Restorative justice involves three categories of stakeholder: victims, offenders and the community and restorative justice” (RJ) broadly to capture what the literature describes using a variety of terms such as “restorative practices,” “restorative approaches,” and similar language. Given that there is now recent contemporary strong evidence that R J processes are perceived to be fairer by participants involved and strong evidence that perceived procedural justice improves compliance with the law, while critics from various authours argue that the traditional approach manages more so better outcome rather than taking a R J approach. Therefore, there is a number of conflicting evidence if RJ works or doesn’t work or whether some approaches or some of the R J processes work better in some situations that also assist to and lead to all or some R J participant satisfaction after conferencing is complete and receive some perceived procedural justice. And for this reason this topic on R J working and linked factors of issues need to be explored further and critically assessed in order to truly identify if R J overall success rate and is strong enough to argue for or against it working or yet to be determined as evidence may present that it still stands somewhere in the middle and doesn’t necessarily make a change or help enough. However, this will be needed to be presented through a number of research and analysis and stated clearly in arguments when breaking down the bare bones of the question as a lot of different linked sub-issues will need to be discussed for an overall conclusion on this topic of discussion
