Restorative justice (RJ) is a philosophy and practice centered on repairing the harm caused by crime.¹ It shifts the focus from “What law was broken?” and “Who should be punished?” to “Who has been hurt?”, “What are their needs?”, and “Whose obligation is it to meet those needs?” Given this emphasis on healing and accountability, the concept of forgiveness often arises.² However, while forgiveness can be a profoundly transformative outcome of the restorative process, it is critical to understand that it is not a mandatory goal or a measure of success within restorative justice.

Forgiveness: A Possible Outcome, Not a Prerequisite

The core difference between restorative justice and traditional retributive models lies in their respective definitions of justice.³ Retributive justice defines justice as the state imposing punishment; restorative justice defines justice as making things right (to the extent possible). The mechanisms of RJ—such as Victim-Offender Dialogue (VOD), family group conferencing, and peace circles—are designed to create a safe space for voluntary encounter, truth-telling, and acknowledgment of harm.

Within this space, the victim/survivor is empowered to share the impact of the crime directly with the person responsible, while the offender is challenged to take full, personal responsibility.⁴ This process of accountability and acknowledgment can create the necessary conditions for a victim to consider forgiveness.

Leading restorative justice theorist Howard Zehr emphasizes that the focus must remain on restoration and meeting needs, not on prescribing emotional outcomes. Forgiveness, in this context, is viewed as a gift from the victim, never an obligation or an expectation (Zehr, 2015). To pressure a victim to forgive is a form of secondary victimization, undermining the foundational RJ principle of victim autonomy. The process must respect the victim’s pace and personal path to healing, which may or may not include forgiveness.

The Role of Accountability in Creating Space for Forgiveness

While forgiveness itself rests entirely with the victim, the actions of the offender within the restorative process are crucial in making it a possibility. For many victims, the journey toward healing can only begin once they witness genuine remorse and sincere accountability from the person who harmed them.

Restorative dialogue provides the framework for this:

Truth-Telling: The victim has the opportunity to fully express the devastation of the harm experienced.⁵
Acknowledgment: The offender must hear, accept, and affirm the full impact of their actions without minimizing, deflecting, or excusing the behavior.⁶
Repair/Action: The offender proposes or agrees to concrete actions (restitution, community service, behavioral change plans) to repair the harm.⁷

It is the offender’s active engagement in taking responsibility and demonstrating empathy that often chips away at the wall of anger and resentment built by the offense.⁸ This process helps the victim separate the act from the actor, making it easier to view the offender as a fallible human being rather than a monstrous perpetrator.

As Marshall (1996) noted, the aim of RJ is not to reconcile the parties’ emotions, but to reconcile them to a restored sense of justice and order, which may, in turn, facilitate emotional healing. The act of forgiveness, if it happens, flows naturally from the achieved sense of accountability, not from an imposed therapeutic agenda.

Restorative Outcomes Without Formal Forgiveness

A frequent misconception is that a successful restorative justice encounter requires a handshake and a declaration of forgiveness. This is profoundly untrue. The success of an RJ process is measured by whether:

The victim’s needs (for safety, information, accountability, and empowerment) have been addressed.⁹
The offender has taken steps to repair the harm and reintegrate responsibly into the community.
The community has been involved in supporting the healing and reintegration.

Many victims find profound peace and an ability to move forward without ever explicitly forgiving the offender. Alternative, yet equally restorative, outcomes include:

Understanding: Gaining context about why the crime occurred (not an excuse, but a deeper understanding) can dispel the anxiety and fear caused by the offense.
Acceptance: The victim accepts the reality of the harm and chooses to release the debilitating emotional bond of resentment, thereby reclaiming their personal power.
Healing: The trauma is processed, and the victim is able to construct a post-victimization identity focused on growth, not grief.

As restorative justice practice pioneer Mark Umbreit suggests, the dialogue itself—the simple act of communication, human connection, and acknowledgment of shared humanity—can be the most transformative element, regardless of the ultimate emotional outcome (Umbreit & Armour, 2011).

Conclusion

The role of forgiveness in restorative justice is subtle, sacred, and entirely sovereign to the victim. Restorative justice provides the optimal framework for addressing crime because it centers the victim’s needs and insists on genuine offender accountability.¹⁰ By focusing on repair rather than punishment, RJ generates the conditions under which the deep emotional work of forgiveness can occur, but it steadfastly refuses to mandate it.¹¹ The success of restorative justice is not found in a victim’s ability to forgive, but in the system’s ability to empower the victim to define and achieve their own path to healing.

Works Cited & Further Reading

Cited

Marshall, T. F. (1996). The evolution of restorative justice.¹² European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 4(4), 21-43.
Umbreit, M. S., & Armour, M. P. (2011). Restorative Justice Dialogue: An Essential Guide for Practice. Springer Publishing Company.
Zehr, H. (2015). Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice. Herald Press.

Author

Martin Howard

Martin Howard has 30 years of experience in restorative justice training and advocacy. He serves on the Global Steering Council of Restorative Justice International and is a founding member of Restorative Practices International (Queensland). He is facilitator for the Sycamore Tree Project (Prison Fellowship) and is a technical innovator and writer\ in the field.

The Role of Forgiveness in Restorative Justice