Restorative justice is a mechanism that focusses on rehabilitation of an offender through reconciliation of individuals harmed by a crime. Restorative justice has proven to be successful because Natalie DeFreitas claimed that 70% of people incarcerated reoffend after one year of being released from prison, and only 15% reoffend after restorative justice (DeFreitas, 2012). However, restorative justice is not an effective means of handling gendered violence cases. Barbara Hudson claims that “gendered violence offences are so serious and so frequent that the most robust form of justice available should be used against them” (Hudson, 2002, p.622). Gendered violence is considered non-discrete because victims continuously suffer from sexual, domestic …show more content…
Firstly, a reduction of fear in restorative justice is achieved by communicating with an offender and associating memories of the trauma with safe settings (Strang et al., 2006, p. 285). However, in gendered violence crimes, offenders and victims already know each other so face to face encounters do not reduce fear. In restorative justice processes, victims may fear telling the truth because they may believe they will be harmed once they return home. Additionally, victims may refuse to disclose certain details if they intend to stay in the abusive relationship. Secondly, reparation in the form of an apology helps victims and offenders in restorative justice processes. In restorative justice, an apology acts as a catalyst for empathy and is an emotional connection that instills a sense of remorse (Doak, 2011, p.444). In gendered violence, an apology is not a symbolic representation of remorse. Offenders use an apology to avoid punishment, cast themselves in a better light and ignore their faults (Gaudreault, 2009, p.1). An apology acts as a tool for offenders to maintain power, control and prolong the victims’ cycle of abuse. Gordon Bazemore advocates for earned redemption (Stubbs, 2007, p.177). He feels that a victim should not be forced to forgive the offender. The victim should have the power to decide if the offender deserves forgiveness and this in turn diminishes the cycle of
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.
Roach, K. (2000). Changing punishment at the turn of the century: Restorative justice on the rise. Canadian Journal of Criminology. 42, (2), 249-280.
According to Graham, reconciliation is both “… a goal in the sense that it aims to restore relationships or to promote agonism or mutual tolerance, respect, and dignity […] [And] it is a process because it requires multiple modes, steps, stages, and transformations across all levels of society and amongst all stakeholders in a conflict” (Graham 2015). Through reconciliation and the related processes of restorative justice, parties to the dispute explore and overcome the pain brought on by the conflict and find ways to build trust and live cooperatively with each other. Restorative justice seeks to have a positive impact on offenders by confronting them with the consequences of their actions and delineating their responsibilities, giving them both the opportunity to repair the damage caused to the victim and to work on finding a solution to their problems (Umbreit, Bradshaw and Coates, 1999). According to Philpott, there are six components of political reconciliation: building socially just institutions and relations between states, acknowledgement, reparations, punishment, apology, and forgiveness (Philpott
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.
In conclusion, “Is restorative justice effective?” The answer again, is multifaceted and complex. The implementation of restorative justice on a large-scale is not likely (Cullen & Jonson, 2017). Additionally, restorative justice does not address those offenders who are sent to prison. Lastly, the fact that it places faith in non-experts and community corrections impedes is effectiveness in reducing recidivism. Therefore, on the whole, evidence suggests that it is not effective. However, there is a silver lining. Restorative justice has illuminated the problem of a purely “punitive” system of corrections.
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
It aims to describe an arrangement of the major political and social institutions of a society such as the constitution, legal system, economy, family, and so on as being fair. Fairness is also at the core of restorative justice. Unlike the retributive system restorative justice is concerned with reforming. Not just the offender but the wrongdoing itself. As previously mentioned, the victim is not primary subject of the retributive system the law or state is. This is an unfair assurance of power by the state over the victim, to the point they where the victim may even feel re-victimized. The State assess what was lost, the state gets to talk at the trial, the victim rarely gets a chance to even see the offender before the trial. By keeping the participants of the trial apart the likelihood of proliferating long lasting resentment, and emotional trauma increases. Dining both parties closure and healing. Rawls believes the state should only be the facilitator of these communications between the parties not key participant in the
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
Restoration consists of the victim return to a whole along with the empowerment gained in the restorative process and the offender their image in the sense of public opinion. If the community feels justice has been served and the victim is satisfied with the outcome of the restorative process, the offender stands a better chance of returning to the community whole or pre-criminal act (Gromet, Okimoto, Wenzel & Darley, 2012). Both emphasizing the reintegration into the community in this case, too, given the emotional and social healing as the key players address the harm that has been done in the crime.
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
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.
Prior to the 1970s, little attention was paid to interpersonal violence and there was a common believe that it was best left behind closed doors (Fagan, 1989). This lack of attention led to a growth in research concerning interpersonal violence. Individuals working with female victims of interpersonal violence realised that in order to prevent further interpersonal violence there was a need to reform perpetrators (Rosenfeld, 1992). The increased attention on rehabilitation led to a number of models that attempted to explain why interpersonal violence.
Shame and trauma can have devastating impacts on individuals. Both shame and trauma are critical in their implications to wrongdoers and those who are hurt, and restorative justice is a manner in which shame and trauma can be dealt with, yet there are underlying risks to go with the benefits. Therefore, the purpose of this essay is to discuss shame and trauma, and to accomplish the task at hand, I shall; firstly, discuss trauma, secondly, examine the effects of the current of understanding of trauma upon the criminal justice system. In addition, I will depict the how the legal system and restorative justice might handle or mishandle trauma, thirdly define shame, and lastly, demonstrate how the criminal justice system and restorative justice
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