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
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 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.
“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).
Hart talks about educating and training drug offenders instead of incarcerating them; this is a concept of restorative justice. Restorative justice is defined as the healing of the relationship between the offender, victim, and the community. The main goal of restorative justice is to right the wrongs and harms. To do this, the three pillars of restorative justice were created; these pillars are harms and needs, obligations, and engagements. The first pillar harms and needs focus on the harm of the victims and their needs. In drug-related offenses, there is no direct victim, but eventually, society can be affected. Obligations are the second pillar of restorative justice and its purpose is to hold the offender accountable and responsible for the crime committed. The community and society also have obligations in restoring the offender to society. Lastly, there is the third pillar of restorative justice engagement, which is the people who have an interest or stake in the crime. Restorative justice truly does try to balance the concerns for all by adapting the offender back into the community. It accomplishes this by educating, training, and helping the offender. The criminal justice system and restorative justice are truly as different as night and
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.
When looking at the Criminal Justice system there are so many different elements make up the system to create a whole, it is sometimes hard to grasp every element. Throughout history people and governments alike have tried to figure out cost saving yet efficient strategies to keep offenders from reoffending and out of jail. Restorative justice is one of these elements; created to focus on the rehabilitation of offenders through reconciliation with victims and the community at large. Within the realm of restorative justice there are many different types of procedures and programs from alternate dispute resolution to veteran trauma courts and everything in-between. Not everyone will agree that these specialty courts and procedures
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.
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...
The program really aims for long-term results instead of short term. It is hard to obtain quantitate measures on such a program. However, Lawson does mention a study that began in 1997 at Indiana University that measured overall satisfaction of offenders and victims who used a restorative justice approach. The findings were that “90% of the victims were satisfied with the way their case was handled, as compared to 68% whose cases were handled by conventional means” (Lawson p186 2004). “80% of offenders completed their restitution agreements compared to 58% for juveniles assigned restitution by other means, and the re arrest rates for those who completed restorative justice conferences were 25-45% lower than that of their counterparts” (Lawson p186 2004). This to me means that the program is working. Since this program is aimed at long-term solutions I would encourage that communities that use restorative justice track the offenders. They should keep a running database with offender’s names and check back with law enforcement every few years to see how the offender is doing. I would track each person for at least twenty years. I would continuously check to see if the juvenile is still committing crimes, the types of crimes they are committing and how much time passes between each
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
...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.
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
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
The restorative model discovers the harm caused by the crime committed and involves the victims, offenders, and the community in order to reconstruct the damage done to everyone immersed in the situation (Bell, 2015, p.53). This pretty much covers their focus. Their focus is to repair the harm caused by the crime, the harm done to the victims, and any harm that could be done in the future by crime prevention (Bell, 2015, p.37). The restorative model has a main philosophy of peacemaking; which includes repairing the past harms, and compromise and harmony amongst the offender, victims, and community (Bell, 2015, p.37). The first two models for juvenile justice discussed do not include any of these attitudes. The restorative model views crime and delinquency as a “violation of people and relationships” (Bell, 2015, p. 38). The main point of restoration is to repair damage, and it is not focused on punishment and law, unlike the justice and the crime control model. This model is valuable in retrospect; but it is not effective for all crimes. In order for it to be fully effective, everyone involved in the crime has to be willing to spend hours rebuilding the relationship and the victims must be all right with facing the perpetrator. This makes it difficult to consider it as the most effective model at reducing crime. The restorative model has been proven
Throughout the decades of correction, there has been an argument between rehabilitation and retribution. Although people think of prison as a reformatory, a place where criminals who have committed crimes pay their debt to society and learn their lessons, in order to return to society. People think of prison as a place of punishment, where the loss of freedom, limited privileges and rights are undertaken to enforce a punishment on criminals and to protect society. The question is which of these beliefs, retribution or rehabilitation, is more effective or important.