ABSTRACT
Over the last 15 years or so, penal practices in many Western countries have been characterised by two quite contrasting, even contradictory, trends. On the one hand, most jurisdictions continue to rely on and even expand the use of formal court processes and have dramatically increased the number of offenders subject to sanctions such as imprisonment and supervision in the community: in other words, they continue to rely on conventional processes and practices which are firmly grounded in what many would regard as the failures of the past. On the other hand, some jurisdictions have begun to use very different ways of responding to offending which involve meaningful participation by victims and offenders in the decisionmaking process, and often produce very different types of sanctions: in other words, they have begun to use restorative processes and practices which many would regard as providing promise for the future if not for the present. 1
We can illustrate some of the differences between these two trends by reference to a case which recently came before the New Zealand Court of Appeal (R v Clotworthy ( 1998) 15 CRNZ 651 ). This case involved a very serious offence - the offender held a knife to the victim's throat, demanded money and then, following a scuffle, stabbed him six times. As a result, the victim suffered a number of serious wounds, including a life-threatening one, and an ugly 27 em long scar across his back. The sentencing judge referred the case to two barristers in Auckland who, at that time, arranged conferences for restorative justice purposes under the name of Justice Alternatives. They convened a meeting between the offender and the victim; two support persons accompanied the victim.
