This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Coker, D. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Restorative justice, Navajo Peacemaking and domestic violence

University of Miami, USA

I argue that RJ processes may be beneficial for some women who experience domestic violence, but only if those processes meet five criteria: prioritize victim safety over batterer rehabilitation; offer material as well as social supports for victims; work as part of a coordinated community response; engage normative judgments that oppose gendered domination as well as violence; and do not make forgiveness a goal of the process. I review my earlier study of Navajo Peacemaking in light of these criteria. I also explore the significant differences between Peacemaking and other processes that are said to be derived from Indigenous justice models, noting in particular that the process is completely controlled by the Navajo Nation.

Key Words: critical race feminist theory • domestic violence • Indigenous justice • Navajo Peacemaking • restorative justice

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. Balfour Falling Between the Cracks of Retributive and Restorative Justice: The Victimization and Punishment of Aboriginal Women Feminist Criminology, April 1, 2008; 3(2): 101 - 120. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. Daly and J. Stubbs Feminist engagement with restorative justice Theoretical Criminology, February 1, 2006; 10(1): 9 - 28. [Abstract] [PDF]