Hello
Restorative Justice: Shotgun vs. Laser Approach Among Gatekeepers
In the evolving landscape of criminal justice reform and institutional accountability, restorative justice (RJ) has emerged as a transformative framework. Unlike punitive systems that focus on punishment and exclusion, restorative justice seeks to repair harm, rebuild trust, and reintegrate individuals into communities. However, the way restorative justice is implemented by gatekeepers—teachers, administrators, police officers, judges, or community leaders—can make or break its effectiveness.
Two dominant styles of engagement have surfaced in restorative justice practice: the shotgun approach and the laser approach. These metaphors reveal striking differences in how gatekeepers identify, address, and follow through on cases of harm and conflict.
The Shotgun Approach: Broad, Dispersed, and Often Misguided
The “shotgun” approach refers to a broad, indiscriminate application of restorative justice. In this method, gatekeepers often refer large numbers of cases to restorative processes without clear criteria, consistent follow-up, or deep engagement. It’s an attempt to cover as many incidents as possible in hopes of positive outcomes.
Characteristics of the Shotgun Approach:
- High volume, low depth: Many cases are funneled through RJ processes, but with limited time or resources devoted to each.
- Inconsistent standards: Decisions about who gets referred to RJ may be arbitrary or driven by availability, not appropriateness.
- Minimal accountability: Gatekeepers may treat RJ as a checkbox, outsourcing responsibility rather than being part of the healing process.
While this method may show quick numerical growth in RJ participation, it risks diluting the integrity of restorative practices. Participants may feel unheard or rushed, and the community may perceive RJ as superficial or performative.
The Laser Approach: Focused, Intentional, and Deeply Engaged
In contrast, the “laser” approach is targeted and strategic. Gatekeepers who employ this model prioritize quality over quantity, selecting cases where restorative practices are most likely to produce meaningful outcomes and ensuring sustained involvement throughout the process.
Characteristics of the Laser Approach:
- Selective engagement: Cases are referred based on clear principles—seriousness of harm, willingness of parties, and community readiness.
- Intensive preparation: Facilitators and gatekeepers invest time in preparing both the harmed and the harmer, ensuring emotional safety and genuine dialogue.
- Integrated accountability: Gatekeepers stay involved, reinforcing agreements, supporting reintegration, and learning from outcomes.
This method honors the core values of restorative justice—voluntariness, respect, empathy, and transformation. It emphasizes healing over expediency and builds trust in the system over time.
Gatekeepers as Stewards, Not Bystanders
Gatekeepers play a pivotal role in determining whether RJ thrives as a meaningful alternative or becomes a hollow buzzword. When they adopt the shotgun approach, they risk turning RJ into a numbers game—expedient but shallow. But with the laser approach, they become stewards of community healing, using discretion, discernment, and dedication.
The laser approach also aligns better with the equity goals of restorative justice. Rather than using RJ as a blanket to avoid punitive discipline (which can still mask racial and social biases), it demands intentionality in addressing root causes, power dynamics, and historical harm.
Finding Balance: A Path Forward
While the laser approach offers more depth, it is also resource-intensive and may be perceived as slow or limited in reach. Thus, the challenge for institutions is to balance breadth with depth. Scaling RJ equitably doesn’t mean sacrificing quality; it means investing in systems, training, and support so that even as more people are served, each encounter retains its integrity.
Recommendations for Gatekeepers:
- Establish clear criteria for RJ referrals.
- Build internal capacity with trained facilitators.
- Monitor outcomes beyond completion rates—look at recidivism, satisfaction, and community impact.
- Involve all stakeholders, including victims, in meaningful ways.
- Avoid tokenism—don’t treat RJ as a “soft” alternative to punishment but as a real path to justice.
Conclusion
Restorative justice holds immense promise, but its potential depends on the wisdom and will of gatekeepers. The shotgun approach may seem efficient, but it often lacks the depth needed for true transformation. The laser approach, though more demanding, offers a path to justice that is precise, personal, and powerful. If gatekeepers act not merely as administrators but as custodians of repair, restorative justice can move from theory to lived reality.
Learn More: One Day or Day One