Restorative justice programs redirect certain criminal cases away from conventional prosecution and into a facilitated encounter between offender and victim, in which the offender acknowledges the harm caused and the two parties negotiate what amends might look like, often including an apology, restitution, or community service. Advocates report that victims who participate express greater satisfaction with the process than victims whose cases proceed through conventional courts, and that participating offenders show lower rates of reoffending over the following several years.

Skeptics note, however, that participation in restorative programs is virtually always voluntary for both victim and offender, and that this voluntariness is not incidental but may be doing much of the explanatory work behind the favorable outcomes. Offenders who agree to face their victim directly and accept responsibility are presumably already inclined toward remorse and behavioral change in a way that offenders who decline participation are not; victims who opt into a face-to-face encounter are likewise a self-selected group, perhaps more disposed to find such an encounter meaningful than victims who decline. If so, the same offenders and victims might have produced similarly favorable outcomes under conventional prosecution, and the program would be credited with an effect actually attributable to the characteristics of those who chose to enter it.

Advocates concede the selection concern but argue that a meaningful comparison is still possible: several jurisdictions randomly assign eligible, consenting cases to either the restorative track or conventional prosecution, holding constant that all participants were willing in principle, and even within this narrower comparison the restorative track continues to show lower reoffending.