Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Four theories of restorative justice
Four theories of restorative justice
Essay on retributive justice
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Four theories of restorative justice
Applications of the Models of Justice There are four main theories of justice retributive, utilitarian, restorative, and parallel justice. All four theories have different ways of interpreting both procedural and distributive justice. Procedure justice according to Newmark, L. (2017) is the “the process used to determine society’s response to a crime; the steps taken to arrive at an outcome; how society decides what it should do about a crime”. Distributive justice on the other hand has to do with the consequences that one receives from the justice system. The definition of distributive justice is society’s response to the crime; the consequences that society provides for the crime; what society does about a crime; the outcomes resulting from …show more content…
Therefore the next step for Garcia in the retributive justice theory would be to have a fair process of justice. First Garcia should be held by law enforcement officials and asked about the crime. If he asked for a lawyer questioning would stop so that the process is fair. Once facts on the murder are found a trial or determination of the evidence would happen. During the trial there would be specific rules that everyone going though the process would follow, even though what Garcia did was wrong and society thinks he may be guilty. Garcia would appear in front of a both governmental and citizen based system that is the same system used for anyone else that violates the social contract. The citizens that would be involved in the justices process would have to be proven to have no connection to the crime, offender, or victim in the crime, that way the process remains unbiased. Garcia would have the right to have someone represent him. The process would go through evidence to determine if there is enough to hold Garcia accountable for the murder. Through this process Garcia’s guilt or innocence would be proven. If any part of the trial or process was unfair or not done in the correct form a second look at the case could be done until the trial and process is deemed
Different countries have been known to deal with crime in different ways, some believe that we (Americans) should deal with criminals in a more serious and physical manner. In the article “Rough Justice A Caning in Singapore Stirs Up a Fierce Debate About Crime and Punishment” by Alejandro Reyes, it talks about how we should have more severe and physical punishment inside and outside of the U.S. After a teenage boy vandalizes a car in singapore. While in the editorial “Time to Assert American Values,” the writer attempts to persuade us and into thinking that the teenage boy, Michael Fey should not have been caned after vandalizing a car. After carefully analyzing the two texts, the reader realizes that the article “Rough Justice” has the
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
Final Exam Kristina McLaughlin Saint Joseph’s University CRJ 565 Question 1: Word Count The judicial system is based on 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).
There are three type of sentencing models used by judges for the sentencing phase of trials; indeterminate, determinate, and mandatory. These sentencing models are used to bring justice to those who are convicted of crimes and must now live with the consequences of their actions. Justice is a word that has a different meaning to each individual person. This paper will discuss, in detail, the meaning of justice, the three types of sentencing models, the pros and cons of each model, and the impact each one has had and continues to have on corrections.
The symbol of the Canadian judicial system is the balanced scales of justice. When a wrongful act is committed, the scales of justice are greatly misplaced and require a solution to counterbalance the crime and restore balance. Additionally, the scales represent the idea that law should be viewed objectively and the determination of innocence should be made without bias. The Canadian criminal justice system encapsulates the idea of the scale of justice, to control crime and impose penalties on those who violate the law. One of the most important aspects of this system is that an individual charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The current system has two prevailing methods involved in the process of dealing with crime: Retributive and restorative justice. This paper will analyze aspects of retributive justice and restorative justice, with reference to their respective philosophies, for the purpose of finding which is more effective at achieving justice and maintaining balance.
Crime is defined as an act or omission that the law makes punishable. There are different ways in dealing with crime. One, our current system, is the criminal justice approach. Also known as retributive justice, this system is more offender directed than anything else. The other system, which many people think is better, is the community justice, or restorative approach. The restorative approach is much more victim oriented. There is a debate over which system should be used to deal with crime. The two differ in many ways.
The theory of punishment as a whole is worth investigating as well. My largest argument against the theory of punishment is that it is not a fair or just operation. The concept of punishment is a way to intentionally harm people. This is not a just way of making a case right, or making a victim heal from any crime they may have been a part of. The victim is not compensated for the damage or harm caused to them. Punishment, in the retributive theory will really only do good in that it deters people from committing crime because they are scared of the punishment- but this simply does not work as well as it should. The restitution theory does not address the issue of who is entitled to cause harm to others, or punish said criminals.
Agreeing on a definition of restorative justice has proved difficult. One definition is a theory of justice that focuses mostly on repairing the harm caused by criminal behaviour. The reparation is done through a cooperative process that includes all the stakeholders. Restorative justice can also be explained as an approach of justice that aims to satisfy the needs of the victims and offenders, as well as the entire community. The most broadly accepted definition for restorative justice, however, is a process whereby all the parties that have a stake in a specific offence collectively resolve on how to deal with the aftermath. This process is largely focused around reparation, reintegration and participation of victims. That is to say, it is a victim-centred approach to criminal justice, and it perceives crime differently than the adversarial system of justice.
Green believes that the proper analysis for the relationship between retributive justice and distributive justice should be decided on a "case-by-base basis" and should take three distinct factors into consideration. The first factor is to determine the specific offense that the person is being charged with. In the second, we need to see how he was disadvantaged and if it's relevant to deciding his blameworthiness. The final one is where we need to "consider the economic and social circumstances of the crime victim."
Parris serves as an investigator for the Floyd County police department. Clemones used to serve as a lieutenant at the Floyd County Sheriff’s Office, but has since left the role of a police officer and now serves as a bondsman for A Bulldog Bail Bonds. In both cases, I started the meeting time by telling the individual that we would be talking about restorative justice and that I would give them a chance to evaluate how it applies to cases they each had experienced. Then, Parris and Clemones were both asked to explain a case in which they believed justice had been served. In the examples that both Parris and Clemones gave, a prison sentence is what caused them to believe that justice had been served. They both mentioned prison time as being what the offender deserved (personal communication, September 23, 2015). It is obvious that both Parris and Clemones have been taught to operate under a highly retributive system, which has caused bias in their views of justice. After they had both mentioned the offenders deserving prison time, I knew persuading them to see the benefits of restorative justice would be
“Restorative justice is an approach to crime and other wrongdoings that focuses on repairing harm and encouraging responsibility and involvement of the parties impacted by the wrong.” This quote comes from a leading restorative justice scholar named Howard Zehr. The process of restorative justice necessitates a shift in responsibility for addressing crime. In a restorative justice process, the citizens who have been affected by a crime must take an active role in addressing that crime. Although law professionals may have secondary roles in facilitating the restorative justice process, it is the citizens who must take up the majority of the responsibility in healing the pains caused by crime. Restorative justice is a very broad subject and has many other topics inside of it. The main goal of the restorative justice system is to focus on the needs of the victims, the offenders, and the community, and focus
Retributive justice, means an eye for an eye meaning your punishment will increase to match the damage you've done. For instance, if one goes out and executes someone else, then the outcomes of that offense could result into prison. Many believe that justice is not being served if you don’t make an example out of criminals by punishing them. I say that because in the end they feel like a short prison sentence and community service will not teach them a lesson to obey the law. This kind of justice utilizes detainment, loss of property, and even the death sentence with an end goal to see that somebody who carries out a crime is punished. One of the major criticisms against retributive justice is the abuse of power that can occur. Procedural justice, is concerned with settling in and applying choices that betters society. Procedural justice rules must be fairly taken into consideration and connected with a specific end goal to make an unprejudiced decision. Those that are involved must be neutral, and those directly affected by the decisions should have some voice or representation in the process such as a
Restorative justice is a theory of justice that focuses on repairing the harm caused by criminal behavior. This is best accomplished through processes that allow all willing parties to meet. This can be done in other ways if parties do not wish to meet face to face. Restorative justice is a different way of thinking about crime and our response to crime. It focuses on repairing the harm caused by crime and attempting to prevent future harm through crime prevention. Restorative justice requires offenders to take responsibility for their actions and for the harm they have caused and seeks redress for victims, recompense by offenders and reintegration of both within the community. It requires a cooperative effort by communities and the government.
Essay on Justice ‘Justice is such an elusive concept that it hardly seems worthwhile for a legal system to strive to achieve it’. Justice is something that we all want from a Law and believe should be an integral part in any legal system. However, the meaning of Justice is very difficult to define. There are many aspects of justice that we may question about; i.e. is a particular law just? Is the legal system just?
Firstly in this report, I will be giving the different definitions of rule of law by different philosophers; secondly, I will be applying the rule of law to the English Legal system and thirdly I will be explaining separation of powers with a focus on the impartial judiciary. Finally, I will be using cases to support every detailed point given.