An appreciation by Phillip Taylor MBE and Elizabeth Taylor of Richmond Green Chambers
Professor Peter Cane is leading the way here with a new intellectual path for discussion and debate of some of the most singularly important issues of today starting with restorative justice and two different views neatly presented by Hart Publishing for the discerning criminologist.
The two authors, Chris Cunneen and Carolyn Hoyle, present their arguments well in around 100 pages for each point of view. This new and interesting series is an opportunity for expert scholars to offer contrasting perspectives on contemporary issues which will be welcomed by the thoughtful undergraduate criminologist. Hoyle gives us comprehensive bibliography whilst Cunneen just offers detailed footnotes although both points of view are meticulously researched and detailed with a useful index at the back.
So what is the argument about? Hoyle says that both communities and the state should be more restorative in response to criminal activity. She sees the exclusive use of restorative justice for non-serious matters which may be attractive to the new Justice Minister, Ken Clarke. She also supports approaches that, by integrating restorative and retributive philosophies, that restorative practices could be taken to the deep end of crime.
Hoyle has seven chapters, with the middle chapters (IV and V) covering the detailed content with:
• a reflection on the imbalance between restorative aspirations and restorative practices; and • restorative justice and criminal justice: complementary not contradictory.
On the other side, Cunneen gives us 5 chapters with the main emphasis covering the headings:
• creating ideal victims and offenders; and • law, state and community.
He takes the approach that the theoretical cogency of restorative ideas is limited by a lack of the coherent analysis of social and political power. To hit a very contemporary political stance of the new government, he suggests that after several decades of experimentation, restorative justice has not produced significant change within the criminal justice system. Therefore, the attempt to establish restorative justice as a feasible alternative to the dominant practices of criminal justice has failed.
Both have their opinions, and both will have merit to the new Justice Secretary as we seem to be embarking on a new approach to combating crime. Each academic produces a strong conclusion:
Hoyle concludes that “restorative justice provides opportunities for communication and apology, two things that people in postmodern societies are in danger of forgetting how to do it”. By contrast, Cunneen has explored “the wider question of the development, acceptance and contemporary place of restorative justice” giving his conclusion the heading ‘searching for truth’.
There are many useful references and the ‘Debating Law’ series will be an additional invaluable source for the inquisitive criminologist who will always be on the look-out for some answers… Even though it is clear from the finely balances arguments of both schools of thought, that the debate will continue for a long time to come!
