The Co-Optation of Restorative Justice and Its Consequences for an Abolitionist Future

This Article explores the ways in which RJ [restorative justice] has been co-opted, argues that RJ’s core principles can never coexist with the criminal punishment system, and analyzes how RJ co-optation is a barrier to abolitionist goals. It proceeds in three parts. In Part I, I present the fundamental principles upon which RJ processes should be based. While many scholars and practitioners have identified the lack of a consistent RJ definition by which to guide the work, I propose that there are fundamental principles that serve to guide RJ, and these are in stark contrast with the principles and realities of the criminal punishment system. Part II describes how RJ has been co-opted by law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, and state law. I provide examples of how co-optation occurs via these state actors and how this cooptation results in a distortion and often a complete obfuscation of RJ’s fundamental principles. Finally, Part III discusses how the cooptation of RJ lends legitimacy to the criminal punishment system and expands the web of punitive actors in a way that detracts from abolitionist goals. It also contemplates whether all hope is lost with RJ or whether it can be utilized as an incremental step towards abolition. This abstract has been taken from the author's introduction.