Internal Consistency in Restorative Justice: Walking the Talk

Restorative justice has been hailed as a revolutionary approach to crime and conflict resolution, emphasizing healing, reconciliation, and community involvement. However, the integrity of these principles is directly contingent upon those who implement them—practitioners and program staff. To truly walk the talk, it is imperative that restorative justice values be consistently applied not only in professional settings but also in personal life and workplace interactions. This article underscores the critical importance of internal consistency in restorative justice, examining the ramifications of incongruity between espoused values and actual practice.

A Tale of Two Spheres: Lisa and XYZ Corp

Act I: Lisa, The Experienced Facilitator

Lisa is a seasoned facilitator in a community-based restorative justice program, often lending her expertise to XYZ Corp, a corporation committed to implementing restorative justice in its conflict resolution protocols. She is known for her skill in creating safe spaces for open dialogue and reconciliation in professional settings. However, when it comes to her family, Lisa adopts a more traditional, authoritative approach, often making unilateral decisions without fostering open dialogue.

Act II: XYZ Corp, The Progressive Corporation

Meanwhile, at XYZ Corp, the restorative justice program is lauded as groundbreaking. Yet, a different story unfolds in the boardroom. Senior management, which outwardly supports the program, often marginalizes minority opinions during high-stakes meetings, effectively excluding some voices from the decision-making process.

Intersection: Lisa Meets XYZ Corp’s Inconsistency

Lisa is invited to facilitate an executive board meeting at XYZ Corp focusing on recent conflicts among senior management. The meeting goes well, but Lisa notices the exclusionary tactics used by senior management, which contradict the restorative principles she was hired to implement.

Act III: The Ramifications

  1. Personal and Professional Credibility: Lisa’s teenage son, aware of her professional life but experiencing her authoritarian family style, attends a restorative justice session facilitated by his mother at his school. Skeptical, he challenges her in front of everyone, asking why she doesn’t use restorative justice at home. This leads to murmurs among the community members, eroding Lisa’s credibility.
  2. Diminished Public Trust: An employee of XYZ Corp who attended a session facilitated by Lisa learns about her inconsistent application of restorative justice principles. Coupled with the corporation’s own inconsistency, this news undermines staff morale and engagement in the restorative justice initiative.
  3. Institutional Integrity: Lisa, feeling the hypocrisy at both the personal and professional levels, questions her own commitment to restorative justice, as well as that of XYZ Corp. She feels trapped in a system that says one thing and does another, diminishing her own trust in the transformative power of the principles she once held dear.

Act IV: Reckoning and Reconciliation

Realizing that inconsistency is undermining not just her credibility but also the transformative potential of restorative justice, Lisa takes it upon herself to embody the change she wishes to see. She begins by fostering open dialogues at home, leveling the authoritarian hierarchy within her family. Inspired by her change, XYZ Corp undergoes a parallel transformation, making inclusivity a lived practice, even in high-stakes board meetings.

The interplay between Lisa and XYZ Corp serves as a microcosm of the larger challenges facing the restorative justice movement. Their story shows us that the failure to consistently practice what we preach has both immediate and long-lasting consequences. However, it also teaches us that transformation is possible; it starts with acknowledging our inconsistencies and taking the challenging but necessary steps towards alignment between our actions and principles. Only then can we fully unlock the transformative power of restorative justice, both in our personal lives and in the systems we inhabit.

Importance of Practitioner Consistency

The significance of practitioners and staff embodying the restorative justice principles in their workplace cannot be overstated. Their role serves as a linchpin in the effective implementation of restorative strategies. When these professionals authentically internalize and live out the principles of accountability, reparation, and inclusion, they lend credibility to the process. This, in turn, enhances public trust and the willingness of participants to engage openly in restorative practices, crucial for transformative outcomes.

Extending Consistency to Family and Personal Life

Beyond the workplace, the application of restorative justice principles must permeate the family unit and personal interactions. Upholding these values in everyday life serves a dual purpose. Firstly, it enhances the personal integrity of the practitioner, reinforcing the alignment between personal and professional ethics. Secondly, it acts as a living testimonial for the effectiveness of restorative practices, compellingly advocating their broader applicability. It illustrates that restorative justice is not merely a professional engagement but a life philosophy deserving of universal application.

The Problem of Inconsistency

Inconsistency in embodying restorative justice principles creates a jarring dissonance that undermines the very ethos of the practice. When practitioners and program staff do not live these values authentically, it casts doubt on their efficacy and muddles the integrity of the restorative process. This inconsistency can manifest as biased facilitation, reduced stakeholder engagement, and even systemic distrust, ultimately diluting the transformative power of restorative justice.

Ramifications of Inconsistency

The ripple effect of such inconsistency can be profound and far-reaching. Not only does it diminish the effectiveness of individual restorative processes, but it also threatens to tarnish the reputation of restorative justice as a viable alternative to traditional punitive models. The inconsistency compromises stakeholder confidence, weakens community partnerships, and jeopardizes the broader mission of transforming justice systems. In the end, inconsistency doesn’t merely impact isolated cases; it risks corrupting the transformative potential of the entire restorative justice movement.


The essence of restorative justice—its transformative promise of healing, reconciliation, and community involvement—is deeply tethered to the individuals tasked with its implementation. If practitioners and program staff fail to fully embrace and embody the principles of restorative justice across all spheres of life, they risk transforming this promising revolution into yet another hollow slogan. Inconsistency in this regard is not a minor defect; it’s a significant liability that corrodes trust, delegitimizes restorative efforts, and jeopardizes the integrity of a transformative justice paradigm.

As we move forward in promoting restorative justice as not just an alternative but a preferred model for conflict resolution, internal consistency becomes a non-negotiable imperative. It is the bedrock on which public trust is built and the lens through which efficacy is measured. It serves as both the measure and the message, demonstrating unequivocally that restorative justice is not an isolated set of techniques but a comprehensive worldview, a transformative ethos that challenges us to be consistently better—in our workplaces, in our homes, and in our communities.

The call for internal consistency in restorative justice is a call for unwavering integrity. It urges us to synchronize our actions with our beliefs, to truly walk the talk. Failing to heed this call is not just an individual failing; it risks being a collective derailment of an extraordinary journey toward transformative justice. Are we prepared to sustain the integrity of this journey?