Restorative justice is not easily defined because it encompasses a variety of practices at different stages of the criminal process, including diversion from court prosecution, actions taken in parallel with court decisions and meetings between victims and offenders at any stage of the criminal process. Restorative justice processes have only been applied to those offenders who have admitted to an offense. Restorative justice is used in adult and juvenile criminal matters and also a range of civil matters. There is great concern among restorative justice advocates to distinguish practices that are near and far from the restorative ideal, and there is debate over how to draw the line on a continuum of practices. Myth number one is that restorative justice is the opposite of retributive justice. It focuses on repairing the harm caused by crime, whereas retributive justice focuses on punishing an offense. Dialogue and negotiation among the parties characterize restorative justice, whereas adversarial relations among the parties characterize retributive justice. The community takes a more active role in restorative justice, whereas the community is represented by the state for retributive justice. Myth number two is that restorative justice uses indigenous justice practices and was the dominant form of pre-modern justice. Myth number three is that restorative justice is a ‘care’ (feminine) response to crime in comparison to a ‘justice’ (masculine) response. Myth number four is that restorative justice can be expected to produce major changes in people. Empirical evidence of conferencing in Australia and New Zealand suggests that very high proportions of people find the process fair; on many measures of procedural justice, it succeeds. 11 notes, 90 references