‘Let’s talk about it’: Why social class matters to restorative justice

Abstract

Communication is universal to human beings, regardless of gender, ethnicity, class, sexuality, disability and so forth. But though communication is a shared capacity, individuals and groups communicate in diverse ways. This study investigates how specifically social class influences participation in scripted restorative justice by affecting how participants communicate. Data from an ethnographic study indicate that restorative justice implementation is not class-neutral because it appears to privilege middle-class forms of communication, and participants from middle-class backgrounds may therefore be more powerfully positioned in restorative justice processes than participants from less advantaged backgrounds. To show this, a comparative methodology is adopted, which involves ethnographic observation and critical discussion of two contrasting restorative justice conferences. The implications of class-based linguistic disadvantage for restorative justice theory are subsequently discussed. The author recommends that restorative justice commits itself to an equality of opportunity which allows stakeholders to participate fully irrespective of their class background.

The Good, The Bad, and The Street: Does ‘street culture’ affect offender communication and reception in restorative justice?

“…We also saw how a victim in R001, quoted above, expressed a racist belief that black offenders are more likely to have the wrong attitude. The assumption that decent offenders 'get' restorative justice, whereas street offenders do not, adds weight to claims that restorative justice is a model of justice that is more familiar to those from more advantaged social backgrounds (Delgado, 2000;Green et al, 2014;Levrant et al, 1999;Willis, 2018).…”

“…Two cultural aspects of social background are of interest: how offenders verbally communicate in restorative justice conferencing and how offenders present physically. Although these factors are also relevant to victims (Willis, 2018), due to space limitations we focus on offenders.…”

The Use of Sustained Restorative Dialogue to Address Sexual Harm at University: Examining agency in sexual harm discourse and evaluating a restorative model for prevention

“…Again, a possibility for future research may involve a more diverse sample of participants. That said, considerations associated with power imbalances would need to be taken into account if some participants were linguistically disadvantaged (see, for example, Willis, 2018), whereas this was not the case in this study.…”

“…Although not specifically related to students, researchers have noted that social class can influence a person's ability to successfully participate in restorative processes, since socio-economic background can affect an individual's linguistic development (Willis, 2018). That is, not all participants are equally equipped with the necessary linguistic skills to give expressive, and thus effective, answers to questions in restorative conferences, and therefore benefit from the opportunity.…”

“…That is, not all participants are equally equipped with the necessary linguistic skills to give expressive, and thus effective, answers to questions in restorative conferences, and therefore benefit from the opportunity. Willis (2018) argues that when taking into account the recurrent concerns about power imbalances in restorative practices (most apparent in debates around sexual violence) we must also pay attention to subtler forms of power disparity, such as the unequal communicative abilities of participants. As most campuses will encompass students from a range of socio-economic backgrounds, this is a legitimate consideration in the university context.…”