Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Restorative justice theory
Challenges of restorative justice
Restorative justice theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Restorative justice theory
Restorative justice is an innovative approach to the criminal justice system that focuses on repairing the harm caused by crimes committed. The methods used in the conventional justice system may deter the offender from committing further crimes, but it does neither repair the harm caused, nor help them acknowledge their responsibility, instead it stigmatises them, worsening the situation instead of improving it (Johnstone 2003). “Stigmatisation is the kind of shaming that creates outcasts; it is disrespectful, humiliating” (p.85). It breaks the moral bonds between offender and community and can result in the creation of a destructive cycle that may result in fear and isolation. The shaming by stigmatisation creates a negative effect which Braithwaite describes as a criminal subculture (Johnstone 2003).
John Braithwaite’s (2004) work demonstrates that restorative justice methods can reduce offending when compared to the conventional criminal justice process, through the use of theories such as, Re-integrative Shaming Theory, Procedural Justice Theory, Unacknowledged Shame Theory and Defiance Theory.
Re-integrated Shaming Theory focuses on the strengthening of moral bonds between the offender and the victim. This re-integrated shaming theory can be easily explained as offering shame in the context of approving the person but disapproving the act (Braithwaite 2004). Braithwaite’s (2004) explains that offenders, when taking part in conferences, tend to feel more remorse and forgiveness than offenders that go through the conventional court procedures.
Re-integrated Shaming Theory can be applied to many cases from juvenile offending through to white collar crimes. It is important however, to weigh up the connection between shame a...
... middle of paper ...
...ullompton: Willan Publishing.
Christie, N. (1977). “Conflicts as property”, British Journal of Criminology, Volume 17 (1), pp.1-15.
Zehr, H. (1985). “Retributive justice, restorative justice”. In Johnstone (2003) A Restorative Justice Reader: Texts, Sources, Context, (chapter 4, pp.69-82).
Braithwaite, J. (2004) “Restorative justice: theories and worries.” Paper presented at the 123rd International Senior Seminar, Tokyo, 14 January-13 February 2003. In Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (UNAFEI) (ed.) Resources Material Series No. 63 (pp. 47-56).
Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dignan, J. (2007) “The victim in restorative justice.” In Sandra Walklate (ed.) Handbook of Victims and Victimology (chapter 12, pp. 309-331). Cullompton: Willan.
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.
Zehr (1990) who is thought to be one of the pioneers leading the argument for restorative justice highlighted three questions presented when taking a restorative approach; what is the nature of the harm resulting from the crime? What needs to be done to make things right or repair the harm? Who is responsible for this repair? He ascertained that ‘crime is fundamentally a violation of people and interpersonal relationships’. He also noted that violations create obligations and liabilities and that restorative justice seeks to heal and put right the wrongs. Restorative jus...
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 .
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.
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.
When the victim does not fit the ideal victim attributes which society has familiarised themselves with, it can cause complications and confusion. Experts have noticed there is already a significant presence of victim blaming, especially for cases involving both genders. The fear of being blamed and rejected by the public is prominent in all victims. Victim blaming proclaims the victim also played a role in the crime by allowing the crime to occur through their actions (Kilmartin and Allison, 2017, p.21). Agarin (2014, p.173) underlines the problem of victim blaming is due to the mass of social problems and misconceptions within society. The offender can have “an edge in court of public opinion” if victim blaming exists, resulting in the prevention of the case accomplishing an effective deduction in court (Humphries, 2009, p.27). Thus, victims will become more reluctant to report offences because of their decrease in trust in the police and criminal justice system, leading to the dark figure of
Since the beginning there has been many crimes that have had severe consequences. These crimes are crimes such as rapes, genocide, murder, and aggravated assaults (CITE). The Restorative justice system tries to help individuals that have committed some of these crimes. Some of the Restorative justice system founders are John Braithwaite, Howard Zehr, and Mark Umbret .The Restorative justice system emerged in 1970 (CITE). The Restorative justice system is a response to crime and wrongdoing that emphasizes the repairing of the harm that was created, recognizes the importance of victim, offender, and community involvement, and promote positive future behavior (CITE). Restorative justice is a response to what was considered to be an overly harsh
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.
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
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.
Feinburg (1994, cited in: Easton, 2012: 4) says that punishment is “a symbolic way of getting back at the criminal, of expressing a kind of vindictive resentment”. When punishing an offender there are two key principles that determine the kind of punishment. These are the Retributivism response and the Reductivist response. The first principle, Retributivism, focuses on punishing the offence using 'denunciation' where they denounce the crime that has been committed so society knows they have done wrong, and it also uses 'just deserts' where the equity 'eye for an eye' is the main idea. The second principle, Reductivism, believes that deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation is the best strategy to use to punish, its aim is to reduce crime and use punishment to serve a purpose. This essay will look closer and outline the purpose of just deserts and deterrence as punishment in society, although these punishments are used widely across most crimes, this essay will look specifically at prolific offenders.
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
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
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].