Restorative justice is a simple yet complex form of justice and it is a relatively new theory in regards to the criminal justice system. The term restorative justice was first used by Albert Eglash in the late 1950’s. Eglash believed there are essentially three types of justice used in the criminal justice system. The three are retributive, distributive, and restorative. Retributive and distributive justice both focus on the actions of the offenders. These types of justices leave the victims out of the justice process (Van Ness and Strong, 2010, p. 21-22). These models give the victims an active voice, brings accountability to the offender, and gets the community involved in the justice process (Zehr and Amstutz, 2012). Restorative justice …show more content…
Restorative justice operates on a different set of values. Restorative justice asks who has been hurt, what their needs are, and who is responsible for making sure the obligations are met (Philosophy of Restorative Justice, 2015). Restorative justice programs realize there is much more to justice than just punishment. These programs address the needs of all the stakeholders. Restorative justice programs understand that until everyone heals and forgives that no one can move forward (Spiritual Roots, 2013). I plan on applying restorative justice programs as early in the court process as possible and the district attorney’s office can help facilitate that …show more content…
532). Restorative justice programs address the needs of every stakeholder that was harmed by the event. These programs promote tolerance, inclusiveness, respect, integrity, empathy, and forgiveness (Hutchison, 2013). People who possess these characteristics have a much better chance of transforming their lives into productive citizens. The office of the district attorney can play an important role in assisting victims and offenders in there healing process. Our office has each case from start to finish. We are able to see the needs of everyone affected by the crime. Early interaction and insight into each case is the reason I believe restorative justice programs can implemented and be successful at the district attorney’s
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
Zehr (1990) who is thought to be one of the pioneers leading the argument for restorative justice highlighted three questions presented when taking a restorative approach; what is the nature of the harm resulting from the crime? What needs to be done to make things right or repair the harm? Who is responsible for this repair? He ascertained that ‘crime is fundamentally a violation of people and interpersonal relationships’. He also noted that violations create obligations and liabilities and that restorative justice seeks to heal and put right the wrongs. Restorative jus...
Restoration Restorative justice is based on bringing together the victim, the offender, and the community; all have equal parts in repairing the relationships destroyed by
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.
As agents of justice and philanthropists of duty one must evaluate the criminal justice system and its approaches to the solution of crime to determine what is good, appropriate, and what will reduce recidivism. As a western society the United States has changed and adapted its judicial system in hopes of conforming to our changing society and the increase in criminal behavior. Through these adaptations emerged a system within criminal justice that changes the focus of rehabilitation of the offender to not only include imprisonment, but to include reconciliation with the victims and the community that the offender harmed. The restorative justice approach takes a look at the crime, the criminal, and the offended; with hopes for healing and justice
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.
According to Boyd (2015), “Restorative justice could mean different things to different people and many organizations claim to be practitioners of restorative justice” (p.328). Restorative takes a different approach of understanding a problem and how to find a suitable solution. For example, it creates the idea that the court system should treat everyone the same. No one should be marginalized base on his or her race, gender, and sexual orientation. Everyone should deserve to have equal rights. According to Spielthenner (2015), Formal Justice is the “Treatment of persons is formally just if they are treated equally if they are equals and their treatment is proportionate to their inequality if they are
“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
Over the years, the traditional criminal justice system has emphasized offenders’ accountability through punishment and stigmatization. The emphasis on the retributive philosophy made it challenging for the system to meaningfully assist and empower crime victims. In the criminal justice system, victims often face insensitive treatment with little or no opportunity for input into the perseverance of their case and report feeling voiceless in the process used (Choi, Gilbert, & Green, 2013:114). Crime Victims, advocates, and practitioners have called for an expansion of victims’ rights and community-based alternatives rather than punishment-orientated justice policies. What victims want from the criminal justice system is a less formal process, more information about case processing, respectful treatment, and emotional restoration. Therefore, there is a growing need to progress towards the restorative justice (RJ) system.
Agreeing on a definition of restorative justice has proved difficult. One definition is a theory of justice that focuses mostly on repairing the harm caused by criminal behaviour. The reparation is done through a cooperative process that includes all the stakeholders. Restorative justice can also be explained as an approach of justice that aims to satisfy the needs of the victims and offenders, as well as the entire community. The most broadly accepted definition for restorative justice, however, is a process whereby all the parties that have a stake in a specific offence collectively resolve on how to deal with the aftermath. This process is largely focused around reparation, reintegration and participation of victims. That is to say, it is a victim-centred approach to criminal justice, and it perceives crime differently than the adversarial system of justice.
When Mary Catherine Parris was told that I would be talking to her about restorative justice, her response was, “Is that a real thing?” (personal communication, September 23, 2015). Through this assignment I realized that restorative justice is not talked about within the criminal justice system. For both of the individuals I spoke with, the idea of restorative justice seemed like a joke. In trying to persuade them both that restorative justice is a real thing, I was met with very similar beliefs and comments from both individuals. They both believed that restorative justice would not work and believed that some aspects of the approach were completely useless (M. C. Parris, & R. Clemones, personal communication, September 23, 2015). The responses
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
The restorative model discovers the harm caused by the crime committed and involves the victims, offenders, and the community in order to reconstruct the damage done to everyone immersed in the situation (Bell, 2015, p.53). This pretty much covers their focus. Their focus is to repair the harm caused by the crime, the harm done to the victims, and any harm that could be done in the future by crime prevention (Bell, 2015, p.37). The restorative model has a main philosophy of peacemaking; which includes repairing the past harms, and compromise and harmony amongst the offender, victims, and community (Bell, 2015, p.37). The first two models for juvenile justice discussed do not include any of these attitudes. The restorative model views crime and delinquency as a “violation of people and relationships” (Bell, 2015, p. 38). The main point of restoration is to repair damage, and it is not focused on punishment and law, unlike the justice and the crime control model. This model is valuable in retrospect; but it is not effective for all crimes. In order for it to be fully effective, everyone involved in the crime has to be willing to spend hours rebuilding the relationship and the victims must be all right with facing the perpetrator. This makes it difficult to consider it as the most effective model at reducing crime. The restorative model has been proven