More handpicked essays just for you.
Advantages and disadvantages of restorative justice
Advantages and disadvantages of restorative justice
Victims rights in restorative justice
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Advantages and disadvantages of restorative justice
Restorative justice gives victims of a crime the chance to actively involve themselves in resolving the problem. The focus of restorative justice is to restore the losses of victim, assisting the victims, and also allowing the crime offenders to take responsibility for what they have done (Umbreit 1333). Restorative justice first started in Canada in the 1970s, where it was used for reconciliation. The Mennonite Church was at the front of this operation. Many of the principles of restorative justice are based on Christian beliefs about healing and forgiveness. People began to respect in the 1990s and not before because it had been too expensive and ineffective to deal with crimes in the past. Nowadays, several hundred communities in the world
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.
The Canadian justice system, although much evolved, is having difficulty eliminating bias from the legal system. Abdurahman Ibrahim Hassan, a 39 year old man, died on June 11 in a Peterborough hospital, while under immigration detention. He came to Canada in 1993 as a refugee and was suffering from mental, and physical health issues such as diabetes and bipolar disorder. There was an overwhelming amount of secrecy surrounding the death of this troubled Toronto man, and to this day no light has been shed on this tragedy. (Keung, 2015) An analysis of the official version of the law will reveal how race class and gender coincide with the bias within the legal system.
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.
Voltaire once said, “Fear follows crime and is its punishment.” (Voltaire). Respectively, the concept to use opportunities that attempt to restore moral justice in Canadian youth punishment is indispensable. The Youth Criminal Justice Act enacted on April 1st, 2003 recognizes in the preamble that incarceration should only be exercised as a last resort sentence for violent youth ages twelve to seventeen, (Youth Criminal Justice Act (S.C. 2002, c. 1), 2002; Barron, 2009; Tustin & Lutes, 2011; Olivo, 2012, pp. 234-235, 456; Justice Education Society of British Columbia , 2013). The restorative justice approach enables consideration of many youth suffering from mental disorders that need more mental health support than punishment (Bala, Youth Criminal Justice Law, 2003; Gretton & Clift, 2011) corresponding to the evergrowing concern of more imprisoned youth, despite the decreasing delinquency rate (Ruddick , 2004; Linton, 2003). Therefore, reintegration and rehabilitation techniques are imperative to resolving youth in conflict with the law (Savignac, 2009; Anand, 1999; Doob A. N., 2004). An analysis of the complications and advantages of the restorative justice opportunities concerning young offenders ages twelve to seventeen will endorse that collaborating family connections, educating youth while integrating gang prevention, and community involvement will positively enhance youth prosperity and societal security.
One of the main programs that started the development of restorative justice is victim-offender mediation. Early victim-offender mediation began as a program to impact offenders and to help them really understand the harm that they had done to their victims.
Wrongful convictions in Canada is a very sensitive and disturbing topic that has created concerns as to why individuals are being wrongfully convicted. As people in Canada read about cases involving wrongful conviction, such as Guy Paul Morin, Rubin Carter and David Millguard, it often undermines their faith in the criminal justice system. Tunnel vision, the use of questionable DNA evidence, and eyewitness misidentification are the three main causes of wrongful convictions in Canada. Recognizing and addressing these concerns has led to a reduction in cases of wrongful convictions in Canada.
In today’s Canadian society, it is certain that criminal law is to serve and protect and its fundamental purpose is to prevent crime and punish offenders. However, there have been cases where criminal law has punished the offender who turned out to be innocent. A conviction is needed to show that the system is not in disrepute and to keep order and people safe in society. If a criminal cannot be caught then people will look down upon the system in disgrace. In many cases, officers will arrest an individual who fits a certain description that they know will lead to an arrest and conviction. In the case of Guy Paul Morin it shows how the system failed in aiding the innocent who abide to the law. The law is established to protect those who are innocent from being targeted because of the law.
Restoration Restorative justice is based on bringing together the victim, the offender, and the community; all have equal parts in repairing the relationships destroyed by
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.
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.
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
The program is modeled after similar programs that begun in the 1970s and 1980s in New Zealand and Australia (Lawson 2004). It is used in schools, juvenile courts, and youth centers. However, for this discussion I will use the facts from Catherine Lawson’s restorative justice study in Missouri. In Lawson’s writings she references Derek R. Brookes, who came up with the conclusion that restorative justice attempts to produce these three outcomes: reconciliation, reparation, and transformation. Reconciliation is stage where all the apologies happen. Reparation is the stage at which the offender takes responsibility for his or actions, by providing fair restitution to the victim and lastly transformation is the stage where the offender is re-guided back into society as a productive member and is out of the cycle of
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.
“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