Focusing particularly on the theoretical works of Habermas and Derrida, the author’s main argument is that the political and the ethical/ideal coexist within RJ practices yet the political can all too easily undermine the ethical when it comes to criminal justice practice. For RJ practices to be effective there must be a balance between the ethical and the political. In making her argument, the author focuses on three themes that highlight the normative aspects of contemporary penal policy and illustrate the tensions between the political and the ethical in criminal justice policy and practice: (1) the movement from risk management to risk control; (2) the persistence of the White male perspective in law; and (3) the decline of the community. The displacement of risk management in favor of risk control is evidenced by practices that distinguish between persistent, non-violent offenders and violent offenders. Overall, this shift has been accomplished due to an acceptance of the risked event as inevitable, thus changing the focus from the prevention of risk to the minimization of harm. The author next considers the predominance of the White male perspective in law and criminal justice, resulting in the overrepresentation of minority members in the criminal justice system, which also falls short of protecting disadvantaged members of society from harm. Finally, the blurred conception of community is explored as the author points out the tension between the purported enhancement of community safety by RJ practices and social theories that decry the social decay of communities. In closing, the author argues for a balance between the ethical and the political in criminal justice policy because without ethics policy would be free to exclude and discriminate whereas without politics policy would be based on abstract principles most likely inoperable in the real world. Notes, references