1 Introduction
Punishment is central to any legal proceeding where the accused is found guilty. It falls directly under criminal law and is determined by punishment theories. Whether South Africa is moving towards restorative justice approaches influences many aspects: it allows protection of society and results in more crime-free life for the offender. Consequently, it gives offenders the chance to learn from their experiences, gain insight into their behaviour and allows victims to handle their injustice. If South Africa is truly moving towards applying restorative justice principles in the resolution of disputes it will be evident in the legislation and recent case law in different fields; including crimes of child offenders, less serious crimes and serious crimes.
2 Restorative justice versus traditional theories
Punishment theories such as retributive and utilitarian approaches focus on ‘righting the wrong’. Retributive theories are based on the idea where the offender can only pay for his ‘sin’ by suffering. Whereas, utilitarian approaches are focused on the legal and moral order, protecting society and potential victims from the offender. This approach also centers on using the deprivation of liberty, pain and suffering to punish current and potential offenders. Both of these theories focus on punishment as penance. However, neither of these theories is concerned about the effects of the punishment on the accused nor the interests of the victim.
Restorative justice is “an essentially non-punitive [, or less punitive,] resolution of disputes arising from the infliction of harm, through a process involving the victim, the offender and the members of the community.” It focuses on the “healing of breeches, the redressi...
... middle of paper ...
...:
RSA Sentencing (A compensation scheme for victims of crime in South Africa) 97.
RSA Presentation on restorative justice national conference on victim’s charter 2012.
Law Journal articles:
Skelton A & M Batley “Restorative Justice: A Contemporary South African Review” (2008) 21 Acta Criminologica 37.
Tshehla B “The restorative justice bug bites the South African criminal justice system” (2004) 17 SACJ 1.
Cases:
Director of Public Prosecutions, North Gauteng v Thabethe 2011 (2) SACR 567 (SCA).
S v Maluleke 2008 (1) SACR 49 (T).
S v MALGAS 2001 (1 ) SACR 469 (SCA ).
Manyolo v S [2011] JOL 26684 (ECG).
S v Matyityi 2011 (1) SACR 40 (SCA).
S v Melapi 2014 (1) SACR 363 (GP).
S v Nkunkuma [2013] JOL 30832 (SCA).
S v Shilubane 2008 (1) SACR 295 (T).
Legislation:
Child Justice Act 75 of 2008.
Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997.
Probation Services Act 35 of 2002.
Roach, K. (2000). Changing punishment at the turn of the century: Restorative justice on the rise. Canadian Journal of Criminology. 42, (2), 249-280.
Society has long since operated on a system of reward and punishment. That is, when good deeds are done or a person behaves in a desired way they SP are rewarded, or conversely punished when behaviour does not meet the societal norms. Those who defy these norms and commit crime are often punished by organized governmental justice systems through the use of penitentiaries, where prisoners carry out their sentences. The main goals of sentencing include deterrence, safety of the public, retribution, rehabilitation, punishment and respect for the law (Government of Canada, 2013). However, the type of justice system in place within a state or country greatly influences the aims and mandates of prisons and in turn targets different aspects of sentencing goals. Justice systems commonly focus on either rehabilitative or retributive measures.
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.
The Youth Criminal Justice Act has many concerns creating inequalities in the restorative justice approach. For instance, juvenile delinquents who develop from a background that is impoverished may lack the ability to satisfy the reparative objectives of punishment and may not be ready to be reintegrated back into socie...
Consequentialism is a punishment theory that provides moral justification for punishment by taking into account future consequences and by weighing the intrinsic value of a punishment against other available alternatives. The primary rationale for punishment is to bring the most good over harm, to deter or prevent crimes from occurring in the first place and to prevent future crimes from being committed. Utilitarianism would even consider punishing the innocent or pass a more severe sentence for a lesser crime if it could be determined that benefits to society outweighed the consequences of such punishment (Howard). For example, if it were believed that better crime deterrence or prevention could be achieved, a consequentialist would consider executing a murderer versus handing down a life sentence. Retributivism is a punishment theory that looks back at the specific nature of a crime and determines how much the victim suffered, in order to morally justify the severity of punishment. The moral emphasis is on righting a wrong and seeking justice by ensuring that criminals get what the...
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.
What would the criminal justice system be without punishment? Perhaps, the criminal justice system would not serve a function or cease to exist. Punishment is one of the main facets of the criminal justice system. It holds such significance that it even reflects the beliefs and values of a particular society. Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821-1881) once said “The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.” (Pollock, 2010: 315). Punishment has been around since the beginning of civilization. With its rich history, the concept of punishment has been analyzed by some of the most renowned theorists, some of which include Jeremy Bentham, Cesare Beccaria, Adolphe Quetelet and André-Michel Guerry (Pollock, 2010: 318). Once found guilty of an offense the type of punishment must be determined. There are many different rationales used to answer why it is necessary to inflict punishment. Rationales for punishment include retribution, prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. To better understand these rationales ethical systems such as utilitarianism, ethical formalism and ethics of care can be used. The general public should be knowledgeable about punishment, even more so should professionals in the criminal justice field because they are directly linked to it in some way.
Arguably, there are many reasons for punishment, including: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, restoration, and rehabilitation. The main aim of criminal law is to punish anybody who does wrong to the society; however, it is clear that there are different goals and forms of punishment as listen above. Notably, these differences exist because of the severity of the crime and its punishment. A murderer can be sentenced to die but a shoplifter cannot face the same sentence. The first type of punishment, retribution, punishes the crime doer because the system believes that it is right and fair. Therefore, it looks back at the crime and matches it with the best possible punishment (Schmalleger, 2013). The second type, incapacitation, is forward
There are several types of punishment that can be inflicted upon an offender including, fines, community sanctions and imprisonment (The Judicial Conference of Australia, 2007). Punishment is described as a sanction which inflicts a certain amount of pain and loss on the offender, used for payback and deter (The Judicial Conference of Australia, 2007; Carlsmith, Darley, & Robinson, 2002). There are three ways society justifies punishing offenders, through the
Ultimately, Rachels offers a more comprehensive consideration of the different potential interpretations of moral desert. His comparison of three legal responses using four distinction values make it very clear to the reader that, despite concerns over the value of moral desert, retribution is the most desirable option currently available to the criminal justice system. His evaluation of retributivism, deterrence and rehabilitation answers Shafer-Landau's central assertion that a comparative evaluation of retributivism could not be made within a short article. Furthermore, Rachels's argument is more pragmatic, making intuitive sense to those who may
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
Restorative justice is an alternative community based program for juvenile offenders. Instead of sending juvenile offenders to jail or punishing them, they are taught
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
“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
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].