Privileges are generally disfavored as impeding the truth. But in this chapter, I propose a novel way to think of privilege altogether: privilege as a means of resistance, a tool to oppose unjust systems and laws. Current privilege scholarship essentially assumes faith in the adversarial legal system and the interest in soliciting, collecting, and admitting all available evidence. This assumption implicitly accepts that the adversarial system is valid, and the substantive law that privilege limits is also valid. However, if we question the legitimacy of the adversarial system and the substantive laws it upholds, the cost-benefit analysis shifts. Privilege could serve as an instrument of resistance by prioritizing the preservation of relationships over the legal system’s pursuit of truth.

Although criminal trials are primarily designed to repress individual acts, a new role has emerged with the third generation of jihadist trials. They have become a ‘forum’, giving voice to different actors in order to reconstruct a socio-historical phenomenon in all its complexity, as we have seen with truth commissions in post-conflict countries. These trials have become a space where the defendants recount their path to radicalization, the victims relate their trauma and expectations, the experts situate the phenomenon in a political, social and medical context, and the police and security services expose their work and their difficulties. The rich narratives exposed by the different stakeholders, and most notably by hundreds of victims, are at the center of this organic process, which is being constantly developed by the actors themselves. Obviously, the trial was strictly framed by criminal law procedure, but this framework was partly circumvented, enriched, and even subverted during the trial. This chapter discusses the Charlie Hebdo and Bataclan trials and the emergence of a hybrid procedure, which introduced important elements of restorative justice.

Reparation programmes for redressing human rights harms form a central pillar of transitional justice. Reviews about the success of such programmes, however, remain mixed: in terms of outcomes, they often fail to meet the justice needs of affected populations; in terms of process, there is agreement about the importance of meaningful participation, but only a minimal understanding of how to carry this out effectively. To develop a sound theoretical framework to guide actors interested in developing reparations programmes, this chapter builds on the theory of relational justice to provide both an instrumental and legal justification for inclusive processes in the design, implementation, and evaluation of reparations programmes. We argue that reparative processes should be mindful of building and repairing relations, especially between affected populations and the government that failed to protect them. We conclude by proposing four criteria we believe are fundamental for taking a relational justice approach to reparations.

In this chapter the authors provide critical analysis of the child welfare system as the basis for cultivating the necessary reflection and action among supervisors, leaders, and practitioners to co-create truly anti-oppressive approaches to supervision and leadership. Utilizing a Black Critical Race Theory/BlackCrit lens (applying the principles of Critical Race Theory exclusively to the unique and significantly marginalized experiences of Black people) the authors interrogate the oppressive practices and motivations of historic and modern child welfare systems across the United States that are disproportionately harmful to Black children and families. Motivated to foster hope and facilitate systems change, the authors utilize case studies to support skills development in anti-oppressive supervision and leadership, while re-imagining the potential for an anti-racist child empowerment and support system for Black children and families. Readers are invited to embrace tools and skills that digress from strategies informed by white supremacy and social control. Ultimately, strategies presented in the chapter lay a foundation for rebuilding and reimagining supportive processes that preserve families and children.

We explore how societies that have endured severe human rights violations confront and address their past and examine international mechanisms designed to protect human rights. This chapter asks: How can a society be rebuilt and made functional in the aftermath of human rights abuses? How can a culture of human rights be fostered? Should the pursuit of justice for perpetrators take precedence, or should reconciliation and forgiveness be the primary focus? We delve into the concept of transitional justice, its meaning, the key challenges to its implementation, and the effectiveness of various mechanisms in restoring justice and peace.

I end the book by summarizing the goals of the project and noting future possible directions for researchers and practitioners. The purposes were to strengthen the connections between peace education, restorative justice, and psychology, while specifically offering conceptualized peace as a theoretical framework to richer understandings of youth cognition and identity related to contributing to building positive peace. The goal, however, was not simply to articulate a theoretical framework, but also to make connections to critical perspectives and application in programming and schools. The second part of the chapter thus turns to future directions in the fields of peace education and restorative justice. I discuss how conceptualized peace can help address questions in each before arguing that it could be applied as well to questions related to youth and climate change, racial/ethnic and economic injustice, and technological change.

The second empirical example of conceptualized peace presents a study of young people who were former high school restorative justice leaders. By presenting an example not explicitly related to peace, the chapter helps expand understanding the utility and applicability of the framework, as well as the methods that can be used with it. The research was a retrospective investigation of the role that their high school restorative justice experience played in these young people’s development. While they may not be representative of all students, their experiences and the impact these carry with them years later have value for thinking about restorative justice and development. Their understandings of restorative justice and the roles it has played in their lives speak to its potential to provide tools for internal peace, coping strategies for stress and interpersonal conflict, and opportunities to see themselves as able to promote peace in their immediate social circles and by taking on problematic systems.

This opening chapter introduces the reader to the main focus of the book, as well as how the author came to study peace education and restorative justice. The book aims to more deeply integrate an understanding of how young people come to form ideas about themselves with how they make meaning of their socio-ecological contexts. Peace education and restorative justice are two fields where we can more deeply integrate psychology into the project of building more harmonious social worlds. The chapter ends by detailing how the rest of the book is organized. The chapters are structured under three sections. First are the backgrounds, definitions, and opportunities in each field. These are then integrated into a theoretical framework – conceptualized peace – with examples of studies to provide further definition. Finally, the book ends with methodological approaches to applying conceptualized peace and future directions.

I begin the first section of the book by introducing restorative justice, providing background about its development, and summarizing current conversations in the field. My aim is to begin our journey with an orientation to how restorative justice in schools has developed, the debates about best practices and questions about its implementation, and gaps in the research on its potential. Over the last two decades, the use of restorative justice has grown considerably in schools, partially in response to increasing awareness that punitive systems have negative consequences for students and school communities. Its implementation, however, has been varied and highly contextual. As I summarize current question in the field, I therefore highlight that even as much research has explored its potential to impact certain in-school measures – attendance, school climate, behavioral concerns – there is still considerable conversation around best practices and how it is linked to important developmental outcomes.

This chapter offers a political and institutional history of the “most expensive endeavor of restorative justice” ever undertaken, though even this monumental effort pales in comparison with the damage inflicted by the Nazis. Focusing on Germany with an eye toward pan-European developments, it traces the procedures and eligibility, as well as efforts to block, both the restitution of lost property and reparations for past suffering. Restitution and reparations were initially conceptualized broadly, though, over time, Jewish victims became prominent among the recipients. Other Nazi victim groups (e.g., Sinti and Roma, homosexuals, etc.) sometimes faced even greater obstacles to legal recognition and successful claims. The chapter emphasizes the challenges faced by all surviving Nazi victims – Jews and non-Jews alike – in claiming due restitution for their suffering and the grievous harm inflicted on them during the Third Reich.

Chapter 12 looks at the abolition movement, primarily as it targets prisons but also with respect to its stance on the police. As a foil, the chapter reacts to an article entitled The Dangerous Few: Taking Seriously Prison Abolition and Its Skeptics, in which Thomas Frampton proffers several reasons why those who want to abolish prisons should not budge from their position even for offenders who are considered dangerous. This chapter rebuts each of these reasons. In the process of doing so, it demonstrates why a criminal law “minimalist” approach to prisons is preferable to abolition, not just when dealing with the dangerous few but also as a means of protecting the nondangerous many. It argues that a minimalist regime patterned on preventive justice precepts can radically reduce reliance on prisons and on the police, without the loss in crime prevention capacity and legitimacy that is likely to come with abolition.

This chapter explores the relationship between education and a school’s punishment and disciplinary practices. Distinct from discipline, punishment is defined partly in terms of its attempt to express moral disapproval. While there are serious criticisms of the use of punishment in educational settings, punishment is largely justified in school in terms of its ability to foster certain sorts of educative conversations. Not all punishment is justified: the particular sort of punishment, and the context that surrounds it, must match the educational nature of the school environment. The punishment must send the right educational messages and accomplish legitimate educational goals. The context of punishment that best supports these goals can be found in the restorative justice framework.

At the core of any legal decision is an assumption that the decision will be “fair,” yet this is an elusive term. A close study of cases involving criminal defendants with mental disabilities shows that many (perhaps most) of the decisions involving this cohort are not “fair” in the contexts of due process and justice. If legal decisions reflect principles such as procedural justice, restorative justice, and therapeutic jurisprudence, the chances of such fairness will be significantly enhanced. This chapter explains why this goal of fairness, in the context of these cases, can never be met absent a consideration of the virulence of sanism and pretextuality, along with the misuse of heuristics and false “ordinary common sense.” These factors enable much of society to ignore gray areas of human behavior, and predispose fact-finders to endorse beliefs in accord with their prior experiences.