The Durkheimian perspective provides insight into the emotional and moral features of any response to crime; and in this regard, there are important differences between restorative justice and traditional corrections. Because anger and force tend to beget anger and force, it is difficult to maintain the position that the moral and affective framework of traditional corrections is a constructive basis for crime control policy. Even though restorative justice may provide a more constructive basis, the Durkheimian perspective suggests that in order to be more widely accepted and implemented, restorative justice programs must mesh better with public sentiments about crime and responses to it. Counter to Durkheimian assumptions, evidence suggests a conflict interpretation rather than a consensus model of the origins of law and responses to lawbreaking (Akers, 1994). Researchers are attempting to explain what type of conflict interpretation is most valid. Consistent with the Marxist perspective, much of this research shows that a valid interpretation must attend to contradictions in social structure. Consequently, restorative justice proponents should be wary of propagating images of consensus, lest their efforts provide ideological reinforcement for unequal economic and power relations. Foucault's perspective is a reminder that restorative justice is a coercive social control strategy that is not totally distinct from the less subtle forms of behavioral regulation it seeks to supplement or replace. Accordingly, it is important to recognize and counter the tendency of diversionary, subtle social control mechanisms to result in net-widening. Future theoretical inquiry could examine the linkages between restorative justice and other criminological perspectives. 39 references