Feminism, justice and ethics: reflections on Braithwaite’s commitments

Kathleen Daly

Kathleen Daly is Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.

Contact author: k.daly@griffith.edu.au. Acknowledgments: My thanks and appreciation to Robyn Holder, Juliet Davis and the journal editors for comments on earlier drafts; Victoria Meyer for gathering news stories and seeking permissions from The Canberra Times; artist Geoff Pryor for agreeing to reprint his cartoon and explaining its background; and Karen Struthers and Ron Frey for trying to recall what sparked their Statement of Concern at a conference in 1993. Special thanks to John Braithwaite for his generosity in responding to my emails in 2019 about his memory of events more than 25 years ago, in 1993.

1. Introduction

I shall never forget the day. It was more than 25 years ago, in January 1993, when I was working at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. I received an express mail package from Australia, and it was from John. He had sent me a paper to read and comment upon.
I read the paper that evening and was captivated by its many new ideas. John wrote about a process called ‘community conferencing’ in a place called Wagga Wagga in New South Wales. He described a case of a male youth sexually assaulting a girl in the swimming pool, but it was not the case that captured my attention. Rather, it was the way that John wrote about male domination, violence against women and the ways that an informal justice process could bring forward feminist voices for social change.[1] John presented the paper to the Australian Institute of Criminology’s (AIC) Second Conference on Violence (15-18 June 1993) in Canberra, and it was published a year later (Braithwaite & Daly, 1994). The experience marked the start of my journey to Australia to research restorative justice.
I have a folder of correspondence with John during the time we were developing the piece. With John’s permission, my article draws from it and recent email exchanges. It also draws from stories in The Canberra Times about the AIC conference, which began with a controversial bang. The opening speech by Governor-General Bill Hayden[2] attracted significant critique from some feminist quarters. The Canberra Times gave it front-page headlines the next morning: ‘Hayden defends men, challenges media over “misrepresentation”’ (Campbell & Frith, 16 June 1993: 1). In his address, Hayden criticised a major Melbourne newspaper, The Age, for using headlines such as ‘The war against women’, and for characterising reports to Victorian police of family violence as being ‘at epidemic levels and rising’. He said: ‘most men are not waging a war against women’ and ‘most men are not violent’ (Hayden, 16 June 1993: 11). During and after the conference, The Canberra Times published numerous stories and some editorials about what was said and debated. The newspaper paints a vivid picture of the gender politics of the day, when ‘women’s groups and the media [were] talking up the problem of violence against women’ (Editorial, 17 June 1993: 10). Scheduled to speak on the same day as Hayden, John anticipated that he would need to duck for cover when presenting our paper on the potential of community conferences for responding to violence against women.
My article sketches how our paper evolved and John’s determination to ensure its feminist contribution was strong. It also reveals an ethical side of John’s work that I admire and try to emulate. I believe that John was unusual in reaching out to feminist scholars, reading our work and seeing its value at a time when few male colleagues did. In 1994, he had hoped that community conferences could be used in adult family and domestic violence cases, but some years later he acknowledged that it would have been premature owing to a lack of appropriate protocols (Braithwaite & Strang, 2002: 1-2).

2. Contexts of feminist advocacy and debate

The 1980s were a heady time for consolidating and expanding feminist thought,[3] along with nascent justice ideas that had emerged from the 1960s and 1970s social movements (Daly & Immarigeon, 1998). However, feminist advocates recognised a problem: the strength and vitality of feminist grass-roots activism for change in the 1960s and 1970s were being undermined and distorted by neoconservative policies of the 1980s. As Linda MacLeod (1985: 368) argued, this encouraged an overly simple response, ‘the criminalisation of wife battering’. MacLeod’s presentation to the AIC’s 1985 National Conference on Domestic Violence raised concerns over the growing emphasis on the sole use of the police and criminal law in responding to domestic violence. She characterised these responses as ‘powerful symbols of chivalry’, which

focus on rescuing the victim … by current-day knights in police-officers’ clothing … but do little or nothing to prevent her subsequent victimisation or to address the roots of her oppression (MacLeod, 1985: 374).

Her concerns reflect debate during the 1980s and early 1990s over the desirability of mandatory or pro-arrest policies for domestic violence.
Meda Chesney-Lind and I entered into the debate in the 1980s. After reviewing Sherman and Berk’s (1984) study of presumptive arrest for domestic violence, we said:

We wear our criminologist hats in questioning feminist (or nonfeminist) optimism in a presumptive arrest policy. A get-tough ‘lock-‘em-up’ response offers women short-term protection …, but it is part of a more general [punitive] ‘solution’ that has arisen in the last decade. Apart from short-term incapacitation, it is difficult to see how this or any other reactive policy can be effective in reducing violent crime (Daly & Chesney-Lind, 1988: 523).

We argued that the structural sources of men’s violence needed to be pursued and that this included ‘empowering women to leave destructive relationships … and to impugn the normative supports for men’s sexual and physical violence’ (p. 523). We were concerned that the presumptive arrest of male suspects might lead to the arrest of female victims (a concern that was well founded, in hindsight). We agreed with other feminist colleagues in criminology (Carlen & Worrall, 1987: 13) that such policies were short-sighted.
M. Kay Harris (1987: 34) put the dilemma of safety and protection of women in more general terms: ‘How can we respond effectively to people who inflict injury and hardship on others without employing the same script and the same means that they do?’ Feminists working in criminology were able to see the dilemma clearly, knowing that criminal law typically works downwards, criminalising the more disadvantaged and marginal members of society.
Some years later, I termed the dilemma ‘an unsolvable justice problem’ (Daly, 2002), drawing from the work of Barbara Hudson (1998) and Jean Hampton (1998).[4] The problem has two linked questions: how do we treat wrongs with the seriousness they deserve without relying on harsh, exclusionary forms of punishment? How do we ‘do justice’ in an unequal society? By the late 1990s, more feminist scholars in law and criminology were saying that increasing the penalties for crime and arresting or jailing more violent offenders would not create safer societies (Martin, 1998; Snider, 1998). Although there was growing feminist recognition of the limits of criminal law to reduce violent crime or control men’s violence, it remained a point of contention. The introduction of new justice ideas in the 1990s, such as community conferencing, circle sentencing and restorative justice, served to amplify the debate further. I return to the unsolvable justice problem at the conclusion of this article. It is time now to share materials in my Braithwaite file.

3. Braithwaite’s developing feminist consciousness

The earliest letter in the file is dated 23 July 1989. In it, John said he had read two recently published papers of mine on feminism, criminology and justice and had passed them along to a PhD student and an Australian feminist scholar. Responding to one paper that gave a critical analysis of the ‘different voice’ construct (Daly, 1989), he said:

Through methodologies which draw out voices suppressed by traditional, hard-nosed, statistical, formally legal and patriarchal methods, we can find the seeds of hope which can be fertilised in the struggle for a ‘kindler gentler’ (!) criminal justice system. This, for me, is the most fervent hope for the line of work you are pursuing.

Two observations can be made. First, John wanted to foreground the views of society’s marginal and subordinated members, a long-standing concern. Second, he used the term ‘patriarchal’. In the same year (1989) he discussed how a ‘patriarchal culture’ affected sex/gender differences in offending in Crime, shame and reintegration (Braithwaite, 1989: 92-94), although he did not consider its impact on victimisation. Two years later, Braithwaite (1991) analysed conditions and relations that were ‘structurally humiliating’, including ‘patriarchy’, which he defined as ‘a condition where women enjoy limited dominion, where men do not respect the dominion of women [and] where women are humiliated by men’ (p. 50).
In a March 1991 email, he said he was ‘remorseful’ for not having read work by Betsy Stanko, a well-known feminist criminology scholar, on violence against women (he recalls that I pointed this out to him in 1990). When he searched for her books in Canberra libraries, not one was on the shelf. He planned to rectify the problem in a trip to universities in Liverpool and Oslo, where he expected to find Stanko’s books in the libraries. ‘So I will then have a chance to improve my gendered self’, he said.
An early paper of his drew on feminist ideas. ‘Women as victims of crime’ (Braithwaite & Biles, 1980) analysed findings from the first Australian national victims survey. In the introduction, the authors said they would ‘not attempt to demonstrate their unsophisticated grasp of feminist theory [by integrating] the findings [with] a coherent theoretical framework’ (p. 330); but at the end, the analysis of a greater female fear of victimisation displayed uncommon feminist insight. Like 1970s victimisation surveys in other countries, the Australian data showed a disjuncture between the likelihood of female victimisation (generally lower compared with males, except for rape) and the fear of being a victim of crime while walking in one’s neighbourhood at night (higher for women). This heightened female fear (based on a fear of rape) ‘hems [women] into a protected day-to-day existence … and is a concrete manifestation of the ideological importance in a sexist culture of keeping women dependent on men for protection’ (Braithwaite & Biles, 1980: 338).
In a recent email (24 May 2019), I asked John when he began reading and reflecting on feminist work. He said, ‘I had been thinking about it for a long time’, having read The Female Eunuch (Greer, 1970) ‘when it first came out’, along with ‘quite a bit of other feminist writing’ by ‘the big figures of second wave feminism at that time’. He had given undergraduate lectures on the topic at Griffith University and the University of Queensland in the mid-1970s, and he had frequent conversations with feminist colleagues at the AIC and in Australia.

4. Developing our paper

In 1992 we began to discuss a paper on violence against women and community conferences (also termed by John ‘reintegration ceremonies’, but not yet restorative justice). This was prompted, in part, by a plenary panel paper I had given at the Law & Society Conference (June 1992) on the United States Senate’s confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas as Supreme Court Judge and Anita Hill’s allegations that Thomas had sexually harassed her (Daly, 1992). At the time, I had only Norwegian feminist abolitionists’ ideas to work with. In a 22 July 1992 letter responding to my plenary argument, John said he felt

a lot of sympathy for the way the Scandinavian abolitionists think about these things, though my theoretical position is to be a minimalist on criminal justice intervention rather than an abolitionist.

He thought ‘the criminal label is a good thing’ although most criminal acts could be ‘better labelled in other ways’.
When we met at the ASC conference in New Orleans in November 1992, he said he was working on a draft paper on male violence against women and community conferences. This was the paper I received from John in January 1993. He sent it under pressing circumstances because he had promised it for Tim Newburn and Betsy Stanko’s edited collection on masculinities and crime. In his letter he said:

If you want to engage with it and become a co-author, I would welcome that. Unfortunately, this would have to be done quickly. The due date for the paper is this month!

He was concerned that the paper may be too long, but said

I am inclined to dig my heels in and refuse to cut it. It is an important paper to me and I don’t want it to be compromised by editorial demands.

I replied on 17 January 1993, first with several criticisms, saying

My major contribution, were I to be involved in this paper, would be to make the arguments more clear and readable and defensible … The paper may require a strong re-organisation … ‘the pyramid’ just pops in … and you’ve offered several other major lists of ideas. A second contribution would be to say more about the failures of the conference idea. This must be discussed more, especially if you want anyone to take the ideas seriously. Finally, there are areas where the characterisation of feminism and related [topics] would need to be changed, both for accuracy and diplomacy.

Then, I pointed out what I liked:

The paper really shines when you show how the criminal process amplifies stigma and rage, and how the legal process increases violence. The paper is also good for giving examples of how the conference works: what kinds of interactions occur and what innovations are possible. Finally, your argument about the relationship of formalism to informalism is nicely done and gets beyond the impasse. Generally, the paper is a good think piece and will help people to think differently about the goals of responding to harms.

At the same time, I was not comfortable with framing the argument within republican criminology (Braithwaite & Pettit, 1990) and preferred to see that pared back. Specifically, I was concerned with the ‘communitarian direction of the argument’ and believed there needed to be ‘an acknowledgment of its downsides and problems’, having in mind feminist critiques of mediation and the oppressive role ‘the community’ could have on women. I raised other questions concerning the role of conference advocates: ‘are they all women, or what role do men play in assisting victimized females’? I asked if there was ‘an analysis of how gender structures the conference proceeding … e.g., [are] men doing more talking and making decisions or in other ways silencing women’? (email 17 January 1993).
Soon after, John sent me a copy of a letter to Betsy Stanko (30 January 1993), which began with ‘Oh Betsy, how bad I have been. I have not finished the paper promised for your book with Tim Newburn …’ He went on to say that

I have spoken and emailed endlessly with Kathy Daly about its many flaws. She likes telling me my flaws. Remember when she told me that one of my flaws was that I had not read your three books.

He said that I had agreed to co-author but that because he knew the deadline had passed, he wanted to give the editors the option of saying ‘no thanks’. A key concern for him was the publisher’s restrictions on word length. He said to Betsy that ‘the paper is really important to me in the deepest intellectual-personal and political sense. That is why I want to do it right, however much space that takes’. In a subsequent email to me in early February, he reinforced this point after he learned from the editors that the maximum length was 6,000 words. He said:

We want [the paper] to be interesting AND NOT HAVE MAJOR GAPS IN THE ARGUMENT. My concern with this paper is that we get it right, whatever is the optimum length for getting it right. I will refuse to compromise just to keep [the publisher] happy (John’s emphasis).

5. Ethics: the problem of B-ness

In a 28 February email, John asked if I would be able to commit to revising the paper before the AIC Conference in Canberra in June 1993. I said I could, and this set in motion a flurry of emails during May when I was revising the paper and then in June, after John received my revision. I will not parse the many exchanges we had about what needed to be expanded, reduced and finessed. But I would like to share two emails, both dated 1 June 1993, after John had received my revision:

You have done a wonderful, wonderful job on the paper … I do think your contribution is so substantial that we are now on equal partner footing. In these circumstances, I have a strong preference against alphabetical order and in favour of coin tossing. This preference follows from the fact that most of my co-authors happen to be women who are more junior than me and who have post-B names. I feel uncomfortable exploiting my B-ness across so many co-authorships.

Later that day, he sent a second email, saying

I definitely have it in the equal partnership range … It is not a clear case to me of one author making a substantially greater contribution than the other. … I think people will read it as a blend of feminist theory which they would expect to have been contributed by you and republican theory which they would have expected to be contributed by me, converging on common conclusions. Given that the critical audience … is feminist criminologists, … the paper will have a better chance of being influential if you end up first. Anyway you decide whether you are willing to yield to my strong preference to toss the coin.

I decided not to go with the coin toss and instead to be second author because John had written a substantially developed first draft and I was not sufficiently familiar with republican criminology. However, this exchange has stayed with me, along with other advice John has given me on ethical practices in academia. Senior scholars must pay close attention to the ethics of author ordering and of what their actual contribution to a publication is, particularly with more junior colleagues and students.

6. The 1993 conference

The opening address, by the Governor-General, was followed by several papers, including ours, one by Jocelynn Scutt and commentary by Sandra Egger.[5] In an email a few days before the conference (10 June), John relayed that a colleague ‘predicted [I would be torn] limb from limb for taking a “decriminalising” line’. As it turns out, this did not occur, although criticism did emerge during question time. In a 19 June 1993 email, John described what happened in his session:

The paper went really well. I had slides and mostly read because I was nervous. [There was] only time for two questions, which were both constructive, both from women, one Aboriginal. Big round of applause (about 200 there). That’s the good news. But then after Jocelynne Scutt’s paper, she got a question about what she thought of our paper. She said … stuff about women being silenced if they did not get their day in court. I was then … asked by one questioner if I would really support conferences for rapists. [There were further exchanges, but] it was in no way nasty.

Then, he said that

Jocelynne got a big round of applause when she said ‘just at the moment in history when we are beginning to hold rapists accountable in courts and when women are coming forward, we have these voices saying “no, do it in private”’. That’s how it ended.

In this 19 June email, John described Sandra Egger as ‘very supportive of our paper in her job as commentator. … Sandra is a feminist and shocked some [people] with her attack on totalising versions of feminism. She, I understand, has copped a lot of flack’. He wrote to Egger on 21 June, saying ‘I thought your comments at the violence conference last week were courageous … I know it all comes with more of a cost for you than for me.’ His insight on the differential sex/gender ‘costs’ of making unpopular arguments displayed an unusual solidarity for the time. He continued,

The enthusiastic response Jocelynne got from the audience for saying that now was not the right time to mediate crimes against women in private … was enough to sow some seeds of doubt among critical listeners.

During the conference, a two-page Statement of Concern (1993) was issued, which was addressed to the AIC as the conference organisers. It was signed by Karen Struthers and Ron Frey[6] and was intended to encourage others to sign, with the aim of presenting it publicly on the last day of the conference. The Statement emphasised gender inequality as a core factor in violence against women and children, and it challenged several points that the Governor-General made in his opening address, although not naming him directly. The Statement concluded that

A number of prominent speakers at the conference have failed to understand the fundamental realities of violence … Examples of these include: the anti-feminist comments made by a number of speakers [and] the lack of gender analysis in a number of the key presentations (Statement of Concern, 1993: 2).

In 2019, when I was preparing this article, I contacted Struthers and Frey to determine who else, besides the Governor-General, was among the ‘prominent speakers’ they had in mind. Both told me that it was too long ago for them to recall. However, John’s memory is that he and the Governor-General were in their sights. In recalling the Governor-General’s opening address, John relayed in a recent email (19 May 2019) that there had been a cartoon about ‘multiple big feminists’ chasing a ‘timid, terrified little fellow in glasses’. My research assistant, Victoria Meyer, tracked down the cartoon, created by artist Geoff Pryor and published in The Canberra Times on Sunday, 20 June 1993.

The cartoon shows two sets of large black boots with pom poms, walking towards a small male figure in the distance, with papers spilling about him, who wonders if he has ‘said something incorrect’. Indeed, the male figure in the distance could have been John, but artist Geoff Pryor relayed to me in a phone call (30 May 2019) that it was a ‘generic male’, not John or any other specific male. The women in boots were his caricature of a ‘feminist enforcement team’. Pryor drew the cartoon on Friday afternoon, after reading stories that week in The Canberra Times.[7] He could not recall which story he had read or whether it was a theme that emerged from several stories on the National Conference on Violence.
I suspect that Pryor’s inspiration was a story in the Canberra Times on Friday by Rod Campbell (18 June 1993), which summarised critical points made in the Statement of Concern. The story also drew from remarks by Jocelynne Scutt, who ‘emphasised that “there is a war against women”’, refuting what the Governor-General had said in his opening address. Campbell’s story went on to say that

Dr Scutt said that the women’s movement was not convinced that mediation, conciliation and counselling were appropriate ‘punishments’ for rapists and wife bashers, or anyone who engaged in criminal acts of violence. Men who committed acts of violence against women and children required a clear message that their acts were wrong and criminal (Campbell, 18 June 1993: 4).

It is difficult to discern from Campbell’s story whether or not Scutt was referring to ideas in John’s paper or making a more general point.

7. Questions for justice

Debates at the 1993 conference echoed concerns raised at the 1985 AIC conference. Specifically, how much reliance can or should feminist advocacy place on criminal law, policing and crisis intervention in responses to domestic violence? What types of reforms to criminal law, or supplemental processes in criminal courts, could advance fundamental feminist-inspired change in response to rape and sexual assault, as well as other crimes?
Questions about the appropriateness of restorative justice (or other types of innovative justice practices) for partner, sexual and family violence have featured since the mid-1990s, when John and I first proposed the idea. Reviewed in Daly and Stubbs (2006: 17-18) were these potential problems:

a victim’s safety during the process
manipulation of the process by an offender
pressure on victims to accept certain outcomes
role of the ‘community’ in reinforcing male dominance
mixed loyalties of friends and family members when supporting victims
minimal impact on changing an offender’s behaviour
the symbolic implications of outcomes that may seem too lenient, reinforcing an offender’s belief that their behaviour is not wrong

At the same time were these potential benefits:

greater victim voice and participation
validation of victim’s account, and an offender taking responsibility for their behaviour
a communicative and flexible environment
relationship repair (if this is a goal) for those wishing to continue a relationship

Over time, the contributions to edited collections by Strang and Braithwaite (2002), Ptacek (2005, 2010), Cook, Daly and Stubbs (2006) and, most recently, Zinsstag and Keenan (2017) reveal a maturing of ideas, with attention to multiple inequalities (sex/gender, racial-ethnic, class, sexualities). Earlier debates at the 1985 and 1993 conferences in Canberra were framed in dichotomous terms (e.g. ‘criminalisation’ versus ‘de-criminalisation’) that did not reflect the subtleties and uncertainties of the positions being advanced. Moreover, there was (and still is) slim empirical evidence to support anyone’s claims.
Today, I believe that there is a greater degree of openness by feminist scholars and advocates to seeing the value of innovative justice practices that run alongside or are part of conventional criminal justice or that occur outside criminal justice.[8] Still, with some exceptions, governments are reticent to support conferences for adult offending, and especially for domestic violence and sexual violence. Legislated or routine uses of restorative justice are reserved for youth, not adult offending. There continues to be a degree of scepticism by feminist scholars and advocates of the desirability of conferences, particularly for adult offending. Such government reticence and feminist scepticism are misplaced: when conferences are used in cases of admitted adult offending, they can be part of a criminal justice response, not a diversion from it, an argument developed early by Hudson (2002).
There remains a deeper, more fundamental problem that Hudson (1998) and Hampton (1998) have raised. It is an ‘unsolvable justice problem’ (Daly, 2002) that asks how to treat wrongs seriously without relying on harsh punishment (Q1) and how to ‘do justice’ in an unequal society (Q2). Hudson and Hampton ask, respectively:

How does one move away from punitive reactions which – even when enforced – further brutalize perpetrators, without, by leniency of reaction, giving the impression that sexualized … violence is acceptable behaviour? (Hudson, 1998: 245).
How do you combine the respect for criminals’ personal responsibility and agency to which conservatives are committed, with the compassion that leftist analysis would have us show these criminals, especially given the variety of ways that the legacy of various forms of oppression will be implicated in the criminal acts of some of them? (Hampton, 1998: 35).

Elsewhere, I clarify the problem and propose a way forward in arguments that cannot be simplified or glossed over in a few sentences here (see Daly, 2002).
Reflecting on the unsolvable justice problem in the context of Braithwaite and Daly (1994), we addressed Q1 with the regulatory enforcement pyramid and escalating responses from informal social control (at the base of the pyramid) to prison (at its apex). Q2 is more intractable, depending on how one defines ‘doing justice’ (i.e. whether as a retributivist, consequentialist or hybrid). According to Hudson (1993), doing justice in an unequal society means to identify the ‘right response’ to a person and a wrong/harm, with attention to the wider problem of social justice. From this perspective, it is not possible to ‘do justice’ legitimately in an unequal society because social and economic inequalities structure what is considered to be criminal and non-criminal, and such inequalities are reproduced in justice practices.[9]
John and I partly addressed Q2 by arguing that informal justice mechanisms (such as community conferences) had the potential ‘to enfranchise voices from the women’s movement, coupled with those of abused women and caring men’ (Braithwaite & Daly, 1994: 208). These ideas reflect a bottom-up view of social change, that is, by individuals participating in dialogic institutions. We did not address the fact that dialogic institutions operate in societies structured by social and economic inequalities. Such structural inequalities will not be reduced by criminal law and criminal justice but will require other societal and political commitments.

Notes

[1] By informal justice process, I mean one that is not a formal (or conventional) criminal justice process, even if it may be situated within formal criminal justice, as this Wagga Wagga conference process was.

[2] The Australian Governor-General is the British monarch’s representative in Australia and Australia’s constitutional head of state, who carries out three types of duties: ‘constitutional and statutory, formal ceremonial, and non-ceremonial social’ (Parliamentary Library, 1996). Hayden’s opening address to the 1993 conference was a non-ceremonial social duty.

[3] This a brief gloss of shifts and debates in feminist advocacy over three decades on violence against women (with reference to responses to partner violence); such advocacy took varied forms with somewhat differing time frames in countries like Australia.

[4] This paper focused on restorative justice and sexual violence.

[5] At the time, Scutt was a lawyer, working in Owen Dixon Chambers in Melbourne, and Egger was senior lecturer at the University of New South Wales Law School (she passed away in 2013).

[6] At the time, Struthers was Director of the Domestic Violence Resource Centre, and Frey was a Lecturer at the Queensland University of Technology.

[7] His Friday afternoon schedule was to create two to three cartoons, which would be published in the Saturday, Sunday and Monday papers.

[8] I have elided important differences in the character of debates and specific concerns when addressing partner violence (and family violence, more generally) and sexual violence. Among the key differences are a victim’s age, age differences between a victim and offender, specific victim-offender relations and whether the violence is ongoing or not.

[9] There are further complexities of ‘doing justice’ in an unequal society when we consider, in concrete terms, the relationship of sex/gender to class, race-ethnicity, culture, and colonialism; I do not discuss these here (but see Daly, 2002: 64-65). Hampton (1998: 38-39) makes the astute observation that crime itself creates an inequality between an offender and a victim, and punishment should redress the inequality by expressing a victim’s ‘equal value’. In this way, an inequality created by crime may be addressed by criminal justice.

References

Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Braithwaite, J. (1991). Poverty, power, white-collar crime and the paradoxes of criminological theory. The Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 24(1), 40-58. doi: 10.1177/000486589102400104.
Braithwaite, J. & Biles, D. (1980). Women as victims of crime. The Australian Quarterly, 52(3), 329-339.
Braithwaite, J. & Daly, K. (1994). Masculinities, violence and communitarian control. In T. Newburn & E.A. Stanko (eds.), Just boys doing business? Men, masculinities and crime (pp. 189-213). London: Routledge.
Braithwaite, J. & Pettit, P. (1990). Not just deserts: a republican theory of criminal justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Braithwaite, J. & Strang, H. (2002). Restorative justice and family violence. In H. Strang & J. Braithwaite (eds.), Restorative justice and family violence (pp. 1-22). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Campbell, R. (18 June 1993). Hayden’s comments labelled ‘misleading’. The Canberra Times, 4.
Campbell, R. & Frith, M. (16 June 1993). Hayden defends men, challenges media over ‘misrepresentation’. The Canberra Times, 1.
Campbell, R. (18 June 1993). Hayden’s comments labelled ‘misleading’. The Canberra Times, 4.
Carlen, P. & Worrall, A. (1987) (eds.). Gender, crime and justice. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Cook, K., Daly, K. & Stubbs, J. (2006) (eds.). Theoretical Criminology. Special issue on Gender, race and restorative justice, 10(1).
Daly, K. (1989). Criminal justice ideologies and practices in different voices: some feminist questions about justice. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 17(1), 1-18. doi: 10.4324/9781315093727-27.
Daly, K. (1992). What would have been justice? Remarks prepared for plenary on sexual harassment in the Thomas Hearings, Law & Society Annual Meeting, 27-31 May. Retrieved from https://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/234413/1992-Daly-What-would-have-been-justice-paper.pdf (last accessed 27 May 2019).
Daly, K. (2002). Sexual assault and restorative justice. In H. Strang & J. Braithwaite (eds.), Restorative justice and family violence (pp. 62-88). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Daly, K. & Chesney-Lind, M. (1988). Feminism and criminology. Justice Quarterly, 5(4), 497-538. doi: 10.1080/07418828800089871.
Daly, K. & Immarigeon, R. (1998). The past, present, and future of restorative justice: some critical reflections. Contemporary Justice Review, 1(1), 21-45.
Daly, K. & Stubbs, J. (2006). Feminist engagement with restorative justice. Theoretical Criminology, 10(1), 9-28. doi: 10.1177/1362480606059980.
Editorial (17 June 1993). G-G’s useful reminder. The Canberra Times, 10.
Greer, G. (1970). The female eunuch. London: MacGibbon & Kee.
Hampton, J. (1998). Punishment, feminism, and political identity: a case study of the expressive meaning of the law. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, 11(1), 23-25. doi: 10.1017/S0841820900001673.
Harris, M. K. (1987). Moving into the new millenium: toward a feminist vision of justice. The Prison Journal, 67(2), 27-38. doi: 10.1177/003288558706700207.
Hayden, B. Governor-General (16 June 1993, edited extract). The issue too often misrepresented: G-G. The Canberra Times, 11.
Hudson, B. (1993). Penal policy and social justice. London: Macmillan Press.
Hudson, B. (1998). Restorative justice: the challenge of sexual and racial violence. Journal of Law and Society, 25(2), 237-256. doi: 10.1111/1467-6478.00089.
Hudson, B. (2002). Restorative justice and gendered violence: diversion or effective justice? The British Journal of Criminology, 42(3), 616-634. doi: 10.1093/bjc/42.3.616.
MacLeod, L. (1985). Policy as chivalry: the criminalisation of wife battering. In S.E. Hatty (ed.), National conference on domestic violence, proceedings, volume two (pp. 367-381). Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Martin, D. (1998). Retribution revisited: a reconsideration of feminist criminal law reform strategies. Osgood Hall Law Journal, 36(1), 151-188.
Parliamentary Library (1996). The role of the Governor-General, media information kit for swearing-in of Governor-General, 16 February 1996. Commonwealth of Australia: Parliament of Australia. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20110312153830/http://www.aph.gov.au/library/gov/ggrole.htm (last accessed 7 June 2019).
Pryor, G. (20 June 1993). … Oh my God! I must’ve said something incorrect … The Canberra Times, 10.
Ptacek, J. (2005) (ed.). Violence against women. Special issue on Feminism, restorative justice, and violence against women, 5(1).
Ptacek, J. (2010) (ed.). Restorative justice and violence against women. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sherman, L. & Berk, R. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic violence. American Sociological Review, 49(2), 261-272. doi: 10.2307/2095575.
Snider, L. (1998). Towards safer societies: punishment, masculinities and violence against women. British Journal of Criminology, 38(1), 1-39. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a014214.
Statement of Concern (15-18 June 1993). Statement signed by Karen Struthers and Ron Frey, provided by the AIC Conference Unit (on file with the author).
Strang, H. & Braithwaite, J. (2002) (eds.). Restorative justice and family violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zinsstag, E. & Keenan, M. (eds.). (2017). Restorative responses to sexual violence: legal, social and therapeutical dimensions. London: Routledge.