Handbook on Restorative justice programmes

From the perspective of offender
앫 The potential for the offender to be shamed (e.g. in a non-
reintegrative manner).
앫 Consequences of a failure of the offender to fulfil the negotiated
plan (agreement).
앫 Offenders viewing the restorative process as a “way out” of the jus-
tice system.
앫 Subtle pressure on the offender to participate in a restorative process
so as to avoid a harsher sanction in the conventional justice system.
앫 Potential lack of due process protection and the issue of vengeful/
lenient victims
Potential concerns about the restorative meeting itself
앫 Potential domination of the meeting/process by one or a few par-
ticipants.
앫 Potential domination of the meeting by the victim who may place
vindictive demands on the offender.
앫 Inclusion of inappropriate persons in the restorative process
앫 Manipulation of the meeting by the offender.
앫 Threatening behaviour by the offender toward other participants.
앫 Power imbalances. As emphasized in the Basic Principles, it is impor-
tant that restorative processes consider the impact of power imbal-
ances between the victim and the offender that may, potentially,
place one of the parties at a disadvantage during the restorative
process. Among the disparities that must be considered are cultural
differences, age, intellectual capacity, racial, ethnic or cultural fac-
tors, or any other attribute that may significant compromise a per-
son’s ability to participate equally in the restorative justice process.
Such power imbalances, as was seen earlier, must be taken into
account in referring cases to the restorative justice process.