Examples and results of restorative justice Restorative justice isn’t typically seen as the remedy to the crimes that we see today. However, restorative justice has proven to demonstrate positive results when it is deemed necessary to be use. For this reason we cannot eliminate the potential use of restorative justice in the justice system today despite some of the negative results that have been documented. Before we can discuss the process of restorative justice, we must first discuss the system which we have in place today. This system known as retributive justice is the main cause for the corruption that exists in our criminal justice system today. For this reason we must first ask ourselves these following questions. What is restorative
Why is one system used more than the other? What are examples and results of using restorative justice? Questions such as these will hopefully give us insight into the history of our criminal justice system and clears up any miss confusion which we might have to this day. Retributive justice is a process used in criminal justice courts today, where justice is served through punishments. According to Michael Wenzel, author of the article of “Retributive and Restorative Justice” explains the process of retributive justice by stating “according to this notion, an offender, having violated rules or laws, deserves to be punished and, for justice to be reestablished, has to be punished in proportion to the severity of the wrongdoing.”(Wenzel 349) Essentially what Wenzel is trying to entail us is that justice in this system is delivering punishment to the offender based on the crime that they have committed. For example the punishment that a person who commits mass murder deserves a harsher sentence then someone who either just robbed or killed one person. We cannot have the same equality of punishments exist if the crimes are different. Restorative justice which we will discuss later on is the opposite of
Wenzel makes an interesting statement about restorative justice, he says “restorative justice means the repair of justice through reaffirming a shared value-consensus in a bilateral process” (Wenzel 375). What’s important from this statement is the fact that a bilateral process is involved and there is a consensus between both groups. Unlike retributive justice which we saw previously, the victim and the offender in restorative justice have the opportunity to make a very tragic situation turn into a positive outcome. Punishment is not used as a means of serving justice to the offender. Restorative justice programs were created to provide the victim with healing while also making the offender pay for their offense. In order for restorative justice to be used in court, certain conditions must be met. The most important concept that must be met is that victim support and healing must be a priority (Liebmann 26). If victim support and healing are not consider in the court case, retributive justice is the only system that can be used at that time. The next criteria that must be met is that the offender needs to take responsibility for what they did. Liebmann states that offenders take responsibility not by serving their punishment but saying “yes, I did it and I take responsibility for the harm I caused” (Liebmann 26). The reason
Roach, K. (2000). Changing punishment at the turn of the century: Restorative justice on the rise. Canadian Journal of Criminology. 42, (2), 249-280.
“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.
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
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
“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 is modeled after similar programs that begun in the 1970s and 1980s in New Zealand and Australia (Lawson 2004). It is used in schools, juvenile courts, and youth centers. However, for this discussion I will use the facts from Catherine Lawson’s restorative justice study in Missouri. In Lawson’s writings she references Derek R. Brookes, who came up with the conclusion that restorative justice attempts to produce these three outcomes: reconciliation, reparation, and transformation. Reconciliation is stage where all the apologies happen. Reparation is the stage at which the offender takes responsibility for his or actions, by providing fair restitution to the victim and lastly transformation is the stage where the offender is re-guided back into society as a productive member and is out of the cycle of
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.
...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.
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
Johnstone, G. and Ness, D. (2007) Handbook of Restorative Justice. USA: Willan Publishing. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-big-question-what-are-the-alternatives-to-prison-and-do-they-work-419388.html [Accessed 01 January 2014].
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