There is a lot of debate in the restorative justice literature about choice and coercion in the restorative process. Some would argue that restorative justice has to be fully voluntary all round, and that to exert pressure for either side to engage is inappropriate and potentially harmful.

What is clear and accepted by everyone is that the person harmed should never be made to feel obliged to take part. The worst sin in restorative circles is to push for the involvement of the people harmed for the benefit of those responsible (although one of the most common motivations for people harmed to choose restorative justice is from a desire to help ‘their’ perpetrator to learn from the experience). Getting the right balance of information and encouragement so that those harmed can make an informed choice is vital to successful restorative justice. It should always be made clear that this is a neutral offer – with lots of reminders that there is no pressure for them to take it up.

It is always going to be best if those who commit crime also opt in voluntarily. It's more powerful for the person harmed to be told that the person who caused them harm is hoping to meet them, and that it is that person's genuine and free choice to engage in restorative justice. Those harmed will always want to know if the meeting is voluntary or compulsory, and whether by opting in, the perpetrator's punishment will be reduced. As Walgrave notes: ‘the quality of restoration will decisively improve if the offender co-operates freely’.

The problem arises with those people who have caused harm but don't wish to make amends, even with encouragement. If restorative justice practitioners insist that involvement is completely voluntary, the scope of restorative justice will be limited. Asked if they would like to repay, many will say ‘No thanks’, and be on their way. It would be possible to keep the value base of ‘voluntariness’ pure, deliver restorative justice for those who choose it and simply leave the rest to punishment from the criminal justice system. This would, Walgrave asserts, consign restorative justice to ‘a marginal addendum to the criminal justice system’.

The alternative is for there to be some form of pressure on those who have caused harm and don't feel inclined to put it right.