Kathy Fox: ‘Alternative justice’ gets a bad rap for being soft on crime

This commentary is by Kathy Fox of South Burlington, a professor of sociology at the University of Vermont, with expertise in criminology. Her comments do not represent UVM. She is director of the UVM Liberal Arts in Prison Program and a researcher for the National Center on Restorative Justice.

As a criminologist who studies the criminal-legal system, it is frustrating to hear people refer to “alternative justice” — such as restorative justice, diversion, treatment courts and the like — as “soft on crime.” 

There are several ways in which these assertions are incorrect. First of all, “soft on crime” implies that such practices let people off the hook and are ineffective. However, the research shows that restorative justice reduces reoffending, which indicates that whatever “tough on crime” options that are imagined as superior are, in fact, less effective in achieving the major goal of crime control. 

In fact, the research on restorative justice has demonstrated reductions in repeat offending, among all kinds of offense types. For example, they found that it reduces violent and other serious offenses when it is used as a diversion from criminal court.

Secondly, overwhelmingly, victims report higher degrees of satisfaction with restorative processes than traditional criminal proceedings. They also report feeling the process is fair. The vast majority (90 to 95%) of criminal cases result in a plea agreement, in part because our system is overburdened with cases and cannot possibly bring them all to trial. (That alone should tell you we have a problem in the system.) 

The defendant may plead guilty to some lesser charges, as an outcome of negotiations between attorneys. In restorative processes, victims have the option of meeting with the person charged, explaining the extent and impact of the harm done, and to seek an apology. For people who think that restorative processes are easy or soft, it is not easier to face the person who has been harmed and to be held accountable. It can be painful but also impactful. 

Alternative justice is also significantly more cost effective than traditional systems. In fact, Shapland et al. (2008) calculated that the cost ratio of restorative justice compared to traditional criminal system is 1:8. 

But the most compelling reason to support diversion and restorative justice processes is that programs like pretrial services (e.g., Vermont’s Tamarack program), to which State’s Attorney Sarah George sends people, assess people for underlying issues, such as houselessness, poverty, substance use disorder, and mental health issues that drive many crimes. The program connects people to services, to get at the root of the problem — otherwise, the behaviors are likely to continue or get worse (e.g., now they have court fees they cannot afford and a criminal record). 

But the programs do have teeth: If a person does not complete the requirements (and there are requirements), then they can still be processed through the criminal courts. The public should realize how putting people through the justice system can actually increase their likelihood of continued criminal behavior. 

I hope people will reconsider their reactions to claims that alternative justice equals a “slap on the wrist.” In fact, it is a responsible, sound and cost-effective option that often leads to better results for community safety.