Making room for procedural justice in restorative justice theory

Research seeking to understand how restorative justice might reduce reoffending, or satisfy victims, suggests that it can increase participants’ sense of procedural justice (Dignan, 2004). By that, we mean it can make them feel they have some control over the process, their opinions are valued, they have been respected and dealt with fairly (see, e.g. Aertsen, Bolívar, De Mesmaecker & Lauwers, 2011; Shapland et al., 2007; Shapland, Robinson & Sorsby, 2011; Strang, 2002; Wem‐ mers & Cyr, 2004; Wemmers & Van Camp, 2011). Despite this theoretical inter‐ relatedness or affinity between restorative justice and procedural justice, the two bodies of literature have developed quite independently of one another, arguably to the disadvantage of both. While a few restorative justice scholars have referred to procedural justice in passing,1 the relationship between the two has rarely been examined empirically. The academic literature is awash with definitions of restorative justice, some focusing on theory, others on practice, but none consider restorative justice as explicitly aimed at delivering a procedurally just and fair way of responding to crimes or disputes. Some empirical studies draw on procedural justice theory to consider the efficacy of restorative interventions, but more difficult questions about its role in the process are rarely asked. Is procedural justice perhaps a mech‐ anism by which restorative justice ‘works’? If so, what relative weight does it have in comparison to other mechanisms? Does it play an equal role for both offenders and victims? What meaning does it have for community representatives in the restorative justice process? Should we deem a restorative justice process that doesn’t increase participants’ sense of procedural justice a failure? We know much about the role procedural justice plays in enhancing the legiti‐ macy of justice institutions, and compliance with the law, particularly from the work of Tom Tyler. Yet this knowledge has rarely been applied to improving our understanding of restorative justice processes or outcomes, despite the interest of scholars and justice institutions alike in the possible deterrent effect of restor‐