The Criminal Justice Alliance (CJA) has called on the government to legislate to increase the use of restorative justice - the process that gives victims the chance to tell offenders the impact of their crime.

It is designed to hold offenders to account for what they have done, help them understand its impact, take responsibility and make amends. In a report Restorative Justice: Time for Action, the CJA urges the government to put a duty on criminal justice agencies to offer restorative justice to all victims of crime pre-sentence, whenever an offender pleads guilty and agrees to participate in the process, and where it is appropriate and safe to do so.

But is restorative justice the answer to overcrowded prisons and high reoffending rates, or is it a soft option used by the police to cut costs by not charging people and abused by defendants who want to escape prosecution or get a lighter sentence?

The case put by the CJA for restorative justice is compelling. It says the overuse of prison has led to a rise in the prison population from under 45,000 in 1993 to 85,000 today.

With 60% of prisons overcrowded, the system does not have the space or resources to engage meaningfully with prisoners. The result is high reoffending rates: 48.5% of ex-prisoners and 45% of those who have served a sentence of 12 months or less are convicted of a further offence within a year of release.

‘In spite of record spending, reoffending rates remain high and public confidence in the criminal justice system low,’ says the CJA. It suggests: ‘At a time of austerity, resources need to be focused on responses to offending that are efficient and effective, and which also meet the needs of victims and communities.’

Currently, restorative justice can be used as an alternative to cautions for low level crime; with a conditional caution as an alternative to prosecution; as a pre-sentence offer once an offender has pleaded guilty, to inform sentencing; to form whole or part of a sentence imposed, or offered independently of the sentence.

The CJA says that the voluntary process, used only where victims choose it, has high victim satisfaction rates. It cites Ministry of Justice research that says 85% of victims were very or quite satisfied with the experience and almost 80% would recommend it to others. In addition it helped victims feel a sense of closure and helped alleviate post-traumatic stress symptoms for victims of serious crime.

MoJ research also suggests that the process reduced reoffending by around 14% and saves £9 for every £1 spent.

The CJA report contains two case studies. The first was of a woman called Kathleen whose husband of 28 years was killed when a driver doing a U-turn on a dual carriageway collided with his bike.

After her meeting with the driver who was convicted of dangerous driving, Kathleen said: ‘It was the first time I’d slept since my husband had died. It was very empowering. I was able to find closure.’

The second was Michelle, whose house had been broken into during the night. After meeting one of the lads involved, she said: ‘When I got out of the meeting, the knot had gone from my stomach, and I just felt so much better.’

The process appeared not only to have helped Michelle, but the offender too. Michelle asked to be kept informed of his progress. Scott, the offender, told the restorative justice officer: ‘I can’t do burglaries now, because I keep hearing your words in my head and it stops me doing it.’

It appears then to be a no-brainer - there should be greater use of quality restorative justice.

But cynics will always point to examples that undermine the approach, such as the incident reported last week in the Daily Telegraph.

It was about a thief who had stolen the replacement laptop of the victim after he was ‘forced to apologise’ under a restorative justice programme after stealing their original laptop.

Reading the article it appeared that the arrangement was not a formal restorative justice programme - the offender had gone round by himself and without prior arrangement or consent from the victim after he said the police had asked him to visit to apologise.

It would, I think, be unfair to judge restorative justice on the basis of that incident, but rather on the case put by the CJA.

Follow Catherine on Twitter