Restorative Justice in Hong Kong

Jamie Hui (KGV); Artwork by Timothy Chow (DBS) and Bernice Chong (DGS)

Restorative justice is the practice of allowing offenders to communicate with their victims. The process is considered therapeutic for victims without taking away offenders’ punishments as they both confront the crimes’ causes and effects. Due to its educational and corrective nature, restorative justice is most applicable for juvenile crime. Despite this, Hong Kong has one of the few governments that chooses not to incorporate restorative justice into the judicial system.

In 2007, the Hong Kong government announced that they would not support the official use of restorative justice, claiming it could be “sending a wrong message to the public that the balance is being tilted too much towards helping the offender” and that current measures were already successful in their efforts to reduce recidivism. However, as Hong Kong has seen a rise in youth crimes as of 2019, restorative justice has once again been proposed, with supporters claiming it will massively reduce Hong Kong’s rate of reoffense.

According to crime statistics from The Hong Kong Police Website, the youth crime rate -- that is, crimes done by people aged 16-20 -- increased in 2019 to 3128 counts, ending Hong Kong’s previously declining crime rate. It is suggested that this influx in crimes was caused by demonstrations triggered by the extradition bill, as students in high school and university would commonly boycott school to protest.

With this information in mind, restorative justice is the best-suited option and should be considered for crimes in Hong Kong, as it has been shown to be effective in resolving youth crimes across a multitude of communities. In 2012, a study was conducted to develop tactics and evaluate current programs’ effectiveness in reducing youth crime within the aboriginal regions of Wadeye, Australia. This 3-year longitudinal study used a variety of methods to create diversionary schemes predominantly focused on youths, especially youth gangs promoting antisocial behaviour. In their research, they found that restorative justice was particularly useful for indigenous juveniles. With the associated stress of a court process gone, and using restorative justice practices like family conferencing, the youth was less likely to re-offend. Furthermore, the study emphasizes youth backgrounds in their community to build a positive rapport with the community as a whole.

Similarly, South Africa’s Child Justice Act is also an important case study in proving the benefits of restorative justice. As South Africa revamps their youth criminal justice system, they assess and analyze South Africa’s socio-legal history, drawing special attention to youth crimes. They evaluate restorative justice in their system and find it beneficial to have both victim and offender be “centrally involved” in the proceeding. Additionally, this case study serves as an example of how Hong Kong should evaluate the current measures to prevent re-offense. Through their investigation, South Africa found tensions and issues within their legal system towards youths as they work towards improvement in child justice courts, further reinforcing the importance of restorative justice in both South Africa and other regions like Hong Kong.

One strength of restorative justice is that it helps both victim and offender. 85% of victims report feeling satisfied as restorative justice helps them remove the feeling of victimization and receive closure. For offenders, restorative justice helps them understand how their actions have affected others and how to learn from their experiences. Moreover, there is evidence that restorative justice helps reduce recidivism by 14%. On the other hand, One weakness of restorative justice is that it seems to be targeted to a very specific group as it is mainly effective for minors or first-time offenders. Restorative justice is also criticized for the lengthy process and preparation needed, including needing to recruit a mediator and ensure all participants are willing and have as little stress as possible. Despite this, restorative justice is still a much better alternative and less costly than having to deal with re-offenders.

Clearly, restorative justice shows great ability in reducing the rate of reoffense but even more so, shows substantial potential in curtailing Hong Kong’s increasing rate of youth crimes. Of course, it is important to recognize the underlying motives and beliefs of these recorded crimes. As social issues continue to rise in Hong Kong, youth misconduct seems to have begun taking a route of fervour and ardour rather than general petty crime, as evident in the protests. With this ever-changing state of our society, we must continue to challenge whether our judicial system will be able to or should prevent the actions for a passionate cause. Even so, I strongly call for a change in Hong Kong’s criminal justice system to involve restorative justice to construct a positive foundation for the future of our society.