Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The purpose of restorative justice
The purpose of restorative justice
Restorative vs retributive justice essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The purpose of restorative justice
There are two different types of justice such as Restorative justice and Retributive justice. According to Gibbs and Jacobson's (2009) restorative justice aims to heal the relationships between the victim and the offender and maybe even with the community where the crime had taken place while on the other hand Retributive Justice emphasizes that penalty provided that it’s a proportional response to the offense that has been committed. I believe that many people feel the same way as in they want to be treated fairly and with justice and that is why I feel restorative justice is the better option for victims who feel that they want justice after their offenders wrongdoings. Restorative justice prides itself on how it concentrates on both the …show more content…
From time to time, it may involve other members of the general public as well. Most of the time the meeting are given to have the chance to discuss what influence the crime had on the victim or the community and then cooperatively agree on how the offender can find a compensation. This may look in the form of an offender paying for property they may have stolen, doing a type of community service, or even pursuing a treatment for a primary problem that the victim might have. The goal in doing all of this is to one day have the wrongdoers be able to enter back into the society as a law-abiding citizen by inspiring the healing process which would include rehabilitation of a form such as possibly having to pay a compensation of the harm done. According to Shapland (2011) the core principles of justice are that people need to work to repair those who have been hurt and that those most openly affected and involved by the crime should be given the chance to participate completely and that the government needs to play a strong role in maintaining a fair public order, and that the society is to create and maintain an impartial peace. There are multiple programs that the justice system offers for these healing processes but here are a few of the most frequently used and have showed the most impact. Firstly the victim-offender resolution program which includes having a skilled mediator bring together the victim and the offender in a meeting so that they can discuss the wrongdoings, its outcome, and the next step procedure that may be required to help undo the wrongdoing. Next there is a program called the family group conferencing program which is very similar to the victim-offender resolution, but has a wider circle of participants than VOM, adding people connected to the primary parties, such as family, friends, and
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
As agents of justice and philanthropists of duty one must evaluate the criminal justice system and its approaches to the solution of crime to determine what is good, appropriate, and what will reduce recidivism. As a western society the United States has changed and adapted its judicial system in hopes of conforming to our changing society and the increase in criminal behavior. Through these adaptations emerged a system within criminal justice that changes the focus of rehabilitation of the offender to not only include imprisonment, but to include reconciliation with the victims and the community that the offender harmed. The restorative justice approach takes a look at the crime, the criminal, and the offended; with hopes for healing and justice
The purpose of this paper is to examine the processes of both Restorative and Retributive justice through the case of Sara Kruzan vs. The State of California. First we will establish the principle philosophers associated with each type of justice and those system's theoretical applications in our criminal justice system. Then we will apply both systems to Sara Kruzan's trail and determine the publishable outcomes. Finally we will review Sara's Life after her trial and speculate on what system would have produced a more just outcome.
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
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 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
Therefore, there is a growing need to progress towards the restorative justice (RJ) system. According to RJ perspective, a crime is considered a conflict between individuals that results in harm to victims, communities, and offenders, and so these parties are also involved in responding to it. One of the prevalent programs of the RJ system is the victim-offender mediation (VOM) program. The VOM program is a process which provides interested victims an opportunity to meet the offender, in a safe and structured setting, with the goal of holding the offender directly accountable for their behaviour while providing assistance and compensation to the victims; mediators do not impose settlements. Over the years, the VOM program has proved to be beneficial to both, the victim and the offender.
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...
...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
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