I can understand why in theory it sounds like a good idea, and if you've never had experience with it it would sound good

But I've had experience with it and can explain why it is so bad. The police misuse it to get an easy resolution so it doesn't have to go to court. The suspect is presented with an option to settle it out of court by admitting to the offence and agreeing to apologise but unlike a caution, where the defence has a right to legal advice and the police have to present their evidence against the suspect, the police can overexaggerate the evidence without revealing it and threaten to arrest the suspect unless they comply. They can also be more abusive as the initial encounter is not recorded and the records are not kept as strongly where as with an arrest, the suspect has more rights, is read their rights and the interview is recorded formally. The restorative justice can lead to false confessions which put the suspect in a precarious position because if they were to retract, the police can always use the confession as stronger evidence than their original weak evidence. If they had strong evidence originally, they would have just arrested the suspect. And no, the victims are not given the choice whether to accept it or not, it is the suspect that accepts it or is arrested. Maybe my experience was an anomaly, but given the knowledge that has arisen as to police corruption, I think this restorative justice has more potential for corruption than traditional arrests. And the part where both parties come together and "mediate" never happened.