The application of restorative justice for animals: animal carceralism or non-reformist reforms?

Mainstream animal protection movements are working with lawmakers to enhance criminal punishments for crimes against animals, while simultaneously turning their attention to the potential for restorative justice (RJ) to respond to harms against animals. Given that RJ is typically positioned as an alternative to the retributive processes upon which the criminal punishment system is premised, these two avenues appear paradoxical. In this article, we consider five cases in which RJ was used in cases of harm to more-than-human animals. In so doing we ask whether its application represents a non-reformist reform in the sense of contracting the carceral system while achieving immediate improvements for harmed parties, or an expansion of carceral systems. We show that while some outcomes such as the avoidance of prison sentences are consistent with non-reformist reforms, these RJ practices are already embedded within and represent an overall net-widening of the criminal legal system. The potential of recently developed RJ for animals programs in Scotland and South Africa to function as non-reformist reforms is then evaluated.