Restorative justice is a model of addressing conflict and harm that is different from the typical punitive approach. Rather than focusing on punishment, a restorative justice process asks what is needed by the person who was harmed to recover. Ultimately, the process seeks healing, accountability, and community-building. Studies have shown that restorative justice is a promising approach to improve outcomes for both people who have been harmed and people who have caused harm.* However, the concept of restorative justice is not widely known in our communities. To expand our toolbox for responding to harm, CCSJ created a series of restorative justice programs to introduce our communities to the restorative justice model while learning conflict navigation and accountability skills.

What’s the difference between restorative justice and punitive justice?

Imagine that someone graffitis a racial slur on a restaurant owned and staffed by Chinese immigrants. We might typically take a punitive approach to address this hate act, but a restorative approach can have more satisfying outcomes for the people harmed and change the mindset of the person who committed harm. We walk through an example of what this might look like below.

Restorative justice

The business owner and staff want to know why the person who wrote the racial slur felt so much hate. They want the person to see Chinese people as human beings. They also want the person who committed harm to take accountability by participating in community service to repair the damage and support a neighborhood festival and interact with Chinese community members.

The person who committed harm talks with leaders and authority figures in their lives who can send the signal that graffitiing a racial slur is wrong. Chinese community leaders are also brought in to educate the person on the history of hate against Chinese people and why using the slur was harmful.

After learning about the harm they inflicted, the person writes a letter to the business owner and staff. They explain the circumstances and feelings leading up to them targeting the business and graffitiing the racial slur. They describe how they now understand the harm they caused and acknowledge that their anger was misplaced. They apologize for targeting the business with a racial slur and agree to do community service to give back to the community they harmed.

The person who committed harm repairs the damage and participates in community service. The business owner and staff are heartened to see someone learn their lesson. It gives them hope that we can reduce anti-Asian hate, which contributes to their sense of safety.

Punitive justice

The person who graffitied the racial slur is charged with a property crime with a hate enhancement. The person is sentenced to pay a $5000 fine and to do community service, but the court does not consult the people harmed, so the community service is not related to the community they harmed. Impacts on staff and the broader community are not addressed at all.

The person who committed the harm is unable to pay their fine. The sentence further enmeshes them in the criminal justice system and creates barriers to employment. They are not shown positive behaviors to emulate nor are they taught about the humanity of Chinese people. Since they do not understand the harm they caused, they think the punishment is unjust, which fuels more anger. What they’ve learned is that they’ll get punished if they’re caught, but the underlying motivation for committing an act of hate does not go away. They continue to hold anti-Asian beliefs.

The business owner and staff do not see the person transform or take accountability for their actions. The business owner and their staff fear that the person or others will continue to target them or other community members. They come to see America as a more hostile place for Chinese Americans and feel less belonging.