Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Restorative justice as a deterrent
Restorative justice as a deterrent
Aspects of criminal justice system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Restorative justice as a deterrent
In the past, the main topic concerning the Criminal Justice System (CLJ) was, if the type of crime fits the degree of punishment an inmate will receive. Now we are struggling with the best ways to punish criminals. Some people recognize a criminal as defiant and need harsh disciplinary actions. Most correctional officers treat offenders like they are not human beings with remorse. Most of the prison population will be released into the free populations and have a high chance of recidivating. We do not want offenders to recommit crimes because that defeats the purpose of deterrence. Some prisons introduced the idea of rehabilitation as a way to prevent criminals charged with drug offenses from committing more crimes after release. Restorative justice focuses on the …show more content…
Similarly, Zehr discussed these similar restorative justice approaches used in the CLJ system with focusing on fixing broken relationships with the victims who were harmed and the offender taking responsibility. Also, the restorative justice method in prison is gaining popularity at least 300 victim/offender mediation programs have sprung up. These mediation programs give the victim and offender a chance to grow together. When discussing whether restorative justice method is more effective for adults or juveniles, Tusi and Payne and Kelly agreed that restorative justice will be more effective for juveniles rather than adults. However, Payne and Kelly stated that “Restorative justice is best applied in the educational domain rather than in a criminal justice system, due to the close relationships within schools.”() Students spend more time with their peers during school than in their communities. There are plenty of positive and negative social interactions between students daily. Restorative justice in schools offers a disciplinary model that can reduce the frequency of negative events and the severity of
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.
Carl Hart talks about the negative effects of the criminal justice systems and how programs such as restorative justice has a more positive effect. He speaks about data that shows criminal justice is not the best way to deal with these types of offense because they are not trained educators or counselors; they are trained to minimize damage and dole out punishment. On the other hand, officials in restorative justice are trained educators and counselors and our better prepared to help drug offenders. Another negative effect of the criminal justice system is the cost to incarcerate an individual. Putting someone in prison cost a numerous amount of money and restorative justice is by for a cheaper option. Through previous knowledge, I can tell you that the biggest difference between criminal justice and restorative justice is the central focus. Criminal justice focuses on the offender getting what they deserve whereas restorative justice focuses on the victim’s needs and the offender’s responsibility to repair the harm they caused. The criminal justice system can severely harm drug offenders because they are subjected to harden criminals who teach them about other crimes. It also leaves a permanent scratch on the offender’s record and it becomes almost impossible for them to retain a job. An example of the negative effects of the criminal justice system that Dr. Hart gives is with his cousin Louie. Louie had a bad reaction to the drug he was using and
Question 1. Both Thomas Mathiesen and Stanley Cohen argue that alternative criminal justice responses that were presented after the 1970s were not real alternatives (Tabibi, 2015a). The ‘alternatives’ which are being questioned are community justice alternatives generally, and Restorative Justice specifically. The argument here is that Restorative Justice cannot be a real alternative because it is itself finished and is based on the premises of the old system (Mathiesen, 1974). Moreover, Restorative Justice is not an alternative, as it has not solved the issues surrounding the penal system (Tabibi, 2015a). Cohen (1985) supports this sentiment, and suggests that community based punishment alternatives have actually led to a widening and expansion
Restorative Justice is a new way of thinking about and responding to crime, especially in relation to youth offending. For the past decade, especially, there has been an increasing interest in new approaches towards criminal justice in general but more so in terms of juvenile delinquency and finding an appropriate form of punishment to escape the labelling of youth delinquency, which involve the community and focus much more on the victim.
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 .
There has always been an opinion on the correct way to deal with criminals. This will be yet another, but by me. The ways of dealing with criminals is not easy, and there is technically not a definite way to do so. But in my opinion, among the many goals of corrections, the ways I can agree on are a combination of rehabilitation and deterrence. These two things are completely opposite of one another, but used at the appropriate times, to the appropriate inmates, it could work in a positive way.
Prisons and correctional facilities in the United States have changed from rehabilitating people to housing inmates and creating breeding grounds for more violence. Many local, state, and federal prisons and correctional facilities are becoming more and more overcrowded each year. If the Department of Corrections (DOC) wants to stop having repeat offenders and decrease the volume of inmates entering the criminal justice system, current regulations and programs need to undergo alteration. Actions pushed by attorneys and judges, in conjunction current prison life (including solitary confinement), have intertwined to result in mass incarceration. However, prisoner reentry programs haven’t fully impacted positively to help the inmate assimilate back into society. These alterations can help save the Department of Corrections (DOC) money, decrease the inmate population, and most of all, help rehabilitate them. After inmates are charged with a crime, they go through the judicial system (Due Process) and meet with the prosecutor to discuss sentencing.
The Criminal Justice system was established to achieve justice. Incarceration and rehabilitation are two operations our government practices to achieve justice over criminal behavior. Incarceration is the punishment for infraction of the law and in result being confined in prison. It is more popular than rehabilitation because it associates with a desire for retribution. However, retribution is different than punishment. Rehabilitation, on the other hand is the act of restoring the destruction caused by a crime rather than simply punishing offenders. This may be the least popular out of the two and seen as “soft on crime” however it is the only way to heal ruptured communities and obtain justice instead of punishing and dispatching criminals
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
Not only has there been debates about what approach should be used when punishing juvenile offenders, but there has also been debates about the need for two separate justice systems. Some individuals believe that juveniles need to be punished for their delinquency by being sentenced to jail just as an adult offender would be. According to Urban, Cyr, and Decker (2003), The Violent Crime Control Act of 1995 allows juveniles who are 13 years old and up to be sentenced as an adult if they have committed a violent crime with a fire arm on federal property. Advocates of such acts believe the juvenile justice system has failed at “rehabilitating” offenders by placing more focus on rehabilitation and treatment practices. Because of this these advocates
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
When Mary Catherine Parris was told that I would be talking to her about restorative justice, her response was, “Is that a real thing?” (personal communication, September 23, 2015). Through this assignment I realized that restorative justice is not talked about within the criminal justice system. For both of the individuals I spoke with, the idea of restorative justice seemed like a joke. In trying to persuade them both that restorative justice is a real thing, I was met with very similar beliefs and comments from both individuals. They both believed that restorative justice would not work and believed that some aspects of the approach were completely useless (M. C. Parris, & R. Clemones, personal communication, September 23, 2015). The responses
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
This rehabilitation model of the criminal justice system has been by far the most influential school of thought in criminology, in the last two hundred years (Van Ness and Strong, 1997. P. 3). It is referred to in many cases as a diversion from the formal court process to actions that has been put in place and is regularly considered by the criminal justice system. It encourages meetings between offenders and victims at different stages of the criminal process from the arrest to the prison release, and emphasizes on the repair of harm and of ruptured societal bonds resulting from crime. As a result, some governments have taken a keen interest and have even modified legislation to provide for restorative intervention.