. This technique is usually used in cases related to child offenders (Gxubane, 2016).

Restorative Justice in South Africa

The last topic of discussion for this work is the use of dialogue, peace and sentencing circles (Daly, 2017). These processes of restorative justice are designed in a manner so as to create a consensus in the stakeholders, which includes community members, victim, their supporters, the offender and their supporters, prosecutors, police, court workers, defence counsel, and judges/ judicial officers, so as to have an outcome, which can cater to the interested parties’ concerns. Through this process, healing of the involved parties is promoted, which allows the offender to make required amends. The parties are given a voice and also a shared responsibility towards finding of a constructive resolution(s), which addresses the main cause of criminal behaviour, in turn building a sense of community that is based on shared community values (Zehr, 2015).

The aim of the proposed study is to explore the different restorative justice measures that are applied in the South African criminal proceedings. The key objectives of the proposed study are:

• Understanding the meaning of restorative justice
• Understanding the different restorative justice measures
• Exploring the application of restorative justice measures in the South African criminal proceedings
• Exploring the efficiency of this application.

The proposed study is based on the premises that the South African justice system does rely on practices of restorative justice. The assumption taken for the proposed study is minimalistic, as reliance has been placed on the already published literature. Hence, the only assumption made is that all the possible articles available on this topic will be explored, in an unbiased manner.

This research is focused on checking the efficiency of the different restorative justice measures that are applied in the South African criminal proceedings. The goal is to understand whether the applied measures, to the likes of Victim Offender Mediation, and Sentencing Circles, among the others, actually prove fruitful or not.

There are different manners in which a research study can be undertaken (Venter, 2018). The study can be relied on qualitative and quantitative methods, with the main classifications of primary and secondary sources. For the purpose of this research, reliance has been placed on qualitative analysis, by using secondary methods. Hence, the research questions will be explored through an integrative literature review. This approach would allow for the already published articles from credible sources to be analysed (Maree, 2019). In making use of these sources, care would be taken to ensure that all aspects covering the topic are covered, rather than adopting a one-side approach to answer the research question. The reason for not opting for primary study in this research stems from the fact that the question is a very open-ended question and requires exploration of the present data. Considering the topic of research and the pandemic situations, it will not be feasible to rely on primary research format to the likes of interviews.

Adopting the lens of an integrative literature review would also allow this study to have a critical element, rather than merely describing the available restorative justice measures that are applicable in the criminal proceedings in South Africa. The choice of this manner of study allows the researcher to explore the literature in a range of manner, while insuring that the selected articles are transparent (Snyder, 2019). In order to conduct the search, different key words related to the selected topic will be used, so as to understand the theoretical concepts of this study as well. Hence, key terms like restorative justice, South Africa criminal proceedings, Victim Offender Mediation, Sentencing Circles and so forth, will be used. Care will also be taken to include pertinent literature so as to get updated insights on the discussed topic.

Research Aims and Objectives

Even though it is an old concept within the criminal justice system, restorative justice is still deemed as a developing concept and is rooted in practices of different cultures and traditions (Hadley, 2001). Based on the contemporary criminal justice system criticism, the modern concept of restorative justice has been developed. Even with the different interpretation of this concept, the theme remains restoring justice to the victim. The focus is on dealing with the aftermath of the crime, along with dealing with the implications of it for the future (Marshall, 2009).

The use of restorative justice measures helps in shifting the manner in which crime is viewed, as the violated norm that led to the harm that was caused to the victim of such crime, as that individual was the most affected one by such undertaken crime. Scholars have provided with precise and short understanding of the restorative lens that describes restorative justice as the manner in which crime is to be deemed as a breach of people and their relations. Through this concept, the duty of making things right, is imposed on the parties. Essentially, justice covers offender, community and victim, whereby a solution is searched upon for reassurance, repair and reconciliation (Zehr, 1990). Despite the flaws of this description, it does help in understanding the paradigm of restorative justice. The focus of this approach is on people instead of being on people. As stated earlier, the focus is on duty that the offender is imposed with, for making them liable for the undertaken offence. The need for being involved with the actual stakeholders who have been impacted by the undertaken offence in the justice process is highlighted in this approach, along with the fact that there is a shift from the goal of criminal justice system punishing the offender and inflicting pain, towards repairing of the caused harm (Gabbay, 2005).

There are three key models that continue to be used in restorative justice practice across the globe, and these are the sentencing circles, the victim offender mediation and the community group conferencing. Even with the noted similarities between the three processes, there continues to be differences between them basis the personality and number of the participations, and also as per the supervision style that is selected by the meeting’s organizer (Zehr, 2002).

This method covers the possibility that is given to the victim and offender for meeting in a voluntary manner so as to discuss the consequences and aspects of conflict present between them and also to come to a clear resolution by using a facilitator/ mediator as a help. The role of such a facilitator/ mediator is to act as a supervisor of the meeting by being neutral. The first goal in mediation is to get such a meeting arranged whereby the author encourages the parties to take responsibility for the material, human and/or social impact of their behaviour. The mediator also takes measures that allow the parties to reconsider and take account of the other person’s views, and also to explore the manner in with the damage can be resolved (van Ness, 2007). 

Premises, Assumptions

Chupp (2009) has highlighted the different stages of this method. The process starts with the relevancy of measure of mediation being assessed in context of the facts of the case, the parties’ abilities and also the situation in which the offence took place. The judicial authority usually undertakes this eligibility test; though, it can also be carried out by the police officials. The next step post referral being made towards mediation is the continuation of prepping for this act by mediator. The facilitator meets the parities in different settings to make certain that there is informed consent taken and also that the parties have the psychological ability to take part in such a process. The question remains on the ability of offender to be ready to take part in this process. Apart from this, there is also the question of the victim agreeing to meet the offender face to face. Upon the completion of these formalities, a meeting takes place. The mediator, during this time, invites the parties to express themselves without adopting at any time a restrictive and commanding attitude, in context of the situations that resulted in the crime, and also on the required solution for repairing the caused damage. The process comes to an end when the memorandum of understanding is reached, which is validated by a judge, but where the contents of the agreement are freely agreed upon by the parties. This entire implementation process is overseen and supervised by the facilitator/ mediator (Bonensteffen, Zebel and Giebels, 2022).

This model comes with the same goals as the previous discussed method. Though, the manner in which it is undertaken goes beyond the mediation method, as it involves the people surrounding offender and victim, particularly the ones who have an interest in conflict resolution, covering the friends families, and other party participants like social or health institutions, police and judicial representatives (Morris and Maxwell, 2003). The participant number also ranges from thirty to ten. There is also the intervention of facilitators in such meeting. Essentially, through such a conference, it becomes a possibility to consider the features of support, which the social or family aura is supposed to bring to the stakeholders. This is particularly to the wrongdoer, whereby they are guided to make changes to their behaviour in coming time, and also to undertake repair work towards the community and the victim in context of the harm caused (Burford, 2017).

As is the case with mediation, the conferencing takes place in different stages. The first one involves the prep work for the meeting by the mediator, whereby the facts are examined in depth and separate meetings with parties are arranged for collecting their observations, basis which a procedure is presented to them and an agreement is obtained. The next step is the conference where the victim and offender express their feelings and facts between the involved parties so as to discuss reparation, which is most appropriate to them. In this process, there is also the intervention of other participants, where they return with the offer of reparation to the victim and their relatives. Until a consensus is attained, the discussion continues. In the end, post the negotiation, the legality of the agreement is verified by the mediator, who also ensures its implementation (Pavlich, 2010).

Research Question/Problem

As against the two previously discussed methods, this method involves the community as it is based on the philosophy that there is the community’s responsibility to act against the problem. This is in context of the problem being associated with delinquency so as to strengthen or reconstitute the social bond, which was present before the same was infringed upon by the offender through the undertaken offence (van Ness and Strong, 2010). This allows the involved people a chance of participating. In this form, the circle can cover fifty to fifteen individuals, where the objective is to determine the undertaken wrong for every party, and to allow a chance for the people involved in crime, and for the community members, to offer their suggestions in front of the judge in context of the required sentencing. While adopting a solution, the interests of all the parties are taken into consideration and also, there is a consolidation of the common values of community members. The goal here is to attain recognition of the wrong done, while the goal of healing circle continues to the repair work for the entire community (Morris and Maxwell, 2003).

There are three stages to this process. The first stage is similar to the previously discussed measures, and a meeting is arranged between offender and victim in a peace-building circle, where all the participants speak in their turns. The conflict is viewed from all aspects of community global perspective and the process concludes upon the parties coming to an agreement on the response that is to be given to victim, community and the offender. This agreement, as was seen in the earlier discussed measures, is also validated by judicial authority. The judges have the option of rejecting these terms, as they are not bound by the suggestions that have been made, and can also validate, adapt or supplement them entirely. This process allows for the circle to act as a judicialisation process, which is totally and completed integrated in the modern day justice system. This is different from the healing circles in the sense that the latter constitute as a holistic process for the individuals, and also for collective reconstruction, restoration and repair. The given suggestions can result in participants being imprisoned, put on probation, and awarded a fine, and also restorative measures, therapeutic follow up or community work. Through a group support, this process is benefited, which usually consists of fix to four individuals who represent the community by helping the parties undergo a smooth running of circle (Sullivan and Tifft, 2006).

There is a commonality in the restorative justice theme and in traditions of African justice. The goal is restoring peace in community and in reaching reconciliation. In general, in the South African criminal justice system, the use of restorative justice measures in overcoming crime is deemed as a manner of hiding the dissatisfaction and weakness that comes with the rehabilitative and retributive approach. The objective of restorative justice is restoring the victim, which is seen as reinstatement of emotional, material and physical loss, coupled with restoration of sense of dignity and security in the victim (Rautenbach, 2015). In the study undertaken by Murhala and Tolla (2020), the studied participants stated that they were happy with the undertaken restorative justice process in South African criminal justice system. This was because of these practices resonating with the South African philosophy of Ubuntu, which is a familiar concept to the participants. Ubuntu concept requires the person to be treated in a dignified manner, without considering their status. Hence, this philosophy is based on equity that cannot be attained without the needs of victim being fulfilled in the criminal justice system.

Research Methods

It is crucial to note here that the South African restorative justice traces back to Ubuntu’s jurisprudence, which is deemed as a key reconciliation philosophy in the nation. Once the indigenous law saw the concept of Ubuntu being adopted in the South African Interim Constitution of 1993, it became popular (Cornell and Van Marle, 2012). The history of South Africa, for the very first time, saw the concept being recognized, and the indigenous law, along with its application, were viewed with the status of Constitution. Taking the cue from interim Constitution, section 21(1) recognized the traditional leaders’ indigenous law institution, and the system of indigenous law system. The courts enjoined this law where it applied subject to applicable legislation and the Constitution (Mokgoro 1998). Even though the Ubuntu philosophy does not have a direct feature in Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (herein after referred to as 1996 Constitution), it continues to be present in the Bill of Rights of the nation, and also continues to have an influence over the judicial interpretations that are undertaken by the Constitutional court (Skelton, 2013). Under the Constitution’s section 39(2), it is stated that while interpreting any legislation or Bill of Rights, there is a specific injunction of the courts towards development of indigenous law, whereby the spirit, object and purport of the Bill of Rights is taken into account (Mokgoro, 1998).

The indigenous basis of knowledge of South African traditional justice practices has a key advantage in terms of explaining and promoting the practice of restorative justice in the nation. As these principles are now new, it is deemed that the movement of restorative justice is just a recent return towards the African justice’s traditional methods. Still, even with the traditional heritage of these practices and even with the concept being so familiar, the required level of role is not played by the restorative justice practices in the South African criminal justice system (Skelton, 2007; Mangena, 2015). There is justification to this to certain extent with regards to the paradigm of restorative justice being opposite to the manner of legal practitioners, particularly for magistrates and prosecutors. Restorative justice is often perceived by the legal practitioners as not taking the key concerns of criminal justice system in a serious manner (Batley, 2005). Considering that there is a high level of crime, specifically violent crime, in South Africa, one can deem restorative justice practice as a soft approach on criminals. Even though this approach is different in nature, it does approach the modern day criminal justice system’s problems in a more adequate manner. Considering the challenges that were faced in the criminal justice system of South Africa, and also with the aim of transforming justice administration, the restorative justice approach has been adopted time and again by the South African Justice Crime Prevention and Security Cluster. This is based on the fact that these practices are informed by customary and indigenous response to crime and is a process present both in and out of the criminal justice system (Skelton, 2013).

Literature Study

To resolve the aforementioned concerns, reference needs to be made to the study undertaken by Murhala and Tolla (2020). This study showed that the restorative process allowed for the needs of the victim to be taken care of in an informed manner, and also allowed them a chance of seeking answers to questions related to the offence from the offender holding the information. In a safe atmosphere, the face-to-face meeting that takes place with the offender allows the victims a chance of exchanging information with the wrongdoer, allowing the victim a chance of getting answers to their queries and also a chance of showing their distress and suffering. When this model is applied in South African context, the focus is placed on care, forgiveness, reintegration, accountability, reconciliation and dialogue (Murhala and Tolla, 2020).

Wright and Galaway (1989) have highlighted that this method is used majorly in cases of minor crimes like malicious damage to property or assault. However, the study undertaken by Murhala and Tolla (2020) showed this technique being used even for cases of serious and violent crimes, like sexual violence and attempted murder. This process also allowed for sentence to be handed down to the perpetrator. One of the victims of attempted murder stated that this form changed their life and also helped her in getting a closure. This study was also significant as it showed that the application of victim offender mediation proved beneficial for the victim. However, Gaudreault (2005) has stated that it is difficult to adopt restorative process in certain offences as challenges are posed, where this option is made available in the baby states of the case, particularly in cases associated with domestic violence, sexual offences and hate crimes. However, with relevant experience and skills of senior practitioners, this can be taken care of. Therefore, even though the petty crimes can easily be resolved through the use of restorative practices, the use of such practice in cases involving higher level of violence does require care.

It is also worth noting that once an offence takes place, the victim is disposed of their possessions and emotions. The goal of restorative justice is ensuring that the victim is effectively and comprehensively restored in terms that are both material and symbolic. When the offender is not able to pay for the damage done to the victim, the restorative justice request is in the form of symbolic reparation. The symbolic reparation is similar to emotional reparation, and both of these are significant due to the crucial distinction they make in the victim’s life. The studies of victims have shown that the victims do not want material reparation, but what they seek is symbolic reparation. This is majorly in form of sincere expression of remorse and apology. Apart from this, there is also evidence that shows that the act of remorse shown by offender can help in healing the wounds of victim, thereby increasing the satisfaction of victim (Strang, 2010).

It is also crucial to state here that the modern day criminal justice system of South Africa does make provisions for the reparation by the offender to the victim; albeit, this is more focused on the material compensation aspects. The Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 has provisions for awarding compensation to victim where they have gone through material damage as a result of the crime undertaken by the offender. Where it is deemed as desirable, the court allows for a compensation order against the offender. When this is done, an imposition of an imprisonment period is avoided (Ndlovu, 2018). The goal of this approach is to give the wrongdoer a chance of raising money so as to make the required compensation. In addition, the award of compensation can only be made by the court when the accused has been proven to have undertaken the offence in discussion. It is also crucial to note that the act uses the terms like ‘where it finds it desirable’ and ‘may’ to depict that it is not bound to make an award; rather, it has a choice of making it or not making it. Hence, in the modern day criminal justice system, the court is not obligated to impose reparation, which can be deemed as a violence to right to restitution of the victim (Murhala and Tolla, 2020).

The use of restorative justice practices is evident in the South African justice system. There have been a number of cases of jurisprudence where the courts of South Africa have embraced the restorative justice practices in a warm manner. Reference for this can be made to the case of Dikoko v Mokhatla 2006 (6) SA 235 (CC) par 33 and 34, where the need for adoption of restorative paradigm by the Constitutional Court was made, for the present justice systems. This was based on the notion that the law did not understand and does little towards reconciling and repairing the bond between the parties. In case of S v Shilubane 2008 (1) SACR 295 (T), the limitations of retributive justice for addressing the crime led the presiding officer to adopt a proactive and innovative approach. Bertelsmann J, in the case of S v Maluleke 2008 (1) SACR 49 (T), categorically pointed towards the need for the court to explore the feasibility of vibrant and exciting potentials for alternative sentencing, rather than deterring from adopting such measures. Mogoeng J pointed towards the principle of Ubuntu, and pointed towards the measures of restorative justice so as to adopt a generous and forgiving spirit, with the need of having courteous interaction with orders, and to instil these values in the minds of young people even in the daily lives. In words of Makgoro J, the need was to recreate respectful and dignified relation between the parties by mending the shattered relations. S v M (Centre for Child Law as Amicus Curiae) 2008 (3) SA 232 (CC) par 62 saw restorative justice being recognised as a community effort instead of being the crime control being in hands of criminal justice agencies. The need for underscoring the ruptured personal relations was identified in the Constitutional Court in matter of Le Roux v Dey 2011 (3) SA 274 (CC) par 202 (Lubaale, 2017).

The proposed study would be undertaken in a standard structure of a dissertation. Chapter 1 of the study would cover an introduction, which will cover headings to the likes of background, research question, research aims and objectives, rationale, and chapter outline. This chapter essentially forms the base of direction of where the discussion is headed and would help the reader in understanding the flow of the research. Chapter 2 would cover the research methodology, which would highlight the manner in which the research is being undertaken. This will be in similar context of the details covered in this discussion under the heading “Research Methods”. Chapter 3 will be the most substantial part of this dissertation, as it would cover the literature review. This chapter would detail the research question, as it would cover the crux of this discussion. The main question in context of the meaning of restorative justice, the different restorative justice measures available in the South African jurisdiction, and checking of their efficiency would be explored in this very chapter. Chapter 4 would be the discussion chapter. This chapter holds significance to this dissertation as it essentially ties the entire research and covers the analysis of the studied literature. Hence, the learning from the studied literature would essentially be highlighted in this chapter. Lastly, the dissertation would cover chapter 5 of conclusion, which will provide a succinct summary of this work. This chapter would also tie together the research question and would clarify the exact answer to the explored discussions. This chapter would also touch upon the areas for future research, which can be explored by the other researchers.

As the proposed study is based on secondary mode of research, and an integrative literature review will be undertaken for the proposed work, the ethical concerns are very limited. This is because as against a primary research mode, there is no involvement of subjects to discuss the topic. There will be no questions for surveys or interviews or anything that could require consent of the participants, or something that could require the researcher to be careful from an ethical perspective. This being said, the researcher (author of this proposed study), would have to ensure that the selected literature does not present one-sided tale of the coin and has to explore the possible available literature to understand and answer the research problem in an unbiased manner. Only when this is done, would the proposed study be of proper use. Hence, the ethical concerns related to this study are limited, specifically to the selection and presentation of the published literature.

The study will be undertaken in a phased manner as per the instructions shared by the tutor. There will be proper time schedule that starts well in advance, particularly for searching and selection of the literature relevant to the selected topic. A suggested timeline of the proposed study is presented through this Gantt chart.

The start of this work will be done in Month 1, whereby first the literature would be gathered and synthesized so as to act as a starting guide for this month. In this month, the introduction segment and the base for literature review will also be started, to help set the flow of the proposed study. The second month will predominantly cover the description of research methodology, while continuing with the literature study, so that the research aligns with the set methodology. The third month will move towards end of the literature review and integration of the findings in the discussion segment. This will provide clarity on the findings drawn from the reviewed literature. In the end, the last month would cover the conclusion part, along with finishing up the final presentation of the proposed study, so as to be presented in a holistic manner, for ease of reading.

Conclusion

The proposed study will help us in understanding the manner in which restorative justice works. The study will clarify the meaning of this term and the various manners in which this concept is used. The focus will be on showing the different manners used in the South African criminal justice system. Once the theoretical aspects are covered, a critical lens would be adopted to show the shortfalls and further improvements that are required for improving the present system. This is because there have been questions regarding the effectiveness of the practices of restorative justice actually addressing the needs of the victims of crime. Even though this study does not adopt a primary research methodology, it does explore the literature review methodology, which allows the present research (author of this paper) to learn from the conducted interviews of different researchers and to understand their view on the effectiveness of this approach, particularly with reference to attaining satisfaction in victims. This is because restorative justice, as a practice, is deemed as a holistic philosophy. At the same time, the contemporary criminal justice field is a very dynamic one. Hence, this study helps in checking out the combination of these two complex concepts and in understanding the results, it brings to the victims. The study would also discuss the reference to legislation (example 1996 Constitution) where restorative justice is used, along with covering the case of South African jurisdiction where these measures have been adopted, example, Le Roux v Dey.   

Batley, M., 2005. Restorative justice in the South African context. In: Beyond Retribution: Prospects for Restorative Justice in South Africa. Pretoria: Institute for Security Studies, pp. 21–33.

Bonensteffen, F., Zebel, S. and Giebels, E., 2022. Is computer-based communication a valuable addition to victim-offender mediation? A qualitative exploration among victims, offenders and mediators. Victims & Offenders, pp.1-23.

Burford, G., 2017. Family group conferencing: New directions in community-centered child and family practice. Oxon: Routledge.

Chupp, M., 2009. Reconciliation procedures and rationale. In: M. Wright and B. Galaway, ed., Mediation and criminal justice: Victims, offenders and community. London: Sage, pp.56–68.

Cornell, D. and Van Marle, K., 2012. Exploring ubuntu: tentative reflections. In: Ubuntu and the Law: African Ideals and Post-Apartheid Jurisprudence. New York: Fordham University Press, p.354.

Daly, K., 2017. Restorative justice: The real story. In Restorative Justice (pp. 85-109). Oxon: Routledge.

Fox, D., 2018. Family group conferencing with children and young people: Advocacy approaches, variations and impacts. New York: Springer.

Gabbay, Z. D. (2005). Justifying restorative justice: A theoretical justification for the use of restorative justice practices. J. Disp. Resol., 349.

Gaudreault, A., 2005. The Limits of Restorative Justice. Paris: Dalloz.

Gxubane, T., 2016. Prospects of family group conferencing with youth sex offenders and their victims in South Africa. In T Gavrielides, Offenders No More: An Interdisciplinary Restorative Justice Dialogue. New York: Nova Publishers.

Hadley, M.L. ed., 2001. The spiritual roots of restorative justice. New York: State University of New York Press.

Johnstone, G. and Van Ness, D. eds., 2013. Handbook of restorative justice. Oxon: Routledge.

Leyh, B., 2011. Procedural Justice? Victim Participation. In: International Criminal Proceedings. Utrechti: Intersentia.

Lubaale, E.C., 2017. Restorative justice and cases of serious offending: a South African and Canadian perspective. Obiter, 38(2), pp.296-323.

Mangena, F., 2015. Restorative justice’s deep roots in Africa. South African Journal of Philosophy= Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir Wysbegeerte, 34(1), pp.1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/02580136.2014.940572

Maree, K., 2019. First steps in research. 3^rd ed. Pietermaritzburg: Van Schaik. 

Marshall, T., 2009. Restorative justice: An overview. New York: Home Office Research and Development Statistics Directorate.

Mokgoro, J.Y., 1998. Ubuntu and the Law in South Africa. Johannesburg: Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung.

Morris, A. and Maxwell, G., 2003. Restorative justice in New Zealand. In: A. Von Hirsch, J. Robert, A. Bottoms, K. Roach and M. Schiff, ed., Restorative Justice and Criminal Justice. Competing or Reconcilable Paradigms?. New Zealand: Hart, pp.257–272.

Morris, A. and Maxwell, G., 2003. Restorative justice in New Zealand. In: A. Von Hirsch, J. Robert, A. Bottoms, K. Roach and M. Schiff, ed., Restorative Justice and Criminal Justice. Competing or Reconcilable Paradigms?. New Zealand: Hart, pp.257–272.

Murhula, P.B.B. and Tolla, A.D., 2021. The effectiveness of restorative justice practices on victims of crime: Evidence from South Africa. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 10(1), pp.98-110.

Ndlovu, J., 2018. Compensation Orders in Criminal Proceedings. Centurion: De Rebus.

Pavlich, G., 2010. Towards an ethics of restorative justice. In: L. Walgrave, ed., Restorative Justice and Law. Cullompton: Willan Publishing, pp.1–18.

Rautenbach, C., 2015. Legal reform of traditional courts in South Africa: Exploring the links between Ubuntu, restorative justice and therapeutic jurisprudence. J. Int’l & Comp. L., 2, p.275.

Roche, D., 2013. Retribution and restorative justice. In Handbook of restorative justice (pp. 97-112). Willan.

Sherman, L. and Strang, H., 2007. Restorative justice: The evidence. Smith Institute.

Skelton, A., 2007. Tapping indigenous knowledge: traditional conflict resolution, restorative justice and the denunciation of crime in South Africa: Part III-retribution and restoration in critical perspective. Acta Juridica, 2007(1), pp.228-246.

Skelton, A., 2013. The South African Constitutional Court’s restorative justice jurisprudence. Restorative Justice, 1(1), pp.122-145. https://doi.org/10.5235/20504721.1.1.122

Snyder, H., 2019. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, pp.333-339.

Strang, H., 2010. Is restorative justice imposing its agenda on victims? In: H Zehr and B Toews, eds, Critical Issues in Restorative Justice. Devon: Willan Publishing, pp. 95–105.

Sullivan, D. and Tifft, L., 2006. Handbook of restorative justice: A global perspective. Oxford: Routledge.

Van Ness, D. and Strong, K.H., 2014. Restoring justice: An introduction to restorative justice. Oxford: Routledge.

Van Ness, D.W., 2007. Prisons and restorative justice. In Johnstone G and van Ness D (eds) Handbook of Restorative Justice (pp. 312–324). Gullompton: Willan Publications.

Venter, F. 2018. Legal research: Purpose, planning and publication. Claremont: Juta

Wright, M. and Galaway, B., 1989. Mediation and Criminal Justice. Victims, Offenders and Community. London: Sage Publications.

Zehr, H., 1990. Changing lenses: A new focus for crime and justice. Scottsdale PA: Herald Press.

Zehr, H., 2002. The Little Book of Restorative Justice. Pennsylvania: Good Books.

Zehr, H., 2015. The little book of restorative justice: Revised and updated. New York: Simon and Schuster. 

Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:

Turnitin Report

Formatting

Title Page

Citation

Outline

Place an Order