<![CDATA[Restorative justice is often framed as more humane than retribution, but a peace agreement does not guarantee justice if the victim is pressured, the parties stand on unequal footing, or the harm goes unaddressed. This article develops a philosophical measure of recovery quality for victims, offenders, and society, together with safeguards against procedural compromises that overlook victim vulnerability. Using normative legal research with conceptual, statutory, and axiological approaches, it finds that genuine recovery requires six cumulative indicators, voluntary participation, acknowledgment of harm, reparation, protection from pressure, follow-through on agreements, and the recovery of offenders and society, alongside a three-layer safeguard of case selection, process verification, and outcome oversight. The resulting framework repositions the victim as the subject of recovery rather than merely a party who consents to peace, giving law enforcement a concrete basis for assessing whether a restorative settlement is substantively, not just procedurally, complete.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
