More handpicked essays just for you.
Restorative justice pros and cons
Restorative justice pros and cons
Restorative justice focuses on the victims
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Choi, Green, and Gilbert (2011) studied the effects of the restorative justice approach on juveniles who committed crimes and were involved in a Victim-Offender Mediation program. The study evaluated juvenile’s involved in the restorative justice program. By observing each juveniles experience throughout the restorative justice program, Choi, Green, and Gilbert (2011) were able to identify the main factors of the program that helped transform the lives of juvenile offenders. Choi, Green, and Gilbert Hypothesized that the restorative justice program will help reduce the recidivism rate for young offenders, and “effectively address the harm caused by the offense” (Choi et al. 2011, p.336). The theraputic program will help reduce the recidivism …show more content…
rate by helping the offenders realize the harm they have done. Once an offender has come to an understanding and communicated with the victim, the offender will start to show empathy or compassion. Choi and his team (2011) believe that small restorative programs like Victim Offender Mediation are needed because they address the needs of juvenile offenders and hold the juvenile accountable in a way that brings about empathy and does not disrespect the juvenile, but the juvenile’s wrongdoing. Choi, Green, and Gilbert (2011) conducted researching using a qualitative study.
By using a qualitative study Choi and his team were able to see how each of the participants interacted during the restorative justice program. After the program each juvenile was interviewed to discuss their experience and what they learned from the program. Choi, Green, and Gilbert conducted 34 interviews with 37 participants. The participants included “eight juvenile offenders, eight parents, eight adult victims, 10 mediators, and three staff members” (Choi et al. 2011, p.342). Out of eight juvenile offenders, 7 were Caucasian and 1 was African American. The offender’s ages ranged from 13-17 years old. The cases involved included misdemeanors and two violent felony charges. During the Victim-Offender Mediation (VOM) program observations were made as the participants in groups interacted. By observing the groups interactions, Choi, Green, and Gilbert were able to see how each juvenile transformed throughout the program. Choi, Green, and Gilbert found that “restorative justice programs help the offender relate and empathize with victims,” and “the role of reintegrative shaming is effective in creating new identities among the juveniles about violence and criminal behavior”(Choi et al. 2011, p.350, …show more content…
352). Wilson, Bates, and Vollm (2010) analyzed the ways in which volunteers from the community can offer support to sex offenders through “circles,” while maintaining public safety. Wilson, Bates, and Vollm (2010) believed that communities need restorative based reintegrative “circles” (groups) for sex offenders, so they are less likely to recidivate. In this study Wilson, Bates, and Vollm use a restorative program known as Circles of Support and Accountability of Canada and Great Britain, to illustrate how programs such as “circles” can make a difference in the community and in the lives of an offender (Wilson et al. 2010, p.4). While analyzing the “circles” program, Wilson, Bates, and Vollm realized why programs such as circles were successful and vastly spreading throughout different parts of the world. In Canada and Great Britain, the “circles” program had gained a lot of positive recognition because, they incorporated “principles of inclusion and restoration to foster positive compassionate relationships” (Wilson et al. 2010, p.2). Restorative programs such as, “circles” are great for sex offenders because they allow offenders the chance to integrate back into society. Sex offenders and other offenders need programs such as “circle” to help make a difference in their life. Volunteers from the community are needed to help transform the lives of an offender (Wilson et al. 2010, p.4). The volunteers are the ones in the community who help make a difference in the offender and in others. Wilson, Bates, and Vollm (2010) also use a Qualitative study to evaluate why restorative programs like Circles of Support and Accountability are effective within the community.
The groups were matched on actuarial risk assessment ratings, time in the community and prior exposure to treatment interventions; they followed up on these individuals for an average of four and a half years (Wilson et al. 2010, p.7). The outcome showed that, while no complete panacea, the impact of circles reduced the sexual re-conviction rate of high-risk offenders to a statistically significant degree in this case, “high-risk” was indicated in both experimental and control groups (Wilson et al. 2010, p.7). Wilson et al (2010) concluded that it will be useful to examine how the activities of Circles of Support and Accountability (COSA) might be demonstrated to impact more generally on community awareness and safety when considering the risk of serious harm to children and vulnerable adults which sexual abuse represents (Wilson et al. 2010,
p.10).
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.
Yates, P. M. (2005). Pathways to treatment of sexual offenders: Rethinking intervention. Forum on Corrections Research, 17, 1-9.
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.
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 .
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.
There are better ways to punish criminals and protect society than mass incarceration. The state and local governments should be tough on crime, but “in ways that emphasize personal responsibility, promote rehabilitation and treatment, and allow for the provision of victim restitution where applicable” (Alec, 2014). The government also succeeds in overseeing punishment but fails to “…take into account the needs of offenders, victims, and their communities.” (Morris, 2002: Pg. 1 and 2). Alternatives to incarceration, such as sentencing circles, victim offender mediation, and family conferences, can successfully hold criminals responsible while allowing them a chance to get “back on their feet”. Research has proven that rehabilitation has lowered the rate of re-offenders, reducing the crime rate, protecting communities and also saves a lot of
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
When juveniles commit crimes, it is critical that society finds a successful way to divert their criminal actions into good behavior. The main purpose of this essay is to find the different outlets the juvenile justice system is using to rehabilitate juveniles, how well those strategies are working, and personal suggestions for improvement that might result in a more effective juvenile justice system.
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
Therefore, there is a growing need to progress towards the restorative justice (RJ) system. According to RJ perspective, a crime is considered a conflict between individuals that results in harm to victims, communities, and offenders, and so these parties are also involved in responding to it. One of the prevalent programs of the RJ system is the victim-offender mediation (VOM) program. The VOM program is a process which provides interested victims an opportunity to meet the offender, in a safe and structured setting, with the goal of holding the offender directly accountable for their behaviour while providing assistance and compensation to the victims; mediators do not impose settlements. Over the years, the VOM program has proved to be beneficial to both, the victim and the offender.
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
This approach has introduced a criminal justice policy agenda. In the past, victims to criminal activities have been outsiders to the criminal conflict. In recent times, many efforts have been made to give the victims a more central role in the criminal justice system. Some of these efforts were introduced a few years back, though even at that time, these efforts were seen as long overdue. Some of these efforts include access to state compensation and forms of practical support. For advocates of restorative justice, crime is perceived primarily as a violation of people and relationships, and the aim is to make amends for all the harm suffered by victims, offenders and communities. The most commonly used forms of restorative justice include direct mediation, indirect mediation, restorative cautioning, sentencing panels or circles and conferencing. In recent...
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