Shame and trauma can have devastating impacts on individuals. Both shame and trauma are critical in their implications to wrongdoers and those who are hurt, and restorative justice is a manner in which shame and trauma can be dealt with, yet there are underlying risks to go with the benefits. Therefore, the purpose of this essay is to discuss shame and trauma, and to accomplish the task at hand, I shall; firstly, discuss trauma, secondly, examine the effects of the current of understanding of trauma upon the criminal justice system. In addition, I will depict the how the legal system and restorative justice might handle or mishandle trauma, thirdly define shame, and lastly, demonstrate how the criminal justice system and restorative justice …show more content…
521). Trauma-informed practice refers to recognizing and understanding “the extent and impact of trauma in people’s lives, aim to uncover and understand the complex root causes of violence and abuse” (Randall & Haskell, 2013, pg. 517). In turn, with trauma-informed practice, resiliency can be developed to adapt to trauma by building supports, and have the harmed see themselves as a survivor and not victim (Abramson, 2018, Lecture on Shame and Trauma). The story by Marlyn illustrates this point, as Marlyn was extremely resilient to the event she faced, a part which was the result of the immense support she had from family, friends, and the community. Nonetheless, there is a risk to how restorative justice may handle trauma, since if restorative justice does not engage in trauma-informed practice, then I believe that the consequences can be just as severe as for the criminal justice system, since certain restorative justice practices place harmer and harmed face-to-face, causing re-traumatizing to become a serious concern. In addition, trauma-informed practice is a manner in which the criminal justice system can come to handle trauma …show more content…
148; 153). Moreover, one misconception of shame is that it used interchangeably with guilt (Elliott, 2011, pg. 154); yet the distinction between shame and guilt is found through how one perceives themselves and the act (Harris, Walgrave, & Braithwaite, 2004, pg. 193). For instance, shame causes feelings of “disapproval in the eyes of others” and “shame… about the self as a whole”, while guilt entails to disapprove “of one’s own behaviour” and is felt by one’s action (Harris, Walgrave, & Braithwaite, 2004, pg. 193). Hence, the importance of the distinction between shame and guilt is the fact that the criminal justice system inherently associates shame and guilt, causing them to attempt to have individuals understand their behaviour was wrong, which will aims to develop guilt, but also shame (Harris, Walgrave, & Braithwaite, 2004, pg.
Shame and guilt are often used interchangeably as they are often perceived to be the same or eerily similar. Yet shame is more associated with feelings of poor personal character and guilt is associated with what a person’s character does. Studies have shown that shame rather than guilt is a significant risk factor for the onset and maintenance of mental health difficulties and it has been further theorized that guilt is actually an adaptive response in which movement from shame to guilt represents a stage of mental health recovery (Dyer, et al., 2017). Though shame over particular events in the moment are not uncommon due to humanities imperfect nature, the problem resides in lack of shame resolution. May (2007) exemplifies this in that the
James Gilligan is an American psychiatrist who presents the causation and prevention of violence from his point of view of working in US prisons for decades in his book “Preventing Violence”. Gilligan provides readers with a multitude of data and theories, but his book (or at least the first four chapters) boils down to the fact that violence towards other is caused by shame. He calls upon his many years of interaction with prison inmates and explains how inmates who committed violent crimes often said it was because they were disrespected, and therefore shamed. However, it’s very important to highlight that it takes not only shame but also an inability to “regain respect” after a shameful event, to cause violence as Gilligan proposes. This
Young, M. (1999) Restorative community justice in the United States: A new paradigm. International Review of Victimology, 6, p265-277.
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.
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
Pros of the restorative justice system are that it brings parties together in crime. Instead of a short term goal, the restorative justice system takes a long-term approach to reducing crime and violence using different kinds of methods. In restorative justice programs, offenders work with others affected by their criminal actions. Restorative justice promotes instilling positive behaviors in young criminals and teaching long-lasting changes in behavior to prevent future crimes. There also could be negative consequences from the restorative justice system. For restorative justice to work, criminals and their victims must communicate about the crime and its consequences. Since violent crimes often leave victims feeling helpless and vulnerable, encouraging communication can result in increased anxiety and fear. Additionally, communication might breach confidentiality for victims of violent crimes, such as rape and assault, because they must discuss the outcome of the crime and how it has impacted
How would a conservative reply to a proposal for restorative justice? How would a restorative justice advocate respond to a conservative proposal for more prisons?
authors use the concept of guilt to imply the idea that guilt has the capabilities to
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...
There are three primary principles of effective intervention. First, interventions should target the criminogenic risk factors of the offender (Cullen & Jonson, 2017). Logically, if an intervention is to impact recidivism it needs to address the factors that contributed to the criminality. For example, if an offender is someone who has antisocial associates. Then, one goal would be for them to associate with more prosocial, law-abiding people who can help them stay on track with. Therefore, the intervention targets dynamic rather than static, unchangeable factors (Cullen & Jonson, 2017).
Restorative Justice is an alternative way to respond to offenders. It is a voluntary process. The article defined restorative justice as “a voluntary, community-based response to criminal behavior that attempts to bring together the victim, the offender, and the community, in an effort to address the harm caused by the criminal behavior.” It is based under the principle that criminal behaviours injure everyone and that all involved should work together to address the causes of the behaviour and its consequences. Its key concepts are healing, reparation, reintegration, and the prevention of future harm.
I was first introduced to restorative justice because I believe that forgiveness shouldn’t be given unconditionally. I believe offenders should be held accountable for their wrong doing and that victims can communicate openly about the effects that being wronged has done. Restorative justice helps hold offenders accountable, helps victims find their voice, and it also helps communities heal, together. At face value, restorative justice seems like a perfect action to an imperfect system. The articles that I found the most of, that also peaked my interest, were about restorative justice being used in school systems and taking zero tolerance’s spot.
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
II. OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN THE DELIVERY OF JUSTICE IN BOTSWANA Restorative justice therefore refers to “a practitioner-led reform that calls for changes in the criminal domain, emphasizing mostly on communication and reconciliation between victim, offender and the community in which they reside” (Dzur, 2003). It can also be defined as “a tool addressing the hurts and needs of victims and offenders in a way that heals them and their community (Macharia, 2016). This means that the measure focuses on the rehabilitation of offenders in criminal activities or offences through reconciling them with victims of their acts and the community at large.