During the 2011-2012 school year, American students lost almost 18 million days of school due to suspensions. This is just one of the many disadvantages placed upon students when penalized by school-mandated protocols such as the zero-tolerance policy. This policy mandates punishment against students for offenses made regardless the seriousness of the behavior. These offenses may include possession of a weapon, arguing with a student, or even talking back to the teacher. Despite these policies and the level of severity, one should realize that no one should be deprived of their education because of their wrongdoings.
Not only does this place a person into a category within society, but it then becomes more probable for that person to become
Not only does restorative justice programs provide students with a chance to vent, but to also take responsibility for themselves, forgive, understand, and listen. ¨In many schools, such programs are intent on developing closer relationships among students, teachers and administrators while encouraging young people to think of meaningful reparations for misdeeds¨. All humans have the ability to reconcile, and if you're constantly being punished for what you've done wrong, you won't ¨develop the inborn capacities to acknowledge the fact that you did hurt
But if a program is helping reduce the amount of people leaving school everyday, then some thought should go into realizing the benefit it has on students, and on the community as a whole. Ïn the schools that are using this, the academic performance goes up as well as behavioral problems go down, and it just makes perfect sense, if kids aren't fighting as much with each other, they're going to have more energy left over for paying attention to what's being taught¨.
All in all, peacemaking does contribute to further a student's success in life as it teaches you to not hate or hold grudges which may otherwise keep you within the loop of doing so. Restorative justice programs. Besides, ¨just one suspension doubles a child's chance of never finishing high school¨. So instead of leaning towards punishment for someone's mistake, schools should give students the chance to evaluate their actions, take responsibility for it, and most importantly, find a way to fix or make the situation better which is why more schools should implement this program within their
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 .
Following the Columbine tragedy in 1999, “school systems across the nation introduced the zero-tolerance policies aimed at the curtailment of harmful student behaviors” (Noll, 2014, p. 295). The original focus of the policies was to eliminate the use/carrying of weapons but soon after spread to restricting drugs and medication (2014). By 2006 95% of the U.S. public schools had adopted the zero-tolerance policies and more than half of them reported taking significant action against students, many of which resulted in expulsion (2014). While the zero-tolerance polices were originally welcomed by all members of a community as a means of promoting and keeping a safer environment-- as of late many individuals are questioning the relevance of some actions and some school officials (2014).
The zero tolerance policy has become a national controversy in regards to the solid proven facts that it criminalizes children and seems to catch kids who have no intention of doing harm. Although, there has been substantial evidence to prove that the policies enforced in many schools have gone far beyond the extreme to convict children of their wrongdoing. The punishments for the act of misconduct have reached a devastating high, and have pointed students in the wrong direction. Despite the opinions of administrators and parents, as well as evidence that zero tolerance policies have deterred violence in many public and private schools, the rules of conviction and punishment are unreasonable and should be modified.
Furthermore, educational institutions are suppose to emphasize learning and teaching- it is children grow and learn more about the world each day. However today's educational institutions mostly rely on punishment, violence, and misbehavior. Guided by the mass increase of school shooting and reports of increase in school violence, schools around the world have recently adopted revolutionary solution and prevention methods.
Restorative justice is a new approach that views crime as harm to people and the community. This process allows for communication between the victims, offender and the community effected by the crime. This is a way to promote accountability, and engage understanding, feelings of satisfaction, and a sense of closure. Restorative justice is a non-retributive approach. The restorative justice process includes, but is not limited to; victim-offender mediation, restorative conferences and circle processes. According to Wilson, Huculak and McWhinnie; the recidivism rate for those who were not conference within restorative justice process during their study was 43%, while those who were conferenced was 27%, (2002). They state that these statistics are promising, but at the time the article was written, there was a study underway to determine the effectiveness of the Canadian restorative justice process.
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
If the zero tolerance program is installed in the educational system, schools must decide when and how it should be enforced. This is a very complex issue and when open to debate you see three approaches to it. First, advocates of zero tolerance policies concentrate on positive changes in school security, ways of punishment, and change in student behavior. Those who oppose the policies argue that zero tolerance should be eliminated due to its lack of rationale and logic. Finally, the opposing viewpoint criticizes the zero tolerance policy for being too extreme and inappropriate for schools.
Schools inevitably must deal with disciplinary action when it comes to misconduct in students. However, at what point should the courts and law enforcement intervene? “Zero tolerance” policies started as a trend in the school setting during the 1990s in “response to the widespread perception that juvenile violence was increasing and school officials needed to take desperate measures to address the problem” (Aull 2012:182-183). However, national statistics indicated a decrease in juvenile’s share of crime during the influx of zero tolerance policies in schools (National Crime Justice Reference Service 2005).
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
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.
Martinez, S. (2009). A system gone berserk: How are zero-tolerance policies really …..affecting schools? Preventing School Failure, 53(3), 153-157. Retrieved from …..http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/docview/228530113?acco…..untid=6579
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
By definition, in school suspension is “a program to which a student is assigned because of disruptive behavior for a specific amount of time.” (Effective Program, 156) Many schools that have in school suspension programs have a zero-tolerance policy. This deters bad behavior by having swift and serious consequences for breaking school rules.
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
Does school suspension really teach the student their mistakes? Would it be better to understand why the student did what they did? Shouldn’t teachers know the students’ side of the story? School suspension in schools has always been a go to when giving out a students punishment for bad behavior. Schools always lean towards suspension because it is an easy way to deal with the student. Consequently, school suspension is just like a vacation to the student. Although the student would have homework, the student would still get time off from school. But, nevertheless school suspension doesn't have much effect on the kids. Although school suspension is how the school deals with students bad behavior, schools should choose a different alternative to dealing with bad behavior because school suspension doesn’t teach