Compromiso con la calidad en el trabajo Da cuenta de los indicadores sobre los cuales se evalúan las actividades a ejecutar Ejecuta 

Similarly, the clustered principles of restorative justice are prioritised in western theories. Prioritisation relies on classification which identifies what values or goals must be secured, what values or goals ought to be promoted, and what should not be forced on participants in restorative justice practices. The priority is given first to what must be secured, and then to what ought to be promoted and what should not be forced. Between the values and goals that ought to be promoted but not forced, there is no preferred priority sequence in abstract terms.

47

The above classification and order of priorities are supported by many western restorative justice scholars. The values and goals that must be secured signal the minimal standards for restorative justice practices to safeguard the nature of informality in restorative justice. The values and goals that ought to be promoted include wide-ranging benefits of restorative justice practices to affected parties. The values and goals that should not be forced on participants denote the ideal outcomes of restorative justice practices which will become meaningless if they are achieved through force (Bazemore, 1998; N. Harris, 2003; Hudson, 2003b; McEvoy, Mika, & Hudson, 2002; Roach, 2000; Zehr, 2002).

The logic of the classification and prioritisation has been elucidated clearly by John Braithwaite’s (2002b) model encompassing all the key values and goals of restorative justice and relationships among them. Braithwaite’s model proposes three types of standards for restorative justice values and goals. The first is ‘constraining standards’, such as non-domination, empowerment, respectful listening, equal concerns for all stakeholders, accountability, respect for human rights, and legally specified upper limits on sanctions. The second type is ‘maximizing standards’, such as restoration of human dignity, restoration of property loss, emotional restoration, provision of social support, restoration of compassion, and prevention of future injustice. The third type is ‘emergent standards’, including remorse over injustice, apology, censure of the act, forgiveness of the person, and mercy.

According to Braithwaite’s (2002b) model, constraining standards are essential principles to be secured in all circumstances to protect human rights. Maximising standards, unlike constraining standards, are set to be greatly encouraged but only under the premise that the value of empowerment is secured. Lastly, emergent standards are deemed as therapeutic components of restorative justice, which, it is

48

suggested, appear depending on the willingness of the parties. Parties must not be pressured to realise emergent standards. Key examples of emergent standards are remorse, apology, and forgiveness. It is not that these are necessarily less important than constraining values in Braithwaite’s theory. It is just that constraining values must always be honoured; we ethically tie our hands to always honour respect for human rights and respectful listening. In contrast we simply support emergent standards as strongly as we can when the parties choose them. It is clear that in Braithwaite’s model, constraining standards are given precedence over maximising standards and emergent standards.

The logic of prioritisation discussed above can be applied to the five clustered principles of restorative justice grouped in this chapter, which are accountability, active participation, reintegration, rehabilitation, and restoration. The principles of accountability and active participation would be given the first priority, as they comprise the values and goals that are thought to be secured above all else in the western discourse of restorative justice. These two principles entail protection of the basic rights and needs of affected parties. They are to guarantee in the first place that there is no force but choices, no evasion of responsibility but acknowledgment of wrongdoing, and no deprivation of rights and voice but provision of space and empowerment.

According to the logic of prioritisation in western discourse, the other three clustered principles in this chapter, reintegration, rehabilitation, and restoration can be classified as the values and goals that ought to be promoted in restorative justice practices. These three principles should be actively pursued without compromise of the execution of the principles of accountability and active participation. Relational healing in the principle of restoration is better to be set apart, as it reflects the value and goal that should not be

49

compelled in restorative justice practices.

It is important to note that prioritisation is highly contested and neither renders restorative justice theories utterly victim-centred nor ranks the importance of the five clustered principles. The participation of offenders and communities remains important in restorative justice even though victims may take the first priority in assuring that harms be restored. Also, restoration is still the ultimate goal in the theories of restorative justice despite not being secured first.

3.4 Conclusion

Restorative justice is very much theorised in a western fashion. This can be seen from the form of its revival, its understanding of concerned parties, its interpretation of key values and goals, and also in its prioritisation of parties, and values and goals. The recent revival of restorative justice was largely framed by western scholars’ interests in and endeavours to conceptualise practices of restorative justice in response to problems of existing criminal justice systems in western societies. In the articulation of the western scholars, voices and needs of victims, offenders, and communities are emphasised and deemed to be safeguarded by a state which is shifted away from the centre of the process of handling crime. Principles of accountability, active participation, reintegration, rehabilitation, and restoration are advocated to best meet the needs of the three most affected parties. With fundamental concern for protection for human rights of the affected parties, the fulfilment of the first two principles is set to be guaranteed prior to the pursuit of the latter three principles. In these ways, theories of restorative justice have been constructed following a western logic and philosophy that may be different from the logic and philosophy of other ‘restorative’ ideas and practices in ancient or aboriginal traditions.

50

Importantly, the westernised theories of restorative justice, holding the features discussed in this chapter, become the imported package that is widely transferred to other places in the world, including the focus of this thesis: Taiwan. Also, as we will see in Table 4.1, the westernness of the version of RJ described in this chapter is manifest in its neglect of certain values related to cultures and forms of harm in the transfer, which in this research are Confucian role ethics and feminist insights into gendered violence.

51