skip navigation


Abstract Database

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

To download this abstract, check the box next to the NCJ number then click the "Back To Search Results" link. Then, click the "Download" button on the Search Results page. Also see the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 213982 
Title: Risk and Restorative Justice: Governing Through the Democratic Minimization of Harms (From Institutionalizing Restorative Justice, P 216-236, 2006, Ivo Aertsen, Tom Daems, and Luc Robert, eds., -- See NCJ-213972)
Author(s): Pat O'Malley
Date Published: 2006
Page Count: 21
Sponsoring Agency: Willan Publishing
Portland, OR 97213-3644
Sale Source: Willan Publishing
c/o ISBS, 5804 N.E. Hassalo Street
Portland, OR 97213-3644
United States of America
Type: Issue Overview
Format: Book Chapter
Language: English
Country: United Kingdom
Annotation: This chapter considers the relationship between risk and restorative justice (RJ).
Abstract: In this chapter, “risk” refers to the probabilistic prediction of future harms. The author suggests that risk can be utilized in far better ways than it is used within the actuarial justice system that categorizes offenders as either high-risk and in need of incapacitation or as low-risk and in need of community inclusion programming. It is too often assumed that risk and RJ are incompatible, particularly in light of RJ’s ambivalent orientation, its optimistic view of the future, and the key role it allows to lay persons. The author argues, instead that risk can take many forms, actuarial justice being just one of them. To illustrate the various ways of applying risk, the drug harm minimization programs in Australia are described, with an emphasis on their RJ likenesses, such as the fact that they are harm focused and oriented to the future. The discussion leads to the possibility that risk and RJ practices have the ability to blend together into a reintegrative and empowering hybrid of justice. The programmatic parallels between harm minimization programs based on risk and RJ practices are examined, including their strong commitment to socially inclusive solutions, their focus on harm rather than rules, the accountability of the offender, and their future orientations. The two major differences between harm minimization and RJ are also considered: harm minimization does not focus on the victim and is dominated by expert knowledge. In closing, the author notes that once the many forms of risk are recognized, it will become evident that risk incorporates only a small component of any criminal justice technique, program, or policy and can certainly fit within a RJ model. Notes, references
Main Term(s): Restorative Justice; Risk management
Index Term(s): Australia; Criminal justice ideologies; Criminal justice system reform
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.