Evaluating restorative justice as a component of a multisystemic, evidence-based framework for reducing mass incarceration in the United States

Many advocates of criminal legal reform have endorsed Restorative Justice (RJ) as an alternative to retributive practices, arguing it addresses victim needs while encouraging offender accountability. Despite RJ’s growing implementation across jurisdictions, current practices often lack integration with evidence-based frameworks. Moreover, valid concerns persist regarding its effectiveness in significantly reducing recidivism, thus casting doubt on its potential role in addressing mass incarceration through systemic change. This article offers a critical review of existing RJ literature, clarifying definitions of the concept and distinguishing RJ from both conventional punitive sentencing and other rehabilitative, evidence-based interventions. It further examines the empirical literature regarding whether RJ meaningfully impacts recidivism and broader incarceration rates, victim satisfaction, procedural justice, and other outcomes that may contribute to its value in criminal justice transformation. Ultimately, the article concludes that RJ, should not be viewed as either a standalone replacement for the current criminal legal system or as merely incremental reforms within the existing punitive framework. Rather, RJ emerges as a valuable supplemental element within a comprehensive, multi-systemic, evidence-based transformation that shifts criminal law and policy from a backward-looking punitive framework toward a forward-looking preventive justice system designed to substantially reduce mass incarceration in the American criminal legal system.