More handpicked essays just for you.
Limitations of restorative justice within the criminal justice system
Challenges of restorative justice
Restorative justice system theories
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Should Restorative Justice be implemented?
Yes, I believe restorative justice should be implemented because it not only provides justice but healing for the each party involved. Providing real results and closure that being locked behind bars cannot completely cover. If restorative justice were to be implemented it should use models three in chapter name of the Ness & Strong textbook. Model three using the dual track approach, in which two systems are used are offered. It will be up to the stakeholders to decide how the go when processing the crime three the criminal system or by using restorative practices. One of the deciding factors when making a decision relies on the crimes seriousness, I feel that if a crime is as serious as putting someone on death row than they are willing to try the
…show more content…
I think implemented restorative justice allows the stakeholders with a choice, because in some cases the victim may not want to face the offender and just wants him behind bars, while another may want to seek closure and resolve the issue. Both options are fine but I think it should be up to the stakeholders not up the government to decide if we’re going to handle crimes now restoratively or through the criminal system. As I mentioned the seriousness of the crime can always big a huge factor in those offenders who will be even eligible to go through restorative approach.
The main reason to why restorative justice should be implemented is because it encourages participation, promotes responsibility and reparation, while achieving the
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
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.
Restorative justice can be defined as a theory related to justice that is concerned on repairing the harm that is caused or revealed by a criminal behavior (Barsh 2005: 359). Over the years, restorative justice has been seen as an effective way of dealing with both social as well as cultural issues of the aboriginal people. Because of these, restorative justice is used in many of the local communities in an effort to correct criminal behavior. This concept is seen as a conceptualization of justice which is in most cases congruent with the cultural and the community values of the aboriginal people. There is growing body of evidence which suggests that there are a number of challenges which accrue the effective implementation of restorative justice amongst the aboriginal people.
Instead of focusing on crime prevention, restoration focuses on repairing the harm done to the victim and the community. Along with restoring property and personal injuries, restoration is meant to bring back some kind of security. Legislators and victims want to know that justice has been done. Van Ness and Strong (1997: 8-9) suggested three core principles for the nature of restorative justice. First, Justice requires the healing of victims, offenders, and communities injured by the crime. Also, they should be permitted to stay involved in the justice process in a timely manner. Lastly, the government should be responsible for preserving a just order and the community should be responsible for establishing peace. The victims family in a murder case can have a since of relief when the offender is sentenced to the death penalty. They can know that justice has been done and will have a sense of security knowing the offender cannot harm anyone else again. The family can now mourn over there loss more
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 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.
The program really aims for long-term results instead of short term. It is hard to obtain quantitate measures on such a program. However, Lawson does mention a study that began in 1997 at Indiana University that measured overall satisfaction of offenders and victims who used a restorative justice approach. The findings were that “90% of the victims were satisfied with the way their case was handled, as compared to 68% whose cases were handled by conventional means” (Lawson p186 2004). “80% of offenders completed their restitution agreements compared to 58% for juveniles assigned restitution by other means, and the re arrest rates for those who completed restorative justice conferences were 25-45% lower than that of their counterparts” (Lawson p186 2004). This to me means that the program is working. Since this program is aimed at long-term solutions I would encourage that communities that use restorative justice track the offenders. They should keep a running database with offender’s names and check back with law enforcement every few years to see how the offender is doing. I would track each person for at least twenty years. I would continuously check to see if the juvenile is still committing crimes, the types of crimes they are committing and how much time passes between each
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.
...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
Restorative justice is a collaborative decision-making process that includes victims, offenders and others seeking to hold offenders accountable by having them: (1) accept and acknowledge responsibility for their offences, (2) to the best of their ability repair the harm they caused to victims and communities, and (3) work to reduce the risk of re-offense by building positive social ties to the community (Karp, 2004). Restorative Justice is just one of many justice mechanisms used in society. There are many forms of justice, which is why Kathleen Daly (2012) proposed the term “innovated justice” to be used as an umbrella concept to encompass all forms that contain justice mechanism. Justice is typically associated with the criminal justice
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
While everyone’s ways of implementing justice can vary, for all intents and purposes, a simple definition of justice is; a concern for justice, peace and genuine respect for people. (dictionary.com) Criminal justice is effective in many ways, but often, it neglects the importance of the victims as well as the community. Criminal justice is believed the provide justice for the victim as well as the community, many times it only punishes the criminal. Restorative justice puts the emphasis on the victim, while criminal justice treats the state like the victim and as a result, the needs of the real victim are often ignored. Restorative justice focuses on all those involved whether implicitly or explicitly, thus promoting justice on a larger scale by trying to solve the problems of those involved and getting them what they deserve. Compared to criminal justice which only punishes the offender(s) and neglects the needs of others involved in the