Justice systems world-wide employ and enact approaches that are supported by the wider community and government social policy. Exploring social and community expectations on the justice system and the actual theoretical approach behind a sentencing and rehabilitation policy can bring to the light why certain practices are upheld. A social shift towards the practice and implementation of “…restorative justice [practices] (2001) have become mainstream in Australian Juvenile justice and [has] been extended for use with adult offenders…” (Joudo-Larsen, 2014), this approach gains its base from the theory that “…crime causes harm to people, to relationships and to the community…” (Joudo-Larsen, 2014), and that it is not simply an offence against …show more content…
In a study conducted in NSW, respondents indicated and described the “… criminal justice system sentence’s as too lenient, believe the criminal justice system does not meet victim’s needs, [and] does not resolve criminal cases in a timely manner” (Miller & Hefner, 2013), furthering the support and inception of restorative justice in the …show more content…
Victim support in Australia is a fundamental accessory to provide victims of crime the necessary support in dealing with judicial process at the beginning, during and aftermath. A key concern within victim support is the reliance on critical support services in relation to physical, emotional and mental health. Background information indicates that people who become victims of crime and suffer mental illness are more vulnerable to an increased level of traumatic experience. A report published in 2009/10 shows “…that people with mental illness-related disability are three times more likely to experience violent crime than the general public” (Wilson & Segrave, 1997). A branch of victim support is through a relevant state or territory police service. Police-based victim services are categorized into “…three broad models: unit services, dedicated liaison officer services, and referral services” (Wilson & Segrave, 1997), it is also noted in opposition to policing agencies providing these services that “…reinforcing a view that dealing with victims of crime is not ‘real policing’. A gap identified in available
Roach, K. (2000). Changing punishment at the turn of the century: Restorative justice on the rise. Canadian Journal of Criminology. 42, (2), 249-280.
Question 1. Both Thomas Mathiesen and Stanley Cohen argue that alternative criminal justice responses that were presented after the 1970s were not real alternatives (Tabibi, 2015a). The ‘alternatives’ which are being questioned are community justice alternatives generally, and Restorative Justice specifically. The argument here is that Restorative Justice cannot be a real alternative because it is itself finished and is based on the premises of the old system (Mathiesen, 1974). Moreover, Restorative Justice is not an alternative, as it has not solved the issues surrounding the penal system (Tabibi, 2015a). Cohen (1985) supports this sentiment, and suggests that community based punishment alternatives have actually led to a widening and expansion
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 .
But as will be discussed, there are major flaws in the Australian criminal justice system with issues focussing on three main concerns: (i) lenient sentencing in the criminal justice system particularly with white-collar and blue-collar crimes (i) recidivism and lack of support for offenders (iii) public safety concerns. This essay will examine issues with the Australian prison system, and explore the punishment of shaming and if it is an effective method in preventing general and specific deterrence using sociological frameworks and theories.
If given this prompt at the beginning of this semester I would have answered with a resounding yes, the criminal justice system is racist. The classes I have previously taken at LSU forced me to view the criminal justice system as a failed institution and Eric Holder’s interview in VICE - Fixing The System solidified that ideology. The system is man-made, created by people in power, and imposed on society, so of course there will be implicit biases. The issue is that these internally held implicit biases shaped the system, leading the racial and class disparities. VICE – Fixing The System addressed heavily the outcomes that we see in today’s society based on these implicit biases. Additionally, this documentary focuses on the ways that mainly
Restorative justice can be defined as a theory related to justice that is concerned on repairing the harm that is caused or revealed by a criminal behavior (Barsh 2005: 359). Over the years, restorative justice has been seen as an effective way of dealing with both social as well as cultural issues of the aboriginal people. Because of these, restorative justice is used in many of the local communities in an effort to correct criminal behavior. This concept is seen as a conceptualization of justice which is in most cases congruent with the cultural and the community values of the aboriginal people. There is growing body of evidence which suggests that there are a number of challenges which accrue the effective implementation of restorative justice amongst the aboriginal people.
...ystem and are seen as a credible sentencing option because of the restorative and rehabilitative effect it has on offenders by allowing them the opportunity to give something back to the community and providing them with education and work experience. There is a lack of evidence to suggest that rehabilitation is neither an effective or non-effective sanction. The use of probation as a stand-alone sanction has decreased over the years with probation now being combined with more severe sentences. When combined with rehabilitative programs probation reduced crime outcomes by 16.7%. The common perception of the general public is that increasing the severity of sentencing will reduce crime, however empirical evidence suggest that this is not the appropriate response. Public dissatisfaction with sentencing in Tasmania is often due to a lack of knowledge and understanding.
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
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
Across the world, there are a great deal of people that are likely to become victims of offenses against themselves or their property. The criminal justice system is used to govern crimes and impose penalties on individuals that may violate laws. The criminal justice system is made up of different agencies that include: law enforcement, the courts, and corrections. Within this paper, I will discuss the roles of the prosecutor, the defense attorney, the criminal, and the victim and how victimization affects each role. Also, I will inform you about the goals of sentencing associated with each role. The goals of alternative sanctions will be discussed. I will also let u know what recommendations I have regarding victims’ rights.
Punishment occurs to individuals who break the law. It is also used to maintain the level of crime and to protect community members in Australia. To determine that society is content with maintaining the crime rate, this essay will discuss punishment types given to offenders and how society justifies the use punishment. Additionally, providing a brief overview of the community correction and prions rates to show that communities prefer to incarcerate lawbreakers. Highlighting that crime rates are being maintained by looking at the personal crime rate for assault before concluding that Australian society feel safe enough to allow the criminal justice system to sustain the crime rate.
The criminal justice system is composed of three parts – Police, Courts and Corrections – and all three work together to protect an individual’s rights and the rights of society to live without fear of being a victim of crime. According to merriam-webster.com, crime is defined as “an act that is forbidden or omission of a duty that is commanded by public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law.” When all the three parts work together, it makes the criminal justice system function like a well tuned machine.
It is also a way to empower the community and to establish their capacity and reliance on informal methods of social control. Alternatively though, McLaughlin and Muncie (2001) raise the point that community-based justice systems that may be effective in New Zealand cannot be expected to be as effective in a different culture, whereby social norms and control methods are very different as well as expectations of conformity. Restorative justice is largely volunteer based and relies on communities being unified as well as having the skills and capabilities 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).
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