I have discovered that victim offender conferencing is a process of restorative justice that is both for helping and restoring the victim as well as helping rather than further harming the offender. There are a few main sections to the process and those sections help to make the process as successful as possible. The main sections are when the case of offense is referred to the option of victim offender conferencing, getting both the victim and the offender to agree to the process and then preparing them, the actual conferencing, and finally the follow-up. The process can go in any mixture of directions. The directions are really determined by the motives of the parties to join in on the process in the first place. There are a few motives that
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.
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
Victim-offender mediation started back in 1974 when two young men who had been intoxicated vandalized houses as well as cars of 22 people. The two men ended up pleading guilty and while the probation officer was doing a report to give to the judge, he talked with a volunteer from the Mennonite Central Committee and they ended up agreeing that sending these young men to prison or having probation would most likely not have the same effect on them as meeting their victims, listening to their
Umbreit, M. & Bradshaw, W. & Coates, R. (1994) Victims of severe violence meet the offender: restorative justice through dialogue. International Review of Victimology, 6, p321-344.
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.
The YCJA teaches youth that their actions were unacceptable but there will still be consequences without giving them heavy jail time. One way that the government does this is through “conferencing”. Conferencing allows youth to participate in a program with the victim and the victim’s family members to learn about the consequences of their behavior and to develop ways to make amends. Typically, a conference would bring together in an informal setting the offender, his or her family, the victim, and the victim’s supporters. An open discussion about the offence and its impact would then begin with a resolution being determined at the end a simple apology might even be the end result. The idea of conferencing came from family group conferencing practiced in New Zealand and Australia as well as aboriginal circle sentencing. In 1997, the House of Commons Justice Committee suggested that the youth criminal justice system adopt conferencing as a sentencing option. Conferencing is highly beneficial to the offender because it gives them an opportunity to see first ...
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
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
A facilitator asks them to check in on how they are feeling emotionally, physically and spiritually. Some men cry as they express themselves to the group and others provide supportive head nods. This scenario seems to be a traditional male support group, until we learn that they are all inmates at San Quentin state prison.” (A Restorative Justice Agency, n.d). The above situation is a way that prisons are implementing restorative conferencing. Restorative group conferencing is an umbrella term that refers to family group conferencing, community conferencing, and large group
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...
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
From time to time, it may involve other members of the general public as well. Most of the time the meeting are given to have the chance to discuss what influence the crime had on the victim or the community and then cooperatively agree on how the offender can find a compensation. This may look in the form of an offender paying for property they may have stolen, doing a type of community service, or even pursuing a treatment for a primary problem that the victim might have. The goal in doing all of this is to one day have the wrongdoers be able to enter back into the society as a law-abiding citizen by inspiring the healing process which would include rehabilitation of a form such as possibly having to pay a compensation of the harm done. According to Shapland (2011) the core principles of justice are that people need to work to repair those who have been hurt and that those most openly affected and involved by the crime should be given the chance to participate completely and that the government needs to play a strong role in maintaining a fair public order, and that the society is to create and maintain an impartial peace. There are multiple programs that the justice system offers for these healing processes but here are a few of the most frequently used and have showed the most impact. Firstly the victim-offender resolution program which includes having a skilled mediator bring together the victim and the offender in a meeting so that they can discuss the wrongdoings, its outcome, and the next step procedure that may be required to help undo the wrongdoing. Next there is a program called the family group conferencing program which is very similar to the victim-offender resolution, but has a wider circle of participants than VOM, adding people connected to the primary parties, such as family, friends, and
The concept of restorative justice is not clearly defined; often referred to as a ‘movement,’ and presented as an option to the mainstream of criminal justice. Rather than harsh punishment to the offender, restorative justice will attempt to establish a connection between the victim and the offenders (Sharpe, 1998). RJ attempts to repair the harm the offender caused the victim(s). This concept initiated in the 1970s, to allow dialog between the victim and offender. In the 1990s, the program expanded to include the community, families and friends (Sharpe, 1998).