Restorative Justice | AQA A-Level Psychology Revision

Revision Notes
Aug 7
27 min read

Updated: Aug 14

For 7182 specification, first teach in September 2025

AQA A-Level Psychology | Free Revision Notes

Estimated study time: 60 to 75 minutes

Restorative justice A-Level Psychology revision examines programmes that bring offenders into contact with the consequences of their behaviour. Victims may explain how an offence affected their confidence, safety or everyday life, while offenders may accept responsibility and provide restitution.

You will learn how restorative justice aims to develop empathy, empower victims and repair harm. You will also compare this approach with custodial sentencing and evaluate concerns about victim intimidation, insincere remorse and its reputation as a soft option. Restorative justice programmes are explicitly required within the AQA Forensic Psychology specification.

Learning Objectives 🎯

By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:

Define restorative justice.
Explain how a restorative justice programme may operate.
Explain how meetings, victim participation and restitution may address offending.
Compare restorative justice with custodial sentencing.
Apply restorative justice to unfamiliar offender and victim scenarios.
Evaluate the suitability and effectiveness of restorative justice programmes.

Revision Notes 📚

Restorative Justice A-Level Psychology Revision Focus

Restorative justice is a way of dealing with offending that focuses on:

The harm caused by the offence.
The needs and experiences of the victim.
The offender’s responsibility.
Repairing some of the damage caused.
Encouraging empathy and rehabilitation.

The programme may involve the offender and victim meeting so that the victim can explain the impact of the offence.

The offender may then:

Hear directly about the consequences.
Recognise the victim as a real person.
Develop greater empathy.
Accept responsibility.
Express remorse.
Agree to make restitution.

AQA’s 2021 mark scheme identifies restorative justice as the way of dealing with offending that directly involves victims.

From Rule-Breaking to Harm

Traditional approaches may concentrate on the offender breaking a law.

Restorative justice gives greater attention to the harm caused to:

The individual victim.
The victim’s family.
Relationships.
Property.
Confidence.
Feelings of safety.
The wider community.

For example, a burglary involves more than the loss of property.

The victim may experience:

Fear of another break-in.
Loss of confidence.
Difficulty sleeping.
Anxiety when leaving the house.
A reduced sense of security.

AQA’s 2021 mark scheme specifically recognises loss of confidence and fear of further burglary as consequences that a victim might explain to an offender.

The Central Process

A restorative justice programme can be represented as:

Offence causes harm → victim communicates the impact → offender confronts the consequences → responsibility and empathy may develop → restitution may be agreed

This differs from an approach concerned only with imposing a punishment.

The process tries to answer questions such as:

Who has been harmed?
How have they been affected?
What responsibility does the offender have?
What might help repair the harm?
How could similar behaviour be prevented?

The Role of the Victim

The victim is central to restorative justice.

They may be given an opportunity to:

Describe what happened from their perspective.
Explain the emotional impact.
Explain the practical consequences.
Ask questions about the offence.
Describe what would help repair the harm.
Participate in deciding an appropriate form of restitution.

This contrasts with a process where the victim’s role is limited mainly to providing evidence.

Victim Empowerment

Victim empowerment means increasing the victim’s voice, involvement and sense of control.

An offence may leave the victim feeling:

Powerless.
Frightened.
Ignored.
Confused.
Unimportant within the legal process.

Being able to communicate directly about the harm may help restore some sense of control.

The 2021 AQA mark scheme identifies empowerment and healing as possible benefits for the victim.

Victim Healing

Restorative justice may contribute to healing by allowing the victim to:

Have their experience acknowledged.
Explain the consequences in their own words.
Receive answers.
See that the offender has heard them.
Receive an apology or restitution.

This does not mean that every victim will feel better after taking part.

The programme may be unsuitable where contact creates fear, pressure or further distress.

The Role of the Offender

The offender is expected to confront the human consequences of the offence.

They may be encouraged to:

Listen to the victim.
Recognise the harm caused.
Explain their actions.
Accept personal responsibility.
Develop empathy.
Express genuine remorse.
Agree to repair damage where possible.

The offender is therefore an active participant rather than simply the recipient of a punishment.

Accepting Responsibility

Responsibility involves recognising that one’s behaviour contributed to the harm.

An offender accepting responsibility might state:

“My actions caused the victim to feel unsafe, and I need to address the damage I caused.”

This differs from:

“It was not serious, and the victim should simply move on.”

Restorative justice may challenge attempts to:

Blame the victim.
Deny the consequences.
Minimise the offence.
Present the harm as insignificant.

This links with hostile attribution bias and minimalisation [Lesson 8: Cognitive distortions].

Developing Empathy

Empathy involves understanding another person’s experience and emotional response.

In restorative justice, the offender may hear directly about:

Fear.
Financial loss.
Emotional distress.
Damage to relationships.
Changes to everyday behaviour.

The victim becomes more than an anonymous person mentioned in a legal case.

The process may be:

The offender hears the victim’s account.
The consequences become more concrete.
The offender considers the victim’s perspective.
Empathy may increase.
Offending becomes more difficult to justify.
Motivation to avoid future offending may increase.

AQA’s 2021 mark scheme explicitly credits the idea that seeing the consequences of an offence may encourage empathy in the offender.

Empathy and Rehabilitation

Restorative justice may contribute to rehabilitation because empathy could reduce future offending.

An offender who understands the consequences may become less likely to think:

“Nobody was really hurt.”
“It was only property.”
“The victim can replace it.”
“The offence did not matter.”

Greater awareness may increase:

Remorse.
Responsibility.
Motivation to change.
Recognition of victim rights.
Understanding of long-term consequences.

However, apparent empathy during a session does not guarantee genuine or lasting change.

Restitution

What Is Restitution?

Restitution involves the offender taking action to repair some of the harm caused by the offence.

Examples accepted by AQA include:

Returning stolen property.
Repairing a damaged window.
Correcting damage caused during the offence.

Restitution may be:

Practical.
Financial.
Symbolic.
Connected directly with the offence.

Practical Restitution

Practical restitution attempts to address a specific consequence.

Harm caused	Possible restitution
Property stolen	Return the property where possible
Window damaged	Repair or contribute towards repairing it
Property defaced	Help restore the property
Financial loss	Contribute towards replacing what was lost
Community damage	Complete an agreed action that repairs the area

Restitution cannot always remove the full harm.

For example, repairing a window cannot automatically remove the victim’s fear of another burglary.

Restitution Is Not the Same as Punishment

Restitution focuses on repairing harm.

Punishment focuses on imposing an unpleasant consequence for wrongdoing.

Compare:

Restitution: The offender repairs the damage they caused.
Punishment: The offender loses freedom through imprisonment.

Restitution may still be demanding.

The offender must:

Acknowledge responsibility.
Give time or resources.
Confront the consequences.
Complete an agreed action.

Restitution and Rehabilitation

Restitution may support rehabilitation because the offender does more than say they are sorry.

They take action connected with the harm.

This can:

Make responsibility concrete.
Demonstrate commitment to change.
Give the victim a meaningful outcome.
Connect the offence with its consequences.

However, completing restitution does not prove that criminal attitudes have changed.

A Possible Restorative Justice Programme

The precise form of programmes can vary, but the supplied AQA material supports the following general process.

Stage 1: Identify the Harm

The case worker considers:

What happened.
Who was affected.
What consequences followed.
Whether contact between the victim and offender is appropriate.

Stage 2: Victim Participation

The victim may explain:

How the offence affected them.
The emotional consequences.
The financial or practical effects.
What questions remain.
What might help repair the damage.

Stage 3: Offender Participation

The offender may be encouraged to:

Listen without dismissing the victim.
Recognise the consequences.
Accept responsibility.
Explain their behaviour.
Show empathy or remorse.

Stage 4: Restitution

The case worker may arrange an appropriate form of restitution, such as:

Returning property.
Repairing damage.
Completing an agreed reparative action.

Stage 5: Rehabilitation

The intended longer-term outcome is that:

The offender understands the harm.
Criminal behaviour becomes harder to justify.
Empathy and responsibility develop.
Future offending becomes less likely.

The programme is not simply a conversation. It is intended to connect communication with responsibility and repair.

Applying Restorative Justice to Burglary

Consider this scenario:

Leon broke into Priya’s home and stole electrical equipment. A window was damaged during the burglary. Since the offence, Priya has felt anxious when leaving her house and repeatedly checks the windows at night.

A restorative justice programme might involve:

Priya explaining how the burglary affected her sense of safety.
Leon hearing that the consequences continued after the property loss.
Leon recognising that the offence affected Priya emotionally.
The discussion encouraging empathy.
Leon accepting responsibility for the damage.
Arranging the return of property where possible.
Leon contributing to repairing the window.
The process supporting Priya’s empowerment and healing.

A strong application uses the specific consequences described in the scenario.

A weak application would state only:

Leon should meet the victim and apologise.

Why an Apology Alone Is Not Enough

An apology may be part of the process, but a complete examination answer should also explain:

Victim participation.
Communication of harm.
Offender empathy.
Responsibility.
Restitution.
Rehabilitation.

The programme should not be reduced to saying sorry.

Applying Restorative Justice to Property Damage

An offender deliberately damaged equipment at a community centre. The damage forced several activities to be cancelled.

A restorative programme could involve:

Community representatives explaining the consequences.
The offender hearing how users lost access to activities.
The offender recognising that the offence affected more than the building.
An agreed action to help repair the damage.
The offender confronting the social consequences of their behaviour.

Applying Restorative Justice to Theft

An offender stole a laptop containing the victim’s work and personal photographs.

The offender might initially believe:

“It was only a laptop.”

During restorative justice, the victim could explain:

The financial loss.
Lost work.
Emotional value of the photographs.
Stress caused by the theft.

The programme may challenge minimalisation by showing that the consequences were broader than the value of the item.

Restorative Justice and Moral Reasoning

Restorative justice may encourage the offender to move beyond reasoning based only on:

Avoiding punishment.
Personal reward.
Whether they were caught.

The victim’s account may encourage greater consideration of:

Other people’s rights.
Social responsibilities.
Wider consequences.
The importance of trust.

This connects with levels of moral reasoning and offending behaviour [Lesson 7: Moral reasoning].

Restorative justice is not itself a stage theory of morality. It creates an opportunity for more mature perspective-taking.

Restorative Justice and Cognitive Distortions

Restorative justice may challenge distortions such as minimalisation.

An offender might believe:

“The victim was not seriously affected.”

The victim may explain:

Their fear.
Financial loss.
Reduced confidence.
Changes to daily routines.

This provides information that contradicts the distortion.

The offender may also be less able to blame an anonymous victim once they hear the victim’s account directly.

However, the offender could continue to minimise the harm or pretend to accept responsibility.

Restorative Justice and Differential Association

An offender may have learned pro-criminal attitudes such as:

“Stealing from wealthy people is harmless.”
“Property crime has no real victim.”
“Getting caught is the only problem.”

These attitudes are considered in learning offending through close social groups [Lesson 9: Differential association theory].

Restorative justice may expose the offender to a different perspective in which:

The victim describes genuine harm.
Offending is not praised.
Responsibility is expected.
Repair is valued.

The programme may challenge learned definitions favourable to offending, although it does not automatically remove the offender from pro-criminal social groups.

Restorative Justice and Custodial Sentencing

Custodial Sentencing

A custodial sentence requires an offender to spend time in prison or another secure institution.

Its four main aims are:

Deterrence.
Retribution.
Rehabilitation.
Incapacitation.

These are examined in the aims and psychological consequences of imprisonment [Lesson 10: Custodial sentencing].

A Fundamental Difference in Focus

Custodial sentencing focuses primarily on:

The offender’s punishment.
Restriction of liberty.
Protection of the public.
Deterring future offending.
Possible treatment within prison.

Restorative justice focuses primarily on:

Harm.
The victim’s experience.
Offender responsibility.
Communication.
Repair.
Empathy.

Restorative justice	Custodial sentencing
Directly involves the victim	May proceed without direct victim-offender contact
Focuses on repairing harm	Focuses strongly on punishment and restriction
Encourages communication	Separates the offender from the community
Aims to develop empathy	May deter through loss of freedom
May include restitution	Involves deprivation of liberty
Gives the victim an active voice	Gives the state and court the central decision-making role
Does not necessarily incapacitate	Incapacitates during confinement
Seeks rehabilitation through responsibility	May provide rehabilitation through prison programmes

Restorative and Retributive Justice

A retributive approach asks:

What punishment does the offender deserve?

A restorative approach asks:

What harm was caused, and how can some of it be repaired?

This does not mean that restorative justice ignores wrongdoing.

The offender is expected to:

Confront the consequences.
Accept responsibility.
Listen to the victim.
Complete restitution.

The difference concerns how responsibility is addressed.

Custody Provides Incapacitation

Custody protects the public by physically restricting the offender’s opportunity to offend in the community.

Restorative justice does not provide the same immediate physical restriction.

This means custody may be more appropriate where:

The offender presents a serious current threat.
A victim requires immediate protection.
The risk of further serious harm is high.

Restorative justice cannot replace the protective function of custody in every case.

Restorative Justice and Deterrence

Custody may deter through:

Loss of liberty.
Separation from family.
Fear of returning to prison.
Public awareness of punishment.

Restorative justice aims for behavioural change through:

Understanding harm.
Empathy.
Responsibility.
Repair.

The approaches therefore rely on different psychological processes.

Restorative Justice and Rehabilitation

Both approaches may have a rehabilitative aim.

Custody may provide access to:

Education.
Treatment.
Anger management.
Behaviour modification.
Restorative justice.

AQA’s 2025 mark scheme recognises that restorative justice may operate as a rehabilitative opportunity within custody and may therefore contribute to reduced recidivism.

This means restorative justice is not always a direct alternative to prison.

It may be:

Used alongside custody.
Delivered during custody.
One part of a wider rehabilitation plan.

Restorative Justice and the Psychological Effects of Custody

Restorative justice may avoid some harmful effects associated with imprisonment, including:

Institutionalisation.
Brutalisation.
Loss of autonomy.
Exposure to pro-criminal peers.
Prison-related mental-health deterioration.

However, this comparison applies only where restorative justice is used instead of custody.

Where it is delivered within prison, the offender may still experience the psychological effects of confinement.

Victim Role

The victim has a more direct role in restorative justice.

In custodial sentencing:

The court imposes the sentence.
The offender is removed from society.
The victim may see punishment delivered.
Direct communication or restitution is not guaranteed.

In restorative justice:

The victim communicates the consequences.
Their experience becomes central.
They may contribute to identifying meaningful repair.

Offender Role

Under custody, an offender can remain relatively passive.

They serve the sentence imposed by the court.

In restorative justice, the offender is expected to engage actively by:

Listening.
Responding.
Accepting responsibility.
Completing restitution.

This active involvement may support rehabilitation, but it also creates the possibility of insincere participation.

Restorative Justice and Other Interventions

Behaviour Modification

Behaviour modification in custody [Lesson 11: Behaviour modification in custody] uses reinforcement to increase observable desirable behaviour.

Restorative justice	Behaviour modification
Focuses on victim harm and responsibility	Focuses on observable conduct
Encourages empathy	Uses external rewards
May involve restitution	Uses tokens and privileges
Requires communication and reflection	Can produce relatively passive compliance
Addresses consequences of the offence	Often manages behaviour inside custody

Anger Management

Anger management programmes [Lesson 12: Anger management] develop cognitive and behavioural control over aggression.

Restorative justice	Anger management
Centres the victim’s experience	Centres the offender’s anger processes
Develops empathy and responsibility	Develops appraisal and coping skills
May involve repairing harm	Uses cognitive preparation, skills and practice
Applicable beyond anger-related offences	Most relevant to anger-driven offending
Requires victim involvement	Does not require victim participation

The approaches may be combined.

An offender convicted of assault might:

Learn to control aggression through anger management.
Confront the victim’s experience through restorative justice.

Evaluating Restorative Justice

Strength: Gives Victims a Voice

A major strength is that restorative justice actively involves victims.

Victims may feel overlooked when attention is concentrated on:

The offender.
The court.
Sentencing.
Prison arrangements.

Restorative justice gives the victim an opportunity to:

Explain what happened to them.
Describe continuing consequences.
Ask questions.
Participate in identifying repair.

AQA identifies victim empowerment and healing as important intended benefits.

Why Victim Voice Matters

An offence may leave the victim feeling that control was taken away.

Having their experience heard may:

Validate their feelings.
Correct the offender’s assumptions.
Make the consequences visible.
Give the victim a more active role.
Support a sense that the harm has been acknowledged.

However, participation does not guarantee healing.

Strength: Encourages Offender Empathy

Meeting or hearing from the victim may make the consequences more immediate and personal.

The offender may find it harder to maintain beliefs such as:

“Nobody was affected.”
“The victim will forget about it.”
“It was only property.”
“The harm was minor.”

This may increase empathy and challenge cognitive distortions.

AQA’s mark scheme directly recognises developing empathy as an intended outcome.

Why Empathy May Reduce Offending

Empathy may reduce offending because the person:

Anticipates victim distress.
Experiences greater guilt.
Recognises wider consequences.
Finds harmful behaviour harder to justify.
Develops motivation to change.

This is a plausible rehabilitative process.

It does not prove that every offender who expresses empathy will avoid reoffending.

Strength: Requires Active Responsibility

Restorative justice may be more psychologically demanding than simply serving a sentence.

The offender may have to:

Face the victim.
Listen without minimising the offence.
Answer questions.
Accept blame.
Complete restitution.

This active process may promote deeper reflection.

A custodial sentence can punish an offender without requiring them to understand the victim’s experience.

Strength: Provides Concrete Repair

Restitution gives the programme a practical outcome.

Returning property or repairing damage can:

Benefit the victim.
Demonstrate offender responsibility.
Connect the offender’s actions with their consequences.
Move beyond a verbal apology.

This can make restorative justice more meaningful than an abstract promise to behave better.

Strength: May Support Rehabilitation

Restorative justice aims to change offending by developing:

Empathy.
Responsibility.
Awareness of consequences.
Remorse.
Commitment to repair harm.

These psychological processes may help reduce recidivism.

AQA recognises restorative justice as a possible rehabilitative opportunity associated with custody.

The provided source material does not contain a verified numerical estimate of its effect on reoffending. Students should therefore avoid inventing percentages.

Strength: May Avoid Some Harmful Effects of Custody

Where restorative justice is used instead of imprisonment for a suitable offender, it may avoid:

Institutionalisation.
Brutalisation.
Exposure to criminal networks.
Loss of employment.
Separation from supportive relationships.
Some prison-related mental-health effects.

This may help the person remain connected to lawful community life.

However, restorative justice does not provide the same incapacitation as custody.

Limitation: Victims May Refuse to Participate

Restorative justice has limited appropriateness because some victims may not want contact with the offender.

They may:

Fear intimidation.
Feel unsafe.
Find the process distressing.
Not want to revisit the offence.
Doubt the offender’s motives.

AQA’s 2021 mark scheme explicitly identifies fear of intimidation and victim refusal as limitations.

A victim should not be treated as a resource for rehabilitating the offender.

Their needs and safety remain central.

Limitation: Risk of Further Distress

Hearing the offender’s account or meeting them may cause distress.

The victim could experience:

Fear.
Anger.
Anxiety.
A sense of pressure.
Disappointment if the offender appears insincere.

A process intended to promote healing could therefore have the opposite effect for some victims.

This supports the need to consider suitability rather than assuming restorative justice is beneficial in every case.

Limitation: Offenders May Pretend to Show Remorse

An offender may participate for strategic reasons.

They might hope to:

Appear rehabilitated.
Gain a favourable report.
Receive a less restrictive outcome.
Improve how authorities view them.
Avoid a harsher consequence.

They may use expected phrases without genuinely accepting responsibility.

The 2021 AQA mark scheme recognises the possibility that offenders may pretend to show remorse.

Genuine and Apparent Remorse

It is difficult to distinguish:

Genuine empathy.
Socially desirable behaviour.
Deliberate impression management.
Temporary emotional reaction.
Words learned for the programme.

An apology alone is not reliable evidence of rehabilitation.

Longer-term behaviour and completion of restitution may provide stronger evidence.

Limitation: May Be Seen as a Soft Option

Some members of the public may believe that restorative justice is too lenient.

They may argue that:

The offender avoids sufficient punishment.
A meeting cannot replace a sentence.
Serious wrongdoing deserves custody.
Public demands for retribution are not met.

AQA identifies the perception of restorative justice as a soft option and its failure to satisfy demands for punishment as relevant limitations.

Is It Necessarily Soft?

Calling restorative justice soft may overlook the psychological demands involved.

The offender may have to:

Face the person harmed.
Hear the consequences.
Answer difficult questions.
Accept public or personal responsibility.
Make restitution.

This may be emotionally challenging.

However, psychological difficulty is not the same as incapacitation or formal punishment.

Limitation: Does Not Satisfy Retribution for Everyone

Victims and the public may want a sentence that visibly punishes the offender.

Restorative justice focuses more strongly on:

Repair.
Responsibility.
Rehabilitation.

It may therefore conflict with a retributive aim.

A balanced conclusion should recognise that different stakeholders may judge success differently:

The victim may value answers or restitution.
The public may value punishment.
The justice system may value reduced reoffending.
The offender may value rehabilitation.

Limitation: Does Not Incapacitate

Restorative justice does not physically prevent an offender from accessing the community.

It may therefore be unsuitable as the only response where:

The offender presents a serious continuing risk.
The victim needs physical protection.
Immediate public safety is the priority.

Custody can achieve incapacitation even when the offender is unwilling to change.

Restorative justice depends more heavily on psychological engagement.

Limitation: Programmes Differ Widely

Restorative justice is not one completely standardised intervention.

Programmes may differ in:

Who participates.
The nature of victim involvement.
The form of communication.
The restitution agreed.
The type of offence.
The setting.
The offender’s level of engagement.

AQA’s 2021 mark scheme identifies this variation as a major evaluation problem because different programmes are difficult to compare.

Why Variation Creates an Evaluation Problem

Suppose two programmes produce different outcomes.

The difference might result from:

The programme structure.
The type of offender.
The form of restitution.
Victim participation.
Offence seriousness.
The quality of the case worker’s support.

It becomes difficult to state that “restorative justice” as a whole is effective or ineffective.

Limitation: Effectiveness Is Difficult to Measure

Possible measures include:

Victim reports of healing.
Offender empathy.
Completion of restitution.
Satisfaction with the process.
Recidivism.

These outcomes measure different things.

For example:

A victim may feel heard even if the offender later reoffends.
An offender may avoid reoffending while the victim remains dissatisfied.
Restitution may be completed without genuine empathy.
A session may feel successful without producing long-term change.

A single measure cannot capture every aim.

Limitation: Suitability Depends on the Case

Restorative justice may be more suitable where:

The victim wishes to communicate.
The offender is prepared to engage.
The harm can be discussed or repaired.
Contact can occur without intimidation.
Rehabilitation is a realistic goal.

It may be less suitable where:

The victim is afraid.
The offender denies responsibility.
The offender attempts to manipulate the process.
Immediate public protection is required.
Contact would create further distress.

The intervention should therefore be matched to the case.

Limitation: Restitution Cannot Undo Every Harm

Some consequences cannot be fully repaired.

For example:

Returning property does not remove fear.
Repairing a window does not restore lost confidence.
An apology does not erase trauma.
Financial repayment does not remove emotional distress.

Restitution may acknowledge and reduce harm, but it cannot return the victim completely to their position before the offence.

Limitation: The Offender May Continue to Minimise

Hearing the victim does not guarantee that the offender accepts the account.

They may continue to believe:

The victim is exaggerating.
The harm was unavoidable.
Someone else was responsible.
The offence was justified.

Restorative justice creates an opportunity for cognitive change.

It cannot force that change.

Comparing Long-Term and Short-Term Outcomes

Possible Short-Term Outcomes

The victim communicates their experience.
The offender hears the consequences.
Restitution is agreed.
The offender expresses remorse.
The victim reports feeling heard.

Possible Long-Term Outcomes

Restitution is completed.
Empathy is maintained.
The offender accepts continuing responsibility.
Criminal attitudes change.
Reoffending decreases.
The victim experiences continued healing.

A programme may appear successful immediately but fail to produce lasting behavioural change.

Ethical Considerations

Restorative justice must balance the needs of:

The victim.
The offender.
The wider public.

Important concerns include:

Avoiding victim intimidation.
Preventing pressure on the victim.
Assessing whether participation is suitable.
Avoiding false displays of remorse.
Ensuring restitution is realistic.
Protecting the victim from further harm.

The victim’s wellbeing should not be sacrificed merely to provide the offender with a rehabilitative experience.

Restorative Justice and Social Sensitivity

Restorative justice is socially sensitive because it affects people who may already be vulnerable.

Poorly managed programmes could:

Pressure victims.
Place responsibility for offender rehabilitation on the victim.
Create expectations that victims should forgive.
Present non-participation as unhelpful.
Treat apparent remorse as proof of change.

A careful approach recognises that:

Healing may look different for different victims.
Forgiveness is not guaranteed.
Restitution does not erase responsibility.
Some victims may prefer no contact.

Overall Evaluation

Restorative justice focuses on the harm caused by offending rather than only on the law that was broken. Victims may explain the consequences, offenders may develop empathy and accept responsibility, and restitution may repair some practical damage.

The approach differs from custody because it emphasises communication, victim empowerment and rehabilitation rather than restriction of liberty. However, restorative justice may also be used within custody as part of a wider rehabilitation programme.

Its strengths include giving victims a voice, challenging offender minimalisation and requiring active responsibility. Its limitations include victim fear, possible intimidation, false remorse, inconsistent programme designs and the perception that it is a soft option. It also cannot provide the immediate incapacitation of custody.

The most balanced conclusion is that restorative justice can be valuable for appropriately selected cases in which victims and offenders are able to participate meaningfully. It should not be treated as a universal replacement for custody or as guaranteed evidence of rehabilitation.

Key Words 🔑

Key word	Student-friendly definition	How it may be used in an exam
Restorative justice	A programme focusing on repairing the harm caused by offending	Introduce the intervention
Victim	The person directly affected by the offence	Explain whose experience is central
Offender	The person responsible for the offence	Explain responsibility and rehabilitation
Harm	The physical, emotional, social or financial consequences of an offence	Explain the focus of the programme
Victim participation	The victim’s involvement in communicating the impact of the offence	Distinguish restorative justice from other interventions
Victim empowerment	Increasing the victim’s voice and sense of control	Explain a possible benefit
Healing	A possible reduction in distress following acknowledgement of harm	Evaluate benefits for victims
Empathy	Understanding another person’s experience and emotions	Explain possible offender rehabilitation
Perspective-taking	Considering the offence from the victim’s point of view	Link the programme with cognitive change
Responsibility	Accepting personal accountability for the offence and its consequences	Explain the offender’s role
Remorse	Regret about the harm caused	Evaluate genuine and false participation
Restitution	Practical action taken to repair some of the harm	Explain returning property or repairing damage
Reparation	Action intended to repair or make amends for harm	Explain the wider aim of restorative action
Rehabilitation	Changing the offender to reduce future offending	Explain the intended long-term outcome
Recidivism	Reoffending after a sentence or intervention	Evaluate long-term effectiveness
Custodial sentencing	A sentence requiring confinement in a secure institution	Compare restorative and custodial approaches
Retribution	Punishing an offender so that justice is seen to be done	Explain a difference from restorative justice
Incapacitation	Restricting an offender’s opportunity to harm the public	Explain what restorative justice does not provide
Deterrence	Discouraging offending through the threat or experience of punishment	Compare psychological processes
Soft option	The criticism that an intervention is insufficiently punitive	Evaluate public perceptions
Intimidation	Behaviour that makes a victim feel afraid or pressured	Explain limited suitability
Cognitive distortion	A biased way of interpreting an offence or its consequences	Explain how the programme may challenge minimalisation
Minimalisation	Playing down the seriousness or harm of an offence	Apply victim communication to offender thinking
Active engagement	Direct participation in reflection, communication and repair	Compare with passively serving a sentence
Programme variation	Differences in how restorative justice is organised	Explain difficulty evaluating effectiveness

Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡

Identify Restorative Justice Through Victim Involvement

Examiner hint: The defining clue is the victim’s direct role.

In the 2021 examination, several students were unable to name restorative justice even though it was the method involving victims.

A reliable definition is:

Restorative justice involves the victim in communicating the harm caused, while the offender is encouraged to accept responsibility and make restitution.

Use Psychology to Support Application

The 2021 examiner report noted that weaker applied responses sometimes contained little psychological foundation.

Do not write only:

The offender meets the victim.

Explain the psychological purpose:

Hearing the victim explain their fear may make the consequences more concrete, encourage empathy and challenge the offender’s minimalisation.

Apply Several Details

For a burglary scenario, link:

Fear after the offence → victim explains psychological harm.
Damaged property → restitution.
Stolen goods → possible return of property.
Offender’s denial → responsibility and empathy.
Victim’s wish to be heard → empowerment.

The official 2021 mark scheme rewarded these direct links.

Do Not Reduce the Programme to an Apology

An apology may be included, but a developed answer should explain:

Victim communication.
Offender recognition of consequences.
Empathy.
Responsibility.
Restitution.
Rehabilitation.

Choose Restorative Justice Only When the Stem Supports It

The June 2024 examiner report found that restorative justice was generally described and discussed reasonably well. However, students struggled to apply it when the scenario contained few obvious links to victims or repair.

Look for stem details involving:

An identifiable victim.
Emotional or practical harm.
Damaged or stolen property.
A possible form of restitution.
Offender denial or lack of empathy.

Create a Detailed Restitution Link

Weak application:

The offender could make it up to the victim.

Improved application:

The offender could return the stolen property and contribute towards repairing the damaged window, providing restitution directly connected with the offence.

Evaluate One Limitation Fully

The 2021 mark scheme accepted:

Victim fear or refusal.
Variation between programmes.
False remorse.
The soft-option criticism.
Failure to satisfy retributive demands.

Develop the consequence.

For example:

Some victims may fear intimidation and refuse to meet the offender. Without victim participation, the programme’s central opportunity for communication and empowerment may be lost.

Do Not Invent Evidence

The 2024 examiner report warned that weaker discussions sometimes used apparently invented efficacy studies and unsupported claims about treatment costs.

The provided AQA materials do not supply a verified numerical reduction in recidivism for restorative justice.

Use evidence only when its details are known accurately.

Compare Aims Rather Than Saying One Is Kinder

A strong comparison is:

Custody incapacitates through physical restriction and may satisfy retribution. Restorative justice seeks rehabilitation through empathy, responsibility and repair but does not provide equivalent immediate public protection.

Recognise That It Can Be Used with Custody

Do not always describe restorative justice as the opposite of prison.

AQA accepts restorative justice as a rehabilitative opportunity that may be provided during a custodial sentence.

Follow the Command Word

For explain:

Identify a feature.
Explain how it operates.
State the intended psychological effect.

For compare:

Describe both approaches.
Use a direct comparative phrase such as “whereas” or “in contrast”.
Compare the same feature in both approaches.

For evaluate:

Make a judgement about effectiveness or suitability.
Develop the reason.
Consider a counterargument or limitation.

Explain why variation makes overall effectiveness difficult to evaluate.

Mistake 15

Mistake: Inventing research findings or recidivism statistics.

Why this is risky:

Unsupported evidence weakens the accuracy of the answer.

How to improve:

Use evidence only when the study and findings are remembered accurately.

Exam-Style Questions ✍️

Question 1

Which way of dealing with offending directly involves victims? [1 mark]

Question 2

What is meant by restitution in a restorative justice programme? [2 marks]

Question 3

Explain how restorative justice may encourage empathy in an offender. [3 marks]

Question 4

Following a burglary, a victim becomes anxious about leaving home. A window was broken, and several possessions were stolen.

Explain how restorative justice could be used in this case. [4 marks]

Question 5

Explain two differences between restorative justice and custodial sentencing. [4 marks]

Question 6

An offender says:

“It was only a television. The victim can buy another one, so there is nothing to discuss.”

Use your knowledge of restorative justice and cognitive distortions to explain how a programme might address this statement. [4 marks]

Question 7

A hypothetical evaluation recorded outcomes for two offender groups during the year following an intervention.

Intervention	Number followed up	Number recorded as reoffending
Restorative justice programme	100	28
Custodial sentence without a rehabilitation programme	100	43

Calculate the percentage-point difference in recorded reoffending. Explain one conclusion and one limitation of the comparison. [6 marks]

Question 8

Explain one reason why restorative justice may be unsuitable for some victims. [3 marks]

Question 9

Explain one strength and one limitation of restorative justice. [6 marks]

Question 10

Discuss restorative justice as a way of dealing with offending behaviour. In your answer, compare restorative justice with custodial sentencing. [16 marks]

Answers and Mark Scheme

Question 1

Answer: Restorative justice. [1 mark]

Question 2

Award one mark for each of the following:

The offender takes practical action to repair or make amends for the harm.
An appropriate example, such as returning stolen property or repairing damage.

Maximum: 2 marks

Question 3

Award one mark for each linked point:

The victim explains the emotional or practical effects of the offence.
The offender is encouraged to consider the victim’s perspective.
The consequences become more personal and concrete.
The offender may better understand the distress caused.
This may reduce minimalisation or increase remorse.

Maximum: 3 marks

Question 4

Award up to four marks for effective application:

The victim could explain their anxiety and reduced sense of safety.
The offender would hear consequences beyond the loss of possessions.
This may encourage empathy.
The victim may gain a voice or sense of empowerment.
The offender may accept responsibility.
Stolen property could be returned where possible.
The offender could contribute towards repairing the window.
These actions would provide restitution.
The intended outcome is rehabilitation and reduced future offending.

Question 5

Award up to two marks for each clear difference.

Possible differences include:

Victim involvement

Restorative justice directly involves the victim in communicating the harm, whereas a custodial sentence can be imposed without direct victim-offender contact.

Main process

Restorative justice addresses offending through communication, responsibility and restitution, whereas custody restricts the offender’s liberty.

Incapacitation

Custody protects the public by physically removing the offender from the community, whereas restorative justice does not necessarily provide incapacitation.

Retribution and repair

Custody may deliver retribution through punishment, whereas restorative justice focuses more strongly on repairing harm.

Offender role

Restorative justice requires active engagement, whereas an offender may serve a custodial sentence without confronting the victim’s experience.

Question 6

Award up to four marks for effective application:

The offender is demonstrating minimalisation.
Calling it “only a television” plays down the financial and emotional significance.
Assuming the victim can replace it ignores the wider consequences.
The victim could explain the actual effect of the theft.
This may challenge the offender’s distorted belief.
Hearing the victim may encourage empathy.
The offender may be encouraged to accept responsibility.
Returning the property or compensating for the damage could provide restitution.

Question 7

Award one mark for the correct calculation:

43%−28%=15 percentage points

Recorded reoffending was 15 percentage points lower in the restorative justice group.

Award up to two marks for explanation:

The result is consistent with restorative justice reducing reoffending.
Empathy, responsibility or restitution might have contributed to rehabilitation.
The custodial sentence without rehabilitation may have produced punishment without psychological change.

Award up to three marks for a limitation:

The groups may have differed before receiving the interventions.
Lower-risk offenders may have been more likely to enter restorative justice.
The types or seriousness of offences may have differed.
Recorded reoffending does not include undetected offences.
The programme may differ from other forms of restorative justice.
The data show an association rather than cause and effect.

Question 8

Award one mark for identifying a relevant issue and up to two marks for explanation.

Possible answer:

Some victims may fear intimidation and refuse to meet the offender. Contact could increase anxiety or make the victim feel pressured to participate. The programme may therefore fail to promote healing and could create further distress.

Question 9

Award up to three marks for one developed strength and up to three marks for one developed limitation.

Possible strength:

Restorative justice gives victims an active voice. They can explain the emotional and practical consequences directly to the offender, which may promote empowerment and healing. Hearing these consequences may also challenge the offender’s minimalisation and encourage empathy, supporting rehabilitation.

Possible limitation:

Some offenders may pretend to show remorse because they believe participation will produce a favourable outcome. Words spoken during a session may therefore reflect impression management rather than genuine empathy. Immediate participation does not demonstrate reduced long-term reoffending.

Other creditworthy limitations include:

Victim refusal or fear.
Risk of further distress.
Perception as a soft option.
Failure to provide incapacitation.
Variation between programmes.
Difficulty measuring effectiveness.
Restitution not repairing every consequence.

Question 10

A high-level response should include accurate knowledge and developed evaluation.

Indicative AO1 content

Definition of restorative justice.
Focus on harm caused by offending.
Direct involvement of victims.
Victim explanation of emotional and practical effects.
Victim empowerment.
Possible healing.
Offender confrontation with consequences.
Acceptance of responsibility.
Development of empathy.
Remorse.
Restitution.
Returning property or repairing damage.
Rehabilitation.
Possible challenge to minimalisation.
Possible use within custody.

Indicative comparison with custody

Restorative focus on repair compared with custodial punishment.
Victim participation compared with state-imposed sentencing.
Active offender engagement compared with passively serving a sentence.
Rehabilitation through empathy compared with deterrence through punishment.
Restitution compared with retribution.
Custodial incapacitation compared with the absence of physical restriction.
Restorative justice potentially avoiding institutionalisation and brutalisation.
Restorative justice being usable alongside custody.

Indicative AO3 content

Victim empowerment and healing.
Greater recognition of emotional and practical harm.
Development of empathy.
Active responsibility.
Concrete restitution.
Possible rehabilitative value.
Possible avoidance of harmful custodial effects.
Victims refusing due to fear or intimidation.
Risk of further distress.
Insincere remorse.
Social desirability and impression management.
Perception as a soft option.
Failure to satisfy retributive demands.
Lack of incapacitation.
Limited suitability for high-risk offenders.
Variation between programmes.
Difficulty comparing effectiveness.
Difficulty defining successful outcomes.
Short-term participation compared with long-term recidivism.
Restitution being unable to undo every harm.
Need to protect victim wellbeing.
Comparison with anger management and behaviour modification.
Need to select suitable cases carefully.

Thirteen to sixteen marks: Knowledge is accurate and generally detailed. The comparison with custody is direct and sustained. Discussion is thorough, focused and balanced, considering outcomes for victims, offenders and public protection. Specialist terminology is used precisely.

Nine to twelve marks: Knowledge is mostly accurate and comparison and discussion are generally effective. Several strengths and limitations are considered, although some arguments may lack development.

Five to eight marks: Some relevant knowledge is present, but the answer is mainly descriptive. Restorative justice may be reduced to a meeting or apology, and comparison with custody or evaluation may be limited.

One to four marks: Knowledge is very limited or confused. The answer may treat restorative justice as release from prison, fail to involve the victim or provide little relevant comparison and evaluation.