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 …show more content…
We must use measures and tactics that will prevent or deter others from engaging in recalcitrant behavior and when encountered with individuals who do behave in an unruly manner we must use our judicial powers to ethically punish and reduce the incidence for repetition. Sherman, Strang, Mayo-Wilson, Woods, and Ariel (2015) evaluate restorative justice practices and more aptly the restorative justice conference (RJC), which is a face-to face meeting between offender, offended, a facilitator, and effected community members to determine the recourse the offender will take to right his or her wrongs. A very similar and widely used approach in Canada is sentencing circles (Chatterjee & Elliott, 2003). Sentencing circles require court officials, the offender, the offended, and other members of the community to sit in a circle at a neutral location and provide input as to what the offender’s sentence should be. Both options practice restorative justice however in 1995 the restorative justice practice that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) chose to …show more content…
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
Throughout this paper, criticisms and praises will be mentioned in the borrowing of these ingenious practices, along with arriving to a conclusion of whether we are ready to deal with offenders in the restorative justice aspect. This is an important issue because, with a newly arrived program, we need to realize whether or not we are rushing into something that the criminal justice system is not ready for and also whether they are effective.
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
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 .
As discussed in depth, there are all types of crimes that are committed by young offenders these days and the offenders possess a number of different characteristics. There have been many theoretical crime explanations that have been formed over the years that attempt to explain the reasoning behind the question of why certain individuals, both young and old, are more prone to commit crimes. The discussion of punishment practices are also important because it displays the many approaches that have been taken to ensure that juvenile delinquents are being treated fairly, but punished and rehabilitated all simultaneously. Many methods fall under this kind of approach referred to as the restorative justice approach such as neighborhood conference committees, victim impact panels, sentencing circles, and community impact panels which all attempt to rehabilitate the offender, but also to involve members of society including the victims/survivors of crimes (Siegel, 2009). It is believed and hoped with the continuation of processes, practices, and programs in place such as these that juvenile crime will eventually decrease bringing more order to our society as a whole. Overall, this paper strives to bring awareness to juvenile delinquency by
Wormith, J. S., Althouse, R., Simpson, M., Reitzel, L. R., Fagan, T. J., & Morgan, R. D. (2007). The rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders: The current landscape and some future directions for correctional psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(7), 879-892.
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
“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.
According to the National Institute of Justice recidivism is one of the most fundamental concepts in criminal justice. Recidivism refers to a person’s reoccurrence or continuation of criminal behavior that persists after the person receives their sanctions or arbitration. Researchers from the statistics of The Bureau of Justice found that two-thirds, 67.8%, of released prisoners were rearrested within three years. About three quarters, 79.6%, were rearrested within five years of their release. At the end of the year, 56.7%, which is more than half of those prisoners were rearrested. The most likely to be rearrested were property offenders, 82.1% of released offenders were rearrested for
Restorative justice is an alternative approach to imprisonment for eligible first-time offenders and it is becoming increasingly common in the Australian criminal justice system. Restorative justice attends to the needs of the victims, and or the community as a whole, where an appropriate restoration is mutually agreed. While restorative justice endeavours to deal with the offender’s crime without the need for imprisonment, not all offences are eligible for restorative justice. According to the Australian Government, firearm offences and those involving serious violence, serious sexual assaults, and serious drug offences must be excluded and mandate imprisonment (Joudo-Larsen, 2014, p. 8). Although there is much debate on the effectiveness
...hrough a long and complicated process of development. The goal of community service has not always been clear. However, due to increasing in the prison population, community-based corrections is now seen as a good alternative to incarceration due to its rehabilitative nature and cost savings. Communities also support non-incarceration measures for offenders who commit minor offenses. Community-based sanctions are more humane and even more effective in reducing the problem of recidivism. The biggest problem to reforming the system is the perception that offenders are inherently bad, and they cannot be reformed. Evidence from research suggests that rehabilitative programs aimed at restorative justice as opposed to retributive justice are good for all the parties. Importantly, it addresses the criminal tendencies that led to the commission of crime in the first place.
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.
This program is been fairly successful 46% discharged successfully completed the term. Restorative justice is a viewpoint that shifts the focus of the justice procedure from being focused on the offender to resolving the problem and restoring the harm created by the person’s actions. Restorative justice has three primary stakeholders: the victim, the offender, and the community. The state gives up its central role in providing justice and assumes the function of
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