This master’s thesis examines restorative justice as an alternative approach to conflict resolution and responding to criminal behavior, with a particular focus on juvenile offenders. The first part introduces the fundamental principles of restorative justice, its distinction from the retributive model, and the neuroscientific and developmental rationale for treating juveniles differently. Meta-analyses and international empirical studies, including the RISE study, consistently confirm the positive effects of restorative programs: reduced recidivism, higher satisfaction among victims and offenders, and greater compliance with agreed-upon obligations. Particularly notable are the effects on victims’ emotional recovery, as restorative processes more frequently provide apologies, reduce fear, and enable victims to better cope with the consequences of victimization. The thesis also highlights methodological limitations, particularly self-selection bias, but concludes that restorative approaches remain the most reliable alternative to traditional criminal justice responses.
The subsequent sections present the characteristics of juvenile delinquency and the judicial response in Slovenia, where no unified, comprehensive law governs the treatment of juvenile offenders. Challenges in implementing educational measures, lack of continuity, and structural limitations are discussed, which often reduce the effectiveness of punitive policies. A comparative legal analysis highlights the advantages of an independent juvenile justice system based on humanistic and restorative principles. The conclusion emphasizes the need for broader use of restorative justice in both school and judicial contexts, as these approaches better align with the developmental characteristics of juveniles, contribute to safer communities, and enable more effective harm repair and prevention of reoffending.
|
