Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Arguments against restorative justice
Arguments against restorative justice
Arguments against restorative justice
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Arguments against restorative justice
Restorative justice is the “response to criminal behavior that focuses on lawbreaker restitution and the resolution of the issues arising from a crime in which victims, offenders, and the community are brought together to restore the harmony between the parties.” Restorative justice is an alternative for sending offenders to jail. It holds the offender responsible for their actions, but has alternative ways to fix what they did wrong such as by helping the community and victims. Except in rare cases it is usually assigned to nonviolent offenders. It is not appropriate for all cases (“Restorative Justice” Britannica).
Howard Zehr came up with the first concept of restorative justice in the late 1970s. Restorative justice was mainly being discussed as an alternative for some offenders in America and Europe. However, it was not seriously being considered as an alternative to jail. By the 1990s the popularity was growing in many countries (Austria, Belgium, Canada, England, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Scotland, Turkey). Restorative justice is now an option for some in more than 300 communities in United States and more than 1,000 locations in Europe (Umbreit).
Twenty states have introduced and or passes restorative justice laws for their juvenile justice systems and thirty other states have restorative justice in their
…show more content…
The offender is able to take direct responsibility for his or her behavior, learn the full impact of what they did, and develop a plan for making amends to the person(s) they violated. Some victim-offender mediation programs are called "victim-offender meetings" or "victim-offender conferences"
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 new way of thinking about and responding to crime, especially in relation to youth offending. For the past decade, especially, there has been an increasing interest in new approaches towards criminal justice in general but more so in terms of juvenile delinquency and finding an appropriate form of punishment to escape the labelling of youth delinquency, which involve the community and focus much more on the victim.
This voluntary alternative gives the offender the opportunity to take responsibility for their actions and identify the impact they have had on their victim, while also giving the victim the chance to confront the offender and take steps to repair the harm done. The victim can ask the offender questions about the crime and the offender may apologise or make amends for their actions. Restorative justice is confrontational and can be difficult for both parties but is proven to help both the offender and victim. While it is confrontational for the victim, for some it can be better than testifying in court. Data shows that restorative justice greatly helps victims in their recovery from the offence. Although the benefits of restorative justice in adult offenders is unclear, it significantly reduces the number of reoffenders in youth. For this reason, restorative justice is mostly used for minor infringements and within the youth justice system.
The response from these offenders is of remorse; understanding of the effect on their victims, as well as an understanding of the potential effect continued criminal behavior could have personally. Does restorative justice work if implemented early on in our judicial system and will it have an effect on recidivism? Will this restorative approach work for violent crimes and will restorative justice reduce recidivism in violent criminals? Sherman et al. (2015) concluded that restorative justice, specifically RJC’s are effective in reducing recidivism as well as costs to criminal justice systems amongst willing participants, which is the foundation of the restorative justice process, the willingness of all involved. However is this restorative process feasibly possible with violent criminals without regard to the cost effectiveness and solely to the ideal of reducing repeat offenders. Sherman and Strang (as cited by Braswell, McCarthy and McCarthy, 2015) state, “…these programs show promise for reduced recidivism and increased victim satisfaction, even with violent offenses” (p. 174). The mere fact that offenders are given the opportunity to address, provide reparation through actions, and amend for their behavior is proving to be an aspect of justice that more judicial systems are willing to evaluate and possibly
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.
Restorative justice is a new approach that views crime as harm to people and the community. This process allows for communication between the victims, offender and the community effected by the crime. This is a way to promote accountability, and engage understanding, feelings of satisfaction, and a sense of closure. Restorative justice is a non-retributive approach. The restorative justice process includes, but is not limited to; victim-offender mediation, restorative conferences and circle processes. According to Wilson, Huculak and McWhinnie; the recidivism rate for those who were not conference within restorative justice process during their study was 43%, while those who were conferenced was 27%, (2002). They state that these statistics are promising, but at the time the article was written, there was a study underway to determine the effectiveness of the Canadian restorative justice process.
Punishments are an effective method for not only parents and children, but those who do wrong in the eyes of the law. This summary and analysis of the arguments supporters of restorative justice use to convince society of restorative justice’s advantages over incarceration and other punishments, describing which approach is the better model for a system of corrections. In fact, restorative justice system response to wrongdoing emphasizes healing the wounds of victims, offenders, and communities caused or revealed by crime (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2014, p.62). The main goal here is to establish a form of boundaries when it comes to the level and extent of punishment.
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
Since the beginning there has been many crimes that have had severe consequences. These crimes are crimes such as rapes, genocide, murder, and aggravated assaults (CITE). The Restorative justice system tries to help individuals that have committed some of these crimes. Some of the Restorative justice system founders are John Braithwaite, Howard Zehr, and Mark Umbret .The Restorative justice system emerged in 1970 (CITE). The Restorative justice system is a response to crime and wrongdoing that emphasizes the repairing of the harm that was created, recognizes the importance of victim, offender, and community involvement, and promote positive future behavior (CITE). Restorative justice is a response to what was considered to be an overly harsh
“Restorative justice is an approach to crime and other wrongdoings that focuses on repairing harm and encouraging responsibility and involvement of the parties impacted by the wrong.” This quote comes from a leading restorative justice scholar named Howard Zehr. The process of restorative justice necessitates a shift in responsibility for addressing crime. In a restorative justice process, the citizens who have been affected by a crime must take an active role in addressing that crime. Although law professionals may have secondary roles in facilitating the restorative justice process, it is the citizens who must take up the majority of the responsibility in healing the pains caused by crime. Restorative justice is a very broad subject and has many other topics inside of it. The main goal of the restorative justice system is to focus on the needs of the victims, the offenders, and the community, and focus
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.
Restorative justice is an alternative community based program for juvenile offenders. Instead of sending juvenile offenders to jail or punishing them, they are taught
Walgrave, Lode. Restorative justice for juveniles: potentialities, risks and problms for research : a selection of papers presented at the international conference Leuven, May 12-14, 1997. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1998.
In conclusion, “Is restorative justice effective?” The answer again, is multifaceted and complex. The implementation of restorative justice on a large-scale is not likely (Cullen & Jonson, 2017). Additionally, restorative justice does not address those offenders who are sent to prison. Lastly, the fact that it places faith in non-experts and community corrections impedes is effectiveness in reducing recidivism. Therefore, on the whole, evidence suggests that it is not effective. However, there is a silver lining. Restorative justice has illuminated the problem of a purely “punitive” system of corrections.
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