More handpicked essays just for you.
Restorative justice and the criminal justice system
Restorative justice as a deterrent
Restorative Justice In Criminal Justice
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Restorative justice and the criminal justice system
The idea of allowing an individual to return the item that they stole in lieu of punishment contradicts the current philosophy of the justice system. Accordingly, the premise of allowing individuals to return stolen items without punishment is closer to the ideology of restorative justice (Zebel, Schreurs, & Ufkes, 2017). Although it is possible that this action may work for young offenders, there is concern regarding this premise for the majority of adults. For example, the currently proposed premise of the criminal justice system is that punishment deters or incapacitates individuals from committing further crimes (Schmalleger, & Smykla, 2015).
The premise of deterrence and incapacitation infers that the without punishment these offenders
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.
The judicial system is based off the norms and values that individuals are held to within society. When a person is found guilty of committing a criminal act, there must be a model that serves as the basis of what appropriate punishment should be applied. These models of punishment are often based off of ethical theories and include retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restoration. The retribution model of punishment views the offender as responsible for their actions and as such, the punishment should fit the crime (Mackie, 1982). Incapacitation is a form of punishment that removes an offender from society. This model protects
Sentencing is the process by which people who have been found guilty of offending against the criminal law have sanctions imposed upon them in accordance with that particular law. The sentence of the court is the most visible aspect of the criminal justice system’s response to a guilty offender. In Tasmania, the Sentencing Act 1997 was enacted to amend and consolidate the law relating to the sentencing of offenders. The crime rate in Tasmania is lower than it was 10 years ago but higher than it was 20 years ago. In the Australian context, Tasmania is below the national average of recorded crimes for the crimes of robbery, burglary and motor vehicle theft.
There are better ways to punish criminals and protect society than mass incarceration. The state and local governments should be tough on crime, but “in ways that emphasize personal responsibility, promote rehabilitation and treatment, and allow for the provision of victim restitution where applicable” (Alec, 2014). The government also succeeds in overseeing punishment but fails to “…take into account the needs of offenders, victims, and their communities.” (Morris, 2002: Pg. 1 and 2). Alternatives to incarceration, such as sentencing circles, victim offender mediation, and family conferences, can successfully hold criminals responsible while allowing them a chance to get “back on their feet”. Research has proven that rehabilitation has lowered the rate of re-offenders, reducing the crime rate, protecting communities and also saves a lot of
Similarly to rehabilitation, restoration looks to better society, however, this approach to justice emphasises the needs of the victim. In cases of minor crimes such as vandalism or petty theft, restoration is preferable to rehabilitation. This is because those who commit these minor crimes often don’t have the need for rehabilitation as mental health isn’t a large concern. In these small cases, it is also not burdensome to compensate for the losses of the victim, making restoration the ideal
Greg Mantle, F. D., & Dhami, M. K. (2005). Restorative justice and three individual theories of crime. Internet Journal of Criminology IJC , 1-36. Retrieved from http://www.restorativejustice.org/articlesdb/articles/5914
Be sure to address the four types of sentencing models and the issues surrounding them (equity, truth-in-sentencing and proportionality).
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in the year 1980 we had approximately 501,900 persons incarcerated across the United States. By the year 2000, that figure has jumped to over 2,014,000 prisoners. The current level of incarceration represents the continuation of a 25-year escalation of the nation's prison and jail population beginning in 1973. Currently the U.S. rate of 672 per 100,000 is second only to Russia, and represents a level of incarceration that is 6-10 times that of most industrialized nations. The rise in prison population in recent years is particularly remarkable given that crime rates have been falling nationally since 1992. With less crime, one might assume that fewer people would be sentenced to prison. This trend has been overridden by the increasing impact of lengthy mandatory sentencing policies.
The sentencing process is created by some of the legislative party, who use their control to decide on the type of criminal punishment. The sentencing guidelines for the judges to go by can be different depending on the jurisdiction and can include different sentencing such as “diversionary programs, fines, probation, intermediate sanctions, confinement in jail, incarceration in a state or federal prison, and the death penalty” (Siegel & Bartollas, 2011, p. 40). In some jurisdictions the death penalty is not included as one of the punishments. Being sentenced is step one of the correction process and is in place to discourage repeat offenders (Siegel & Bartollas, 2011, p. 40). Depending on the crime committed the offender can be sentenced to a consecutive sentence or a concurrent sentence. If an offender is charged for committing more than one crime the judge can give the offender a concurrent sentence where both charges are served at the same time. If an offender is charged for committing more than one crime the offender can be giving a sentenced where he has to serve time for each crime one after the other (Siegel & Worrall, 2013, p. 210). Once the offender has been sentenced from there you will be able to determine if the sentence is indeterminate or determinate.
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.
Sentencing is the imposition of a criminal sanction by a sentencing authority , such as a judge. Schmallger & Smykla, 2009, pg# 71) There are seven goals of sentencing including revenge, retribution, just deserts, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation and restoration. Revenge refers to a retaliation to some kind of assault and injury. Revenge can be a type of punishment for the criminal justice system. The jury, sometimes, basis there choices on emotions, facts and evidence. It is considered revenge in some cases because the victim's looks at it that way when they feel justice has been served. Retribution is a type of sentencing involving another form of retaliation. Retribution means "paying back" the offender for what he or she has done. ( Schmalleger & Smykla, 2009, pg# 73) The victim is not alone when it comes to being affected by the crime. Society is strongly affected by what a criminal does in whichever area he or she chooses. Retribution, in a good sense, would be if a coworker does her best as her job and her boss gave her a raise. This would be considered paying her back for her good deeds. As far as the criminal's heinous acts, retribution would more than likely be community service in the town were the crimes occurred. This form of sentencing gives a sort of relief to society
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
There is an ongoing problem in our society regarding punishment and responsibility. We, as a society, tend to look away when it comes to how criminals are being punished and maybe we should be paying more attention. Violence seems to be an integral part of our society, some raise their children with violence, we watch it on television, read it in newspapers and books and now we are even playing violent video games. When it comes to the judicial system the majority of citizens do not even know how individuals are being punished or if the punishment is too harsh, not severe enough or if the individual even needs punishment because what they may need is psychiatric help.
The incarceration rate in the United States has continued to climb over the past twenty years making it one of the highest in the world. Police officers have been going to work trying to put away people who are breaking the law, but why do criminals continue to do so when they know they have a good chance of getting caught? Crime has been around since societies have evolved and every society has had their own way of dealing with criminal behavior. From early tribal times where the thinking was an eye for an eye, to medieval times when people who stole a loaf of bread would be put to death by being hung, and today with a court system that decides the fate of a criminal. Throughout history the ways of punishing people have changed pretty dramatically and the theories of how punishment should be handed out has had an influence on the way we run our system today. There have been many thoughts on the root of the crime problem, some believe that there is a criminal gene and some believe its all learned behavior, but it still seems today that even the threat of being put to death for a crime doesn’t stop people from committing them. In today’s society the ends outweigh the means and people will go to extreme measures to have a piece of the pie, so we must continue to try and deter these criminals through the threat of punishment.
Punishment has been in existence since the early colonial period and has continued throughout history as a method used to deter criminals from committing criminal acts. Philosophers believe that punishment is a necessity in today’s modern society as it is a worldwide response to crime and violence. Friedrich Nietzche’s book “Punishment and Rehabilitation” reiterates that “punishment makes us into who we are; it creates in us a sense of responsibility and the ability to take and release our social obligations” (Blue, Naden, 2001). Immanuel Kant believes that if an individual commits a crime then punishment should be inflicted upon that individual for the crime committed. Cesare Beccaria, also believes that if there is a breach of the law by individuals then that individual should be punished accordingly.