1. The differences between Restorative Justice and the mainstream criminal justice system lies within their focus and rehabilitation efforts. Moreover, Restorative Justice is a way of responding to criminal behavior by balancing the needs of the community, the victims and the offenders. Moreover, its focus is on individuals and communities, and their needs, as well as opportunities for healing. Furthermore, Restorative Justice offers rehabilitation by aiming to help offenders to recognize the harm they have caused and encouraging them to repair the harm, at the extent possible. On the other hand, the mainstream criminal justice system is directed in upholding social control, deterring and mitigating crime, or sanctioning those who violate laws …show more content…
Restorative Justice emerged with the intention of recognizing neglect victims and their needs, so only in this aspect is it fair to victim when it’s accomplished. In other words, if there is no balance such as more attention on offender or community versus victim or vice versus then there can be no fairness. On the other hand, it can only be fair to society when justice is truly served and offenders reenter the community as law abiding citizens. Unfortunately, if the resources used within Restorative Justice do not work to restore an offender and he/she go on to reoffend then it is not fair to society.
6. I was recently the victim of property crime and if the authorities would have caught who did it I would want Restorative Justice to handle them because aside from dealing with the hurt of the privacy of my home being invaded I ultimately wanted to know why. In addition, I wanted an apology and for them to replace all that was lost.
7. If I were the victim of a violent personal crime I would want the Restorative Justice System to handle them because I believe rehabilitation requires more than incarceration. Furthermore, punishment would not be enough because it would not help resolve the issues within the offender, which could subsequently prevent him/her from doing it again. Needless to say, our current mainstream criminal justice system would simple lock my offender up and later release with no true rehabilitation to prevent
Ethics is “a branch of philosophy concerned with the study of questions of right and wrong and how we ought to live” (Banks, 2013). Also it involves making moral judgments about what is right and or wrong, good or bad. In the process of everyday life, moral rules are desirable, not because they express absolute truth, but because they are generally reliable guides for normal circumstances. Ethics or moral conduct, are of major importance in the criminal justice field today. If the police force condoned unethical behavior, there would be very little, if any, justice being served. A system of rules and principles helps to guide in making difficult decisions when moral issues arise. Ethics has been shown to be a central component in decisions involving ethical dilemmas. It is “concerned with standards of conduct and with “how I ought to act”, and standards of conduct may vary among different societies” (Banks, 2013). An ethical dilemma arises only when a decision must be made that involves a conflict at the personal, interpersonal, institutional, or societal level or raises issues of moral character. Richard Hare argues that we initially use an intuitive level of moral thinking when we consider ethical dilemma. There are “six steps in analyzing an ethical dilemma and they would be as follow” (NASW, 2014):
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.
“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).
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 .
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.
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
The Criminal Justice system was established to achieve justice. Incarceration and rehabilitation are two operations our government practices to achieve justice over criminal behavior. Incarceration is the punishment for infraction of the law and in result being confined in prison. It is more popular than rehabilitation because it associates with a desire for retribution. However, retribution is different than punishment. Rehabilitation, on the other hand is the act of restoring the destruction caused by a crime rather than simply punishing offenders. This may be the least popular out of the two and seen as “soft on crime” however it is the only way to heal ruptured communities and obtain justice instead of punishing and dispatching criminals
In our society the criminal justice system is expected to handle the individual that committed a crime by either punishing them or rehabilitating them. Punishment is the authoritative imposition of an undesirable or unpleasant outcome upon a group or individual, in response to a particular action or behavior that is deemed unacceptable or threatening to some norm. Rehabilitation is the re-integration into
“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.
There are multiple crime television shows that are based on a true story or fiction. A well known television show is Law and Order Special Victims Unit, which deals with rape and assault cases. This particular episode deals with a domestic violence case between a retired football star, AJ Martin, and his girlfriend, Paula Bryant. I will be using the National Crime Victimization Survey, which is an interview with the members in a household about reported and unreported crime that occurred within the last six months. “NVCS provides information of characteristics of victims, including age, race, ethnicity, gender, marital status and household income” (Truman and Morgan). Official statistics like the NCVS would be used for comparing its demographics
Restorative justice is an alternative community based program for juvenile offenders. Instead of sending juvenile offenders to jail or punishing them, they are taught
The offence Harry would be charged with is William’s murder. The area of Law that this case is concerned with is criminal law (homicide). The two offences that constitute homicide are murder and manslaughter. The classic definition of murder was set by Sir Edward Coke (Institutes of the Laws of England, 1797). Murder is defined by the Law as causing the death of a human being within the Queen’s peace with the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. It comprises of 2 elements. These are the actus reus (guilty act) and the mens rea (intention).
...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