Restorative justice has the ability to be used in a multitude of applications when it comes to issuing justice to parties within a transgression. Unfortunately, its benefit of being easily accomplished as there are only two main principles to restorative justice is what makes it so hard to define in reality as restorative justice is much deeper in the ideas and social ties found in the principles. The analysis of the Thordis Elva and Tom Stranger rape case will be used to uncover depth of restorative justice. The two principals of restorative justice is that the justice should focus on rearing harm caused by the transgression and the people most affected by the transgression should be able to participate in its resolution (RestorativeJustice.org). …show more content…
Now that the two values and principles are stated, Karp (2004) definition of restorative justice as a collaborative decision making process that includes victims and offenders is understood a little more. In the case of Thordis and Tom was there evidence of the principals and values stated? Tom first started the repair process to the harm he caused Thordis by taking an active responsibility or acknowledging that he did indeed rape her. Unknown to him at the time, Tom would help mutually construct Thordis and his solidarity by their willingness to participate in the reconciliation. Karp & Sacks (2014) stated that restorative justice focuses on creating a trustworthy social support system in order to stimulate meaning dialogue and investment in the restorative process. However, in Thordis and Toms case, the trustworthy support system that stimulated a dialogue was not through the restorative justice act itself but through the lives each person lived before decided to dive into this project together. Both Thordis and Tom are married and have children which act as their support system. This I would argue is this and time is reason why the such …show more content…
Forgiveness can be a psychological individual act, but reconciliation requires there to be genuine attendance from all involved parties (Waldron & Kelley 2008). This puts reconciliation at the most cherished level of commitment and trust within the transgressed parties. Hope can influence social change (Greenaway et al., 2016) and can fuel commitment to reconciliation though forgiveness and the idea of a better future (Wenzel et al., 2017). Thordis and Tom’s reconciliation came 16 years after their transgression occurred. It wasn’t until they met in South Africa that true reconciliation could occur and Thordis described the result as “victorious” and proud that “that light triumphed over darkness.” While hope did play a role in their case, it was not for the future between Thordis and Tom, but the hope in that in telling their story and creating a book about their struggles will help someone in the world and help them realize a better future, whatever that might
According to Graham, reconciliation is both “… a goal in the sense that it aims to restore relationships or to promote agonism or mutual tolerance, respect, and dignity […] [And] it is a process because it requires multiple modes, steps, stages, and transformations across all levels of society and amongst all stakeholders in a conflict” (Graham 2015). Through reconciliation and the related processes of restorative justice, parties to the dispute explore and overcome the pain brought on by the conflict and find ways to build trust and live cooperatively with each other. Restorative justice seeks to have a positive impact on offenders by confronting them with the consequences of their actions and delineating their responsibilities, giving them both the opportunity to repair the damage caused to the victim and to work on finding a solution to their problems (Umbreit, Bradshaw and Coates, 1999). According to Philpott, there are six components of political reconciliation: building socially just institutions and relations between states, acknowledgement, reparations, punishment, apology, and forgiveness (Philpott
“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).
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.
It aims to describe an arrangement of the major political and social institutions of a society such as the constitution, legal system, economy, family, and so on as being fair. Fairness is also at the core of restorative justice. Unlike the retributive system restorative justice is concerned with reforming. Not just the offender but the wrongdoing itself. As previously mentioned, the victim is not primary subject of the retributive system the law or state is. This is an unfair assurance of power by the state over the victim, to the point they where the victim may even feel re-victimized. The State assess what was lost, the state gets to talk at the trial, the victim rarely gets a chance to even see the offender before the trial. By keeping the participants of the trial apart the likelihood of proliferating long lasting resentment, and emotional trauma increases. Dining both parties closure and healing. Rawls believes the state should only be the facilitator of these communications between the parties not key participant in the
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 is some theoretical ambiguity in the meaning of Restorative Justice in spite of the many definitions and studies done on the subject. Restorative Justice has been defined as “an ethos with practical goals, among which to restore harm by including affected parties in a (direct or indirect) encounter and a process of understanding through voluntary and honest dialogue.” It is primarily concerned with the reinstatement of victims to life before the crime, restoration of the Offender to a well behaved and lawful life, restoration of the injury caused to the community and the creation of a better society in the present and the future.
The word Justice means the quality of being impartial, fair, and just (Pollock, 2017, p.56). The concept of justice helps to determine guilt and dispense punishment for criminal violation. There are two components of corrective justice substantive justice and procedural justice. Substantive justice is how fair punishment is determined. Procedural justice is the steps taken before administering punishment. The purpose of this paper is to discuss a situation and determining the sentence of the juvenile defendant by applying retributive justice, utilitarian justice, or restorative justice.
“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.
Therefore, there is a growing need to progress towards the restorative justice (RJ) system. According to RJ perspective, a crime is considered a conflict between individuals that results in harm to victims, communities, and offenders, and so these parties are also involved in responding to it. One of the prevalent programs of the RJ system is the victim-offender mediation (VOM) program. The VOM program is a process which provides interested victims an opportunity to meet the offender, in a safe and structured setting, with the goal of holding the offender directly accountable for their behaviour while providing assistance and compensation to the victims; mediators do not impose settlements. Over the years, the VOM program has proved to be beneficial to both, the victim and the offender.
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
Restorative Justice is an approach to the justice system that focuses on the needs of both the