The criminal justice system is made up of several different aspects that help operate it as smoothly as possible. A relatively new and promising feature of the criminal justice is restorative justice. Restorative justice looks at rehabilitating offenders and reconciling them with their victims and the families. The practices found in restorative justice differ from the adversarial system; they include victim-offender mediation, circle sentencing and restitution to the victims. This paper will discuss how restorative justice practices work and the positive outcomes that follow a restorative justice framework. Restorative justice offers a healthier outcome for both victims and offenders and suggests that a more retributive justice system does …show more content…
Restorative justice practices aim to rehabilitate the offender and repair the damages that were done to the victims and the community. A component of restorative justice system is victim-offender mediation. Victim-offender mediation comprises of “a mediator, who is a neutral third party, the offender and the victim are able to resolve the conflict and consequences cause by the offence and, ultimately, to understand each other” (Griffiths, 2011, p.310). Through meeting with the victims of the crime, the criminal justice system reduces the chances of secondary victimization, victims feeling mistreated by the criminal justice system (Orth, 2002 p.314). Victim-offender mediation hopes to reduce the likelihood of secondary victimization by incorporating the victim’s thoughts and feelings into …show more content…
Contrary to the adversarial system, circle sentencing surrounds the offender in a circular position, however, still containing lawyers, police, victim and offender’s families, and community residents (Griffiths, 2011, p.311). A prerequisite of circle sentencing is to have the offender plea guilty and take responsibility of his crimes. This then allows the victims and community to work together to come up with a fair punishment for the offender. Conversely, the judge does not need to allow the punishment decided by the victims and community. Unlike the adversarial system, circle sentencing allows the victim to participate fully and give more than a victim impact statement (Lilles, 164, 2001). As noted above, this also helps reduce secondary victimization, which is prominent in the adversarial system. Furthermore, involving the community is a large part of circle sentencing. When a crime is committed it affects the community as a whole. The community may show signs of resistance when the offender is released back into the community. Through involving the community in the sentencing, it can help repair damages and assist in the reintegration process after
Restorative justice system could be in the form of circle sentencing. In this system, all of the parties involved are present which includes: a judge, prosecuting council, defense council, police officer and community resident facing each other in a circle. Though the offender will still be punished, this serve as some form of rehabilitation and reconciliation between the offender and the
Question 1. Both Thomas Mathiesen and Stanley Cohen argue that alternative criminal justice responses that were presented after the 1970s were not real alternatives (Tabibi, 2015a). The ‘alternatives’ which are being questioned are community justice alternatives generally, and Restorative Justice specifically. The argument here is that Restorative Justice cannot be a real alternative because it is itself finished and is based on the premises of the old system (Mathiesen, 1974). Moreover, Restorative Justice is not an alternative, as it has not solved the issues surrounding the penal system (Tabibi, 2015a). Cohen (1985) supports this sentiment, and suggests that community based punishment alternatives have actually led to a widening and expansion
“Restorative justice is a process whereby parties with a stake in a specific offence collectively resolve how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future” (Munchie, 2004).
A growing number of probation officers, judges, prosecutors as well as other juvenile professionals are advocating for a juvenile justice system which is greatly based on restorative justice. These groups of people have been frustrated by the policy uncertainty between retribution and treatment as well as unrealistic and unclear public expectations. As a primary mission, the balanced approach or policy allows juvenile justice systems together with its agencies to improve in their capacity of protecting the community and ensuring accountability of the system and the offenders . It enables the youths to become productive and competent citizens. This guiding philosophical framework for this policy is restorative justice as it promotes the maximum involvement of the community, victim, and the offender in the justice process. Restorative justice also presents a viable alternative to sanctions as well as interventions that are based on traditional or retributive treatment assumptions. In the policy proposal for restorative justice, the balanced approach mission assists juvenile justice system in becoming more responsive to the needs of the community, victims, and the offenders . Therefore, this paper considers how restorative justice reduces referrals of juveniles to criminal and juvenile justice systems and gives a proposal on the implementation of restorative justice in the community together with a number of recommendations. For instance, preliminary research reveals that application of restorative justice in schools significantly reduces school expulsions, suspensions, and referrals to the criminal justice systems. Restorative justice programs are an alternative for zero-tolerance policies for juveniles or youths .
In this essay, I will be examining how the court system can fail to deliver justice for particular cases and people’s circumstances, as well as looking at alternatives to court, like circle sentencing, restorative sentencing and alternatives for children to the formal court system, as outlined in the Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW). Crime is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as an action or omission which constitutes an offence and is punishable by law. On the other side of this is justice; the quality of being fair and reasonable.
Lorraine Stutzman Amstutz states how schools that claim they are following restorative approaches through their policies in discipline are not necessarily restorative, but have enough flexibility to allow a restorative response.
There are better ways to punish criminals and protect society than mass incarceration. The state and local governments should be tough on crime, but “in ways that emphasize personal responsibility, promote rehabilitation and treatment, and allow for the provision of victim restitution where applicable” (Alec, 2014). The government also succeeds in overseeing punishment but fails to “…take into account the needs of offenders, victims, and their communities.” (Morris, 2002: Pg. 1 and 2). Alternatives to incarceration, such as sentencing circles, victim offender mediation, and family conferences, can successfully hold criminals responsible while allowing them a chance to get “back on their feet”. Research has proven that rehabilitation has lowered the rate of re-offenders, reducing the crime rate, protecting communities and also saves a lot of
The concept of restorative justice became a game-changer in juvenile justice system. Through the course of time, professionals explored every possible methods and approaches that could positively affect the children without the expense of harming their future and wellbeing. The idea of restorative justice is “administer justice that focuses or repairing the harm done to the victim and the community. (Save the Children-UK, 2005)” The four guiding principles are to: (1) Repair and restore the balance within the community. (2) restitution for the victim. (3) Ensure that the offender understand and take responsibility. (4) Help the offender to change and improve. In South Africa, this is practiced in their community throughout
Pros of the restorative justice system are that it brings parties together in crime. Instead of a short term goal, the restorative justice system takes a long-term approach to reducing crime and violence using different kinds of methods. In restorative justice programs, offenders work with others affected by their criminal actions. Restorative justice promotes instilling positive behaviors in young criminals and teaching long-lasting changes in behavior to prevent future crimes. There also could be negative consequences from the restorative justice system. For restorative justice to work, criminals and their victims must communicate about the crime and its consequences. Since violent crimes often leave victims feeling helpless and vulnerable, encouraging communication can result in increased anxiety and fear. Additionally, communication might breach confidentiality for victims of violent crimes, such as rape and assault, because they must discuss the outcome of the crime and how it has impacted
Restorative justice is defined as “using humanistic, no punitive strategies to right wrongs and restore social harmony” (Siegel, 2008, p. 189). Instead of imposing harsh penalties on offenders like long prison sentences or even the death penalty, restorative justice calls for a more rehabilitative approach, such as reconciliation and offender assistance.
What is retributive justice? It is a system of criminal justice based on the punishment of offenders rather than rehabilitation. According to our notes, it is the oldest sense of the word justice. Others think of it as “an eye for an eye” or “getting even”. Justice should be more than getting even for crimes and offenses. Retributive justifications of punishments have largely endured the test of time.
Over the years many laws and policies have been created and altered. As a result many activities have become illegal. With so many laws in place now, juvenile crime is also on the rise. More and more juveniles are being sent to prison than ever before. The goal of the juvenile justice system was to rehabilitate but now it is more focused on punishment. However, many rehabilitation programs are still in place to help delinquent juveniles get back on the path to becoming successful productive members of society. One program that comes to mind is the restorative justice program.
This approach has introduced a criminal justice policy agenda. In the past, victims to criminal activities have been outsiders to the criminal conflict. In recent times, many efforts have been made to give the victims a more central role in the criminal justice system. Some of these efforts were introduced a few years back, though even at that time, these efforts were seen as long overdue. Some of these efforts include access to state compensation and forms of practical support. For advocates of restorative justice, crime is perceived primarily as a violation of people and relationships, and the aim is to make amends for all the harm suffered by victims, offenders and communities. The most commonly used forms of restorative justice include direct mediation, indirect mediation, restorative cautioning, sentencing panels or circles and conferencing. In recent...
...apabilities to deal with this which is not the case so much nowadays as Tony Marshall (1999) argues. There are criticisms over procedures, loss of rights such as an independent and impartial forum as well as the principle of proportionality in sentencing. There is also an unrealistic expectation that restorative justice can produce major changes in deviant behaviour, as there is not enough evidence to support this claim (Cunneen, 2007). Levrant et al (1999) on the other hand suggests that restorative justice still remains unproven in its’ effectiveness to stop reoffending and argues that its appeal lies in its apparent morality and humanistic sentiments rather than its empirical effectiveness. He continues to argue that it allows people to feel better within themselves through having the moral high ground rather than focusing on providing justice to the offender.
As the purpose of restorative justice is to mend the very relationship between the victim, offender, and society, communities that embrace restorative justice foster an awareness on how the act has harmed others. Braithwaite (1989) notes that by rejecting only the criminal act and not the offender, restorative justice allows for a closer empathetic relationship between the offender, victims, and community. By acknowledging the intrinsic worth of the offender and their ability to contribute back to the community, restorative justice shows how all individuals are capable of being useful despite criminal acts previous. This encourages offenders to safely reintegrate into society, as they are encouraged to rejoin and find rapport with the community through their emotions and