ABSTRACT
Theories underpinning restorative justice (RJ) overlap significantly with work around addiction recovery, in particular, the concept of “recovery capital”. Whilst both movements are relatively new, RJ has a longer history and a greater application in practice settings, yet both are inherently “relational theories” and should be evaluated as such. There is great value in a comparative review of the concepts, assessing how the theories and practices align as well as how each framework may inform the other. Granfield and Cloud (2001) have shown that recovery is enhanced by establishing previously non-existent social networks through building “social capital” to access support networks and resources in the community. Similarly, Zehr and Gohar (2002: 23) posit that the third pillar of any legitimate RJ practice is a social process inclusive of dialogue and engagement with those who have a “legitimate interest or stake in the offense and its resolution”. Elsewhere, Best, Bird et al. (2015) have argued that a key component of recovery theory is “community capital” and the importance of community attitudes/resources as a predictor of recovery longevity, a model that draws on Braithwaite’s reintegrative shaming theory from the RJ discourse (Braithwaite, 1989). This chapter aims to advance thinking and the volume’s objectives of challenging the RJ field by suggesting that the common implication is that the effective implementation of these principles may facilitate the generation of a virtuous cycle. Such a cycle would enhance the well-being of disputants and their communities and provide sustainable pathways to effective reintegration by building capital in communities and creating a “therapeutic landscape” for restoration and rehabilitation.
