* Most important, in my view, is that RJ is not a specific process but rather a set of guiding principles and values, a framework for identifying and addressing harms and obligations. It is more encompassing than specific encounter models.

I’d note that ADR (often re-titled as “Appropriate DR” as at the U of Oregon program) is likewise not a specific process, but an umbrella term for a stable of processes. Shared across these processes are principles of party self-determination (at least with regard to choice of process) and interest-based approaches to conflict (vis-a-vis exclusively power- or rights-based).
Community mediation programs and actors have even more in common with RJ, to my thinking, with strong emphases on relationships and a ‘clean’ process–as you say, “process may be as important – or more important – than the outcome.”

* ADR is increasingly recognized by courts as appropriate for use in civil cases. Partly because of this association and partly for the reasons above, criminal courts are often resistant to its application in criminal cases. RJ language is more easily understood than ADR language in this context.

I couldn’t agree more, and have spent a couple years working on an ABA project titled Mediation in Criminal Matters.
I took pains to explicate the values and benefits of RJ at the training, and believe that programs within and beyond the formal justice system can adhere to RJ values while working within a structure that places priority on efficiency and outcomes.
This isn’t always easy, and I very much enjoy the analyses set forth by Ratner and Woolford–especially their observation that some RJ programs must occupy an “oscillating space” between government-sponsored and community-sponsored interests, values, and structures.
Davis once observed that in the mediation field, “Form doesn’t follow function; form follows funding.” And I’ll paraphrase Brubaker’s wisdom that in institutional relationships marked by power imbalances, “it’s no coincidence the terms ‘cooperation’ and ‘co-optation’ are hard to distinguish.”

Returning to the thread here, it seems we have some shared interest in further consideration of mediaiton/VOM/RJ along both principles and practices. I look forward to the conversation.

We have chosen, in the City of Gothenburg, to base our practice on Transformative Mediation rather than on Restorative Justice. We are clear that we do not have a “balanced partiality” as mediators and do not seek to address the moral imbalance between parties. Rather, we follow the approach that parties themselves are capable of making choices and decisions following the crime, given proper support. We support party empowerment through allowing them these choices and support them as they move from relative isolation to openness. We also base our practice on principles and values rather than outcomes and seek to avoid influencing content as well as process. The results of this kind of mediation have been very positive, particularly when used in conjunction with professional support for both victims and offenders.

I completely share your opinion that the European – and I daresay general – confusion between mediation and RJ is problematic. I fully respect the values and principles RJ practitioners choose to work from, but to claim impartiality or neutrality (as is done in Sweden) is confusing. The confusion damages both the reputation of RJ and of that of mediation. The other difficulty with the way RJ is implemented – at least in here – is the simplification which occurs when offender and victim are clearly labelled and the RJ process seeks to support the victim in one way and the offender in quite another. The over-emphasis on remorse and apology further complicates the issue, especially when the criminal justice system rewards public these by reducing sentences.

It would be interesting to raise this discussion to the level of principles and values. It is here one sees the differences between the two approaches most clearly. The RJ view of crime and conflict, its view on human capacity and that on process differ significantly from the Transformative principles and values. There is no right and wrong, but without clarity, as you eloquently point out, interventions can become bad practice and will not serve victims, offenders or society at large.

I would gladly elaborate on the approach we have developed and the reasons for its effectiveness – along with its shortcomings. I also welcome the discussion about the true nature of both RJ and the various forms of mediation practice. It is certainly long overdue.

One difference I do see between mediation and RJ is that RJ takes conflict resolution one step further and seeks to understand the harm caused by the situation and allows for accountability to this harm.

I tell all of my mediators who also facilitate group conferences or do circle keeping that this is not mediation. In training we also spend time on the differences between the two and to be mindful of them. Thanks again Howard. I so appreciate your work.