The history of juvenile justice is characterised by a dichotomy of approach: one based on welfare, the other on punishment. Restorative justice is the new idea in criminal justice and as a model moves beyond these two traditions.

The restorative principle is neither to punish nor to re-educate. It is to repair and compensate for the harm caused by the offence. Offender/victim mediation is at its core.

The restorative practice is that the way of repairing or compensating for the harm can be negotiated. An agreement can be facilitated and its implementation monitored.

"Reintegrative shaming" is a term used for the restorative process of community disapproval followed by gestures of reacceptance.

Family group conference is the site for restorative-justice practice in the juvenile-justice system. The use of family serves to harness its ability as an informal source of social control.

An independent co-ordinator, professionals who share concern, a victim or victim account and the offender attend the conference. The model has travelled from the southern hemisphere and, on arrival in Ireland was renamed the family-welfare conference.

The model was adopted into legislation in New Zealand in 1989. Now, decisions in all but the most violent and serious delinquency cases are made in a family-conference forum. It is based on the centuries-old sanctioning and conflict resolution tradition of the New Zealand Maori.

But back to the scene in Ireland. What happened when the model was put into practice? After 90 minutes of heated and emotional exchange in the family-welfare conference the offender, his mother, grandfather, victim and local arresting garda had all spoken about the offence and its impact. The mediator felt that the victim and offender had heard each other's story and had learned something about the impact of the crime on each other. The mediator asked for input into what should be done by the offender to pay back the victim and the community. The group suggested that the offender would pay £140, the cost of damage to the victim's home following a break-in. He would replace the camera stolen too - value, £120. The mediator negotiated a payment schedule, too.

The offender apologised and agreed to undertake 40 hours' community service in a charity to be nominated by the victim.

A criticism of restorative justice is that it could lead to a secondary victimisation for the victim. Allied to this has been concern about the use of victims as "props" to meet offenders' needs - or that victims may feel pressured to forgive the offender. Victims obviously must have a right not to engage in a mediation process and must not face undue pressure to participate. However, generally, victims report positively on their involvement. They seemed to feel less angry and less fearful after learning more about the offender and the details of the crime.

The restorative system is certainly more effective in securing recognition of the status of victims than under rehabilitation or retributive models of justice.

The vision and intention is that the restorative process can educate offenders about the harm their behaviour causes to victims. They learn to own their behaviour through telling their crime story and hearing that of the victim. The experience engenders shame, which can become a stimulus to personal change. However, the vision and worthy intention of restorative justice must not conflict with the functions of justice in a democratic state. There has been concern that the less formal procedures of a family-welfare conference, in contrast to a court setting, could compromise offenders' legal rights, such as the presumption of innocence or right to a proportionate sentence.

Care, too, must be taken with the power difference between the "prestige victim" and the socially vulnerable young offender, so that this does not become manifest in the negotiated agreement. As a principle, it is essential that the rights of all parties be respected.

It is possible to serve a life sentence for murder in an Irish prison without having to come to terms, in a personal sense, with the pain caused to the victim's community. Victims aren't heard, as criminologists Braithwaite and Mugford have observed.

The Children Bill 1999 provides for the restorative-justice model within juvenile justice. In so doing, it advances the interests of victims, but also promotes solidarity among community members, which also includes those who offend. Juvenile offenders are the crucial group in any strategy for the prevention of crime.

Patrick O'Dea is spokesman for the probation and welfare officers branch of IMPACT.