Power and Accountability in Restorative Justice
By Ngaire Rasmussen*
Restorative Justice (RJ) is a way of responding to harm and ‘crime’ that focuses on accountability and repair rather than punishment. It offers people who have been harmed, and people who have caused harm, the opportunity to have a structured conversation about what happened, what it has been like, and what can be done now.
At its best, RJ differs from the regular justice system because accountability for harm is not thrust on the “harm-doer” by the imposition of a punitive sentence but comes from within. Through respectful, facilitated dialogue between harm-doers and harmed people that draws out their shared humanity and enables critical self-reflection, the person who has caused harm can truly take accountability. This potentially transformative experience connects both harm-doer and harmed with their communities, can reduce further criminalisation, and support healing.
Yet accountability implies harm; that a person or community has actually been harmed by the criminal offence of another individual and wants to be part of the process.
Restorative Justice in Ireland
In Ireland, restorative justice has been integrated into the criminal justice system. It was recommended by a national commission in 2009, and today restorative justice programmes are funded by the Department of Justice through the Probation Service. A small number of organisations deliver these programmes, including Probation Services directly.
In most cases, a District Court judge refers someone who has pled or been found guilty of an offence to complete an RJ programme before sentencing. The person must agree to take part voluntarily. An intervention, such as a Restorative Meeting is then organised, usually between the “offender,” a community volunteer, a member of An Garda Síochána (AGS), and a “victim” (if one exists and chooses to take part). The RJ intervention is meant to focus on what happened, who was affected, and what can be done to reduce the chance of it happening again. The judge may consider a person’s participation in the RJ meeting when deciding the sentence, potentially reducing the severity or even striking out a sentence where they deem accountability to have been sufficiently taken.
On paper, Ireland’s criminal justice model of RJ sounds positive – surely alternative sanctions that centre the people impacted most by crime may reduce the harm caused by certain types of offences. However, a closer examination of the model’s implementation raises serious questions about victimhood, harm, and accountability that may undermine the efficacy of RJ in Ireland.
The Problem of Restorative Justice in Practice
There is no strong national evidence yet showing that restorative justice in Ireland reduces reoffending or improves people’s experience of justice. Most publicly available data tells us how many cases were referred, but does not provide evidence of a positive impact on communities or programme participants. Nor is there evidence to suggest that people who experience harm and crime are benefitting. Notably, most referrals do not result in a meeting between a harmed person and the person who caused harm.
This may be because often no clear “victim” can be identified. Most referrals to RJ programmes concern crimes for minor drug possession, careless driving, minor theft, or small-scale money laundering. The “injured party” might be a supermarket, a bank, or the State. Often these entities do not feel personally affected and choose, as is their right, not to participate.
This raises questions about who is considered a victim, whose voice matters, and what constitutes harm.
Who is the Victim?
In cases where the “injured party” is a supermarket, a bank, or the State, most often these entities do not feel personally affected or for another reason choose not to participate. In the absence of a participating “victim,” the role is filled by a member of An Garda Siochana, a representative from an association of businesses, or a volunteer who loosely represents “the public at large.” Meanwhile, the people most affected by the situation — families, partners, neighbours, or communities living with poverty and addiction — are not in the room, and neither is their voice actively sought.
When people with much more institutional power are placed in the role of victim, the process changes. It starts to look less like restorative dialogue about accountability and justice, and more like the usual justice system. Within the criminal justice model of RJ, power differences remain intact: from class-based discrimination to unquestionable institutional authority. The experience of many working-class Irish people, migrants, and recipients of social welfare of being overpoliced and morally stigmatised is replicated in these meetings, where their crime - whether stealing groceries or being publicly intoxicated - is hyper-individualised, and equated with a moral failing.
What Harm?
So, what is the harm people are asked to take accountability for in RJ in “victimless” crimes like simple possession offences, minor public order offences, or money laundering? Harm identified by the participants in an RJ meeting in such cases might include:
● The possibility that a supermarket’s insurance costs could rise because of theft, in a case where a woman stole food for her family.
● The discomfort that passers-by might have felt seeing a homeless man being arrested for public intoxication.
● The burden of paperwork placed on a Garda when a vulnerable young woman was threatened into withdrawing money from her bank account.
In these examples, the harm, if not imagined, is minute compared with the impact of criminalisation on the person being held accountable. The offences described - theft, public order, and carelessness with a bank account - almost always arise in a context of poverty, inadequate education, addiction and illness, gender-based violence and social alienation. Moreover, interaction with the justice system routinely worsens the health outcomes for people living in poverty. Thus, when structurally reproduced hardships rooted in a capitalist economy are ignored, while institutional inconveniences are treated as harm, the process stops feeling restorative and begins to resemble public shaming.
Restorative Justice Matters
It is my belief that restorative justice - whether victim or offender centred - only works if it is honest about power. The well-intentioned organisations delivering RJ programmes for victimless crimes across Ireland must ask challenging questions about who defines harm, who gets to speak to it, and whose voice carries weight. Many individuals working in RJ are insightful, empathetic and passionate practitioners who care deeply about fairness, respect, and dignity. Many others have devoted difficult careers to providing a space safe enough for previously silenced victims of institutional sexual abuse to speak.
The co-option of RJ into the criminal justice system risks de-valuing this work. If RJ is delivered entirely within or even by the structures of the criminal justice system or institutions of the state, it risks once again silencing the voices of the vulnerable and becoming another protected arm of the very systems that have allowed institutional harm to go unchallenged for decades.
For RJ to present a meaningful alternative to punitive measures, a collective commitment to accountability is required. First, RJ programmes need to be designed together with the people most impacted, instead of deployed by the state; this means that those organisations delivering RJ must try to collaborate with the communities and participants they work within, allowing them to define harm, accountability and repair. For overpoliced neighbourhoods, representatives of An Garda Siochana must be prepared to accept their part in the harm. Second, harm must be identified and defined by victims; not by the organization delivering the RJ intervention, the State, or institutional powers making the referral to an RJ programme. Finally, if we, as practitioners, cannot question power, engage with real experiences of harm at the level of human beings and communities, or show evidence of meaningful impact, then we risk reinforcing the very inequalities we seek to alleviate.
*Ngaire Rasmussen is a …
registered social worker dedicated to supporting people impacted by violence, addiction, mental illness, and structural disadvantage. Her work emphasises trauma-informed care, participatory approaches, and community-led solutions to conflict and harm. She is passionate about exploring alternatives to conflict and harm that empower the individuals and communities most affected.
