Restorative Justice in Prisons: Between Professional Standards, Practical Experience, and Institutional Limits

Foto: Privat

A personal statement on the scientific discussion by Dr.ⁱⁿ Katharina Leniger in her book "Restorative Justice in Prisons - Ethical Reflections for Responsible Practice" with my concept "Sufferer-Oriented Work in Prisons" (BoAS)"

It is a unique experience to find one's own action concept, developed through years of practical work, reflected in a scientific publication. Suddenly, what I have developed, tested, reflected upon, and refined together with people in correctional facilities becomes the subject of scientific analysis. My own work is viewed from a different perspective, contextualized, appreciated, and critically examined.

And that is precisely what I consider necessary. I am deeply grateful to Dr. Katharina Leniger for including and critically evaluating my restorative justice work in the prison system, based on my framework concept "Victim-Oriented Work in Prisons (BoAS)," in her publication. Restorative justice procedures require scholarly discourse that goes beyond simply describing successful encounters. It must also address the contradictions, limitations, and risks that arise when restorative principles meet the realities of the prison system. Katharina Leniger's scholarly work goes far beyond examining individual restorative justice procedures. It explores the theoretical and socio-ethical foundations of restorative justice, different conceptions of punishment and rehabilitation, and the possibilities and limitations of restorative procedures within the existing prison system. In particular, she examines victim-offender mediation and my BoAS intervention concept. Furthermore, the work addresses the institutional framework of the penal system, questions of professional responsibility, power dynamics, and ethical conflicts. The concepts of healing, forgiveness, and reconciliation are also critically examined. Finally, the outlook raises the fundamental question of the extent to which imprisonment truly achieves its intended goals and what other responses to crimes might be conceivable. Each of these topics warrants its own discussion. For this blog post, I deliberately focus on those aspects that are of particular interest to me as a developer and practitioner of BoAS and due to my many years of work with Restorative Justice Circle Dialogues.

Since 2016, my practical work has focused on how the perspectives and needs of people affected by crime can be considered within the prison system. This led to the development of my action concept, "Survivor-Oriented Work in Prisons" (BoAS). Based on this concept, I have developed and implemented restorative justice circle dialogues in various correctional facilities, in collaboration with the respective specialist services. Katharina Leniger's academic study describes BoAS as a process in which incarcerated perpetrators of crimes meet people affected by other offenses. This is complemented by members of civil society who are neither directly affected by nor responsible for the respective crimes. So far, so good!

This particular composition is professionally significant for me. It facilitates encounters that are not limited to the specific crime and the individuals involved. Victims can share their experiences, traumas, and questions without having to sit across from the person who inflicted the suffering. This is highly practical because many victims do not want to sit across from the person who harmed them, and/or some perpetrators are neither apprehended nor interested in speaking with the people they have harmed. Inmates can grapple with the consequences of crimes and meet people whose experiences they may be hearing for the first time in this direct manner.

This process generates conversations that can neither be planned nor predicted in their outcomes. Katharina Leniger's study particularly commends the trauma-informed approach, the intensive preparation of participants, and the independent external process coordination. At the same time, the significant time and personnel resources required, as well as the difficulties of permanently integrating the process into the prison system, are critically examined. I can readily understand these assessments from my own experience. Preparing for a Rehabilitation Circle Dialogue (RJ Circle Dialogue) is very time-consuming. It requires several individual consultations, separate group meetings, a careful assessment of individual circumstances, and the ongoing collaboration between external facilitators and the specialist services of the respective correctional facility. Participants must know what they are getting into, what possibilities the process offers, and where its limitations lie. Above all, they must have the option to say no at any time. However, voluntariness is not a simple prerequisite in the prison system. In an institution characterized by rules, dependencies, and power dynamics, it is essential to continually assess how freely a decision can actually be made. What expectations do inmates associate with their participation? What unspoken hopes might exist regarding potential benefits of prosecution? How do we prevent people from feeling obligated to disclose personal experiences? Even with victims of crime, obtaining formal consent is insufficient. Their safety, their boundaries, and their autonomy must be considered throughout the entire process. The scientific study addresses the risk of revictimization and emphasizes the importance of careful preparation. I consider this aspect more than valid. However, I would like to add a point: In my view, psychological stability should not be equated with the absence of vulnerability. People can be severely traumatized by a crime and yet still possess the capacity to recognize their needs and boundaries and to make an autonomous decision about their participation.

That's precisely why a nuanced professional assessment is needed, one that considers individual resources as well as potential stress reactions. We typically use trauma-related disorder questionnaires and offer support persons the opportunity to attend all meetings.

One thought that repeatedly occupies me in my work is the question of equality: In restorative justice proceedings and in general, there is frequent talk of equal interaction. But in my view, simply having people sit together in a circle does not automatically create equality.

The participants bring diverse experiences, options, social positions, and traumas/affected experiences. In the prison system, institutional power dynamics come into play. Some may be able to leave the institution after the conversation, while others remain. Some people can easily articulate their thoughts, while others may lose their ability to speak under pressure.

These differences do not disappear even through a specific framing.

As the person responsible for the process, I therefore see my role as recognizing such inequalities and creating conditions under which people with their diverse backgrounds can be heard. This includes respecting boundaries, tolerating silence, and remaining attentive to who occupies how much space in the conversation. The scientific study by Dr.ⁱⁿ Katharina Leniger points to the importance of external, independent coordination. I consider this aspect particularly important. I work closely with the specialist services of the correctional facilities and value their professional expertise. At the same time, my freelance position gives me a different perspective on the institution. I am not bound by the prison hierarchies and can ask questions that might be more difficult to address within an organization. I have already written about this in detail in another blog post. However, this independence is not an end in itself. It also obligates me to critically reflect on my own role, my decisions, and my influence on the process.

The scientific study describes positive experiences from my previous projects. Participants report relief, shifts in perspective, and a changed approach to the consequences of crime. At the same time, it is explicitly pointed out that the current findings do not provide a sufficient basis to scientifically prove long-term effects.

This distinction is important to me. In my practical work, I've encountered situations where people were able to ask questions that had long preoccupied them. I've witnessed inmates discussing responsibility and victims of crime placing their experiences within a broader social context. Such processes can be significant for those involved. Every group was moving, authentic, and meaningful for everyone. But what exactly remains after a few months or years? What changes can truly be attributed to participation? What effects might only become apparent later? And what experiences do people have for whom such a process was less helpful?

We need scientific support that also investigates these questions.

We have always distributed feedback forms, but the return rate is only around 50%. We should carefully distinguish what effects we can realistically expect. Restorative justice procedures in the prison system are often justified by the goals of rehabilitation and recidivism prevention. These are understandable concerns, and mine as well. However, if the effectiveness of restorative measures is measured solely by recidivism rates, other experiences and needs are overlooked. What does it mean for a person affected by a crime to finally have their questions heard? What is the significance when an inmate takes responsibility without this immediately resulting in a measurable change in their behavior? I consider it problematic to recognize such experiences as significant only when they translate into institutionally desired outcomes.

I am also concerned with the question of under what institutional conditions restorative processes can succeed at all. Ms. Leniger's academic study identifies staff shortages, a lack of time resources, organizational difficulties, and dependence on individual committed persons. Long-term financing and structural integration are also critically examined.

I am familiar with these difficulties from my work with correctional facilities, and Dr. Judith Albrecht also wrote about them when she facilitated a Restorative Justice Circle Dialogue in Oldenburg. Restorative justice requires people who are willing to engage in a process whose course and outcome are not entirely controllable. At the same time, the prison system is an institution where security, responsibilities, hierarchies, and regulated procedures govern daily life. This creates tensions that cannot be resolved solely through the commitment of individual professionals.

I repeatedly witness how crucial the support of prison administrations and specialist services is. Equally important is that staff members become familiar with the fundamental principles of restorative justice (if they aren't already) and have the opportunity to examine their own attitudes. A circular dialogue cannot transform the culture of an entire institution. Nevertheless, such encounters can raise questions that extend beyond the individual process. How do we talk about people harmed by crimes within the prison system? What notions of responsibility shape our work? How much space do we give to the experiences of inmates without losing sight of the consequences of their actions?

And how do we as professionals deal with power, vulnerability, and boundaries? (I'm glad that I've found a great cooperation partner in Rhianon Williams and AMEE in Spain, where we can focus on exactly these aspects for a year with the "Common Ground" project - more on that in another blog post).

What particularly resonated with me was the socio-ethical discussion of the concept of reconciliation later in the book. Dr. Katharina Leniger questions whether reconciliation should truly be understood as the goal of restorative justice proceedings and whether this claim might not be linked to expectations that are inappropriate to the experience of severe trauma. I share this critical perspective wholeheartedly. In my work with restorative justice, reconciliation is absolutely not a predetermined goal. Nor do I expect forgiveness. People affected by crimes do not have to forgive anyone in order to find a helpful way of coping with what they have experienced. Those responsible for the crime also have no right to forgiveness. A person can take responsibility for their actions without the victim forgiving them. A victim can find relief without seeking contact with the perpetrator. And a conversation can be meaningful even if questions remain unanswered and contradictions persist. For me, this very openness is part of the professional standard of restorative justice.

I find Dr. Katharina Leniger's scientific analysis of my BoAS concept to be a valuable stimulus for re-examining my own work. It illuminates the professional considerations behind the RJ circle dialogues, the opportunities arising from the unique composition of the participants, and where we need to take a closer look. Based on my practical experience, I would further differentiate and supplement some of her assessments. This applies particularly to the importance of psychological stability, the question of actual effects, and the institutional prerequisites for long-term implementation.

I hope that the academic discourse on restorative justice in the penal system will continue, with a greater focus on the experiences of all involved. The perspectives of the professionals who prepare and support such processes also deserve attention. It would be fantastic if a professor and their team would be interested in facilitating a restorative justice dialogue addressing these very questions.

Since the beginning of my work, I have been concerned with how people can engage in dialogue after serious injuries and crimes, what prerequisites they need for this, and where such encounters reach their limits. The experiences from previous circle dialogues have shaped my professional approach. At the same time, they have raised new questions. I want to continue exploring these questions together with victims, perpetrators, members of civil society, professionals in the correctional system, and academics. Because, in my view, even a concept like mine, which has proven effective in practice, must remain open to criticism, new insights, and changes.

The book is available here: Restorative Justice in the Prison System | Ethical Reflections for Responsible Practice | Leniger, Katharina | Aschendorff Publishing Online Shop - Books & Journals