“When I became a lawyer, I thought the criminal justice system would meet people’s needs,” says Jon, a facilitator at a restorative justice clinic in North Carolina. “But it doesn’t. Offenders aren’t helped, they’re punished.”
This is what happens in the United States’ punitive system: it is a process designed to determine guilt and impose punishments, rather than aiming to address harm or foster healing. Instead of asking: Who was harmed? What do they need and who is responsible for making things right?—The questions at the heart of restorative justice, the traditional system asks only, What law was broken, and how should we punish the offender?
You can see the consequences in the numbers. Nearly 70% of formerly incarcerated people are rearrested within three years, and even juvenile recidivism rates remain stubbornly high. At the same time, victims also report feeling sidelined and voiceless in the whole process. “Our criminal justice system encourages us not to talk,” Jon says.Here is where you need to say why you are only using his first name. Something like ‘says Jon, who asked not to have his full name used for privacy reasons.’“Restorative justice does the opposite; it’s about taking your power back instead of holding on to bitterness and anger.”
The roots of this approach can be traced to South Africa, a country that pioneered restorative justice practices. After apartheid ended in South Africa in the 1990s, the country faced a hard choice: punish thousands of people for politically motivated crimes, or find a way to unite the country. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) offered a different path. People who had committed abuses could testify publicly about their actions. In return for full disclosure, many avoided prison time. Many critics found this approach too lenient, but supporters argued it was the only way to confront the truth without plunging South Africa back into conflict. It was a precursor to what many now recognize as modern restorative justice, a system built not on vengeance but on acknowledgment and accountability.
In Jon’s work, these principles are used in facilitated dialogues between victims and offenders. “I’m not there to help them become friends,” he says. “I’m there so the person harmed can get answers, and the person who caused harm can take responsibility.” One case stands out to him. A mother sat down with the man who had killed her son. She wasn’t there to forgive him. That wasn’t the point. She wanted the truth. The meeting had such a large impact that she later began advocating for restorative justice herself. Another victim, Natasha, decided to share her story with Jon’s law school classes. “Whether the dialogue happened or not, she said she’d be happy,” Jon recalls. “Doing the restorative justice work fulfilled her in some way.”
There is also research to back up these stories. A 2023 analysis found that restorative justice programs consistently produce higher satisfaction among victims and offenders, along with reductions in reoffending, compared to traditional courts. One large-scale review showed recidivism rates dropping from 28% in traditional cases to 19% in restorative programs. In Colorado, youth referred to restorative justice diversion programs had less than 10% reoffend within a year. In some school-based and community initiatives, reoffending fell by as much as 25%. However, this does not remove skepticism. Jon was once told outright that helping an offender means betraying the victim. At one conference, a woman approached him and said, “People are watching you,” implying that his work was under criticism. “We live in a punitive society,” Jon says, “but just because something’s hard doesn’t mean it’s not good.”
The process begins with a referral from a court, school, or prosecutor’s office. A facilitator then meets separately with both the victim and the offender to prepare them for the dialogue; this takes multiple meetings. Once both sides agree, they come together for a structured conversation, where harm is acknowledged and a possible repair plan is created. That plan can include restitution, letters of apology, or community service. The process ends with a follow-up to ensure the agreement is completed. It is voluntary at every stage, and it only works if both victim and offender choose to participate.
Restorative justice is not the same as rehabilitation, though the two can overlap. Rehabilitation focuses on changing the offender’s behavior. Restorative justice goes further, bringing victims into the process to decide how harm can be repaired. In New Zealand, for example, Family Group Conferences in youth justice cases involve victims, offenders, and community members deciding together on outcomes. In Norway, prisons focus on community reintegration, keeping ties to the outside world strong from the first day of incarceration. While the process can be extremely impactful for both sides, Jon also warns that rushing it can lead to harm. In one juvenile case, facilitators skipped a critical preparation meeting. At the first encounter, family members began arguing, and the conflict escalated into a fatal shooting in the parking lot. “When you think they’re ready, have one more meeting,” Jon advises.
Across the U.S., interest in restorative justice is growing. Forty-three states now have laws that provide either funding or guidance for restorative programs. In some places, like Minnesota, a newly created Office of Restorative Practices has invested four million annually to expand programming. From juvenile courts to correctional facilities to public schools, more programs are using the approach. One study of community conferencing found that only 18.4% of youths reoffended within a year, compared to 32% in the traditional system, and the restorative approach cost less than one-fourth of probation. In California, even high-security prisons like San Quentin are incorporating dialogue-based and reintegration-focused programs. When asked how he’d want to see restorative justice used, Jon said, “I’d embed restorative practices in every jurisdiction,” “I’d have a menu of options for victims and offenders, and trained facilitators ready to respond.”
