Restorative Justice and Sex Offending

This essay examines the origins and uses of restorative justice with sexual offending and the contemporary challenges and controversies surrounding this. It charts the range of ad hoc initiatives which have sought to apply a restorative form of intervention with violent or sexual offending from first time and ‘acquaintance’ rape as well as young sexual abusers to high risk sexual offenders in the form of circles of support and accountability. Such schemes are often presented as a counter to the failings of retributive forms of justice and are premised on Braithwaite’s (1989) notion of ‘reintegrative shaming’ that seek to reintegrate offenders into the community. Critics of restorative justice traditionally put forward a number of core objectives when restorative justice is applied to serious forms of offending such as sexual offending. The essay also sets out and seeks to counter these principal challenges and how they may be overcome. For the most part, however, restorative justice has failed to reach its potential as a fully fledged sentencing rationale in being applied as a mainstream response to a wide range of offending including that at the higher end of the spectrum. The essay also seeks to examine barriers to restorative justice within contemporary penal policy and to highlight some of the most controversial applications of the restorative paradigm including those related to clergy sexual abuse. It concludes by offering some thoughts on the future of restorative justice as a mainstream responses to serious forms of offending.

The Use of 'Shame' with Sexual Offenders

This article explores the use of shaming mechanisms with sexual offenders, particularly those who offend against children. Shaming, a central concept in the broader theory of restorative justice, may be of two varieties. The first, ‘disintegrative shaming’, characterises the traditional retributive framework of justice and is evident in recent state led and popular responses to the risk posed by released sexual offenders. Far from ensuring offender integration, the net result is often labelling, stigmatisation, ostracism and a return to offending behaviour. The second, ‘reintegrative shaming’, affirms the offender’s membership within law abiding society. This has been used in several jurisdictions as the basis of restorative support and treatment networks for sexual offenders where the community works in partnership with state and voluntary agencies. Contrary to arguments put forward by critics of restorative justice, this article argues that such cases may be particularly suitable for a restorative approach.

The Equalization of Effective Communicative Freedom: Democratic Justice in the Constitutional State and Beyond

Jurgen Habermas takes the realization of rights through the democratic self-organization of legal communities to be the normative core of emancipatory politics. In this article I explore the implications of this claim in relation to the requirements of justice. I argue that Habermas's discourse theory of democratic legitimacy presupposes a substantive principle of justice that demands the equalization of effective communicative freedom for all structurally constituted social groups in any constitutional state. This involves the elimination of a range of structural injustices rooted in the complex interrelationships between political, economic and cultural orders. In the final section I sketch briefly the implications of this analysis in the context of ongoing globalization processes. It is suggested that the most effective way to establish a just system of global governance is to equalize effective communicative freedom among nation-states.