Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Theories Of Restorative Justice
Concept and purpose of restorative justice
Theories Of Restorative Justice
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Theories Of Restorative Justice
VICTIM OFFENDER MEDIATION AND THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM OF GHANA
Abstract
This paper evaluates Victim-Offender Mediation as a tool of Restorative Justice and explores how it could be developed and practiced in the Juvenile Justice System. Under Ghanaian Criminal jurisprudence, crime is deemed to be an act against the State although the offending act adversely affects the victim and the community or society at large. Victim-Offender Mediation offers the victim and the offender an opportunity to resolve their dispute between them with the aid of an impartial third party. In Victim-Offender Mediation, the parties are not restricted to the formal legal requirements of criminal jurisprudence, but rely on the parties to arrive at an appropriate
…show more content…
Among these are many Native American tribes within the United States, the Aboriginal tribes of Canada, the Maori in New Zealand, Native Hawaiians, African tribal councils, the Afghani practice of jirga, the Middle Eastern practice of Sulha, many of the ancient Celtic practices found in the Brehon laws and ancient Greek and Roman civilisations. The values of Restorative Justice are also entrenched in the ancient principles of Judeo-Christian culture that underscore crime as being a violation against people and families rather than "the state." Many provisions of the Old and New Testaments of the bible set the responsibility of offenders to personally repair the harm that has created a breach in the "Shalom …show more content…
In a typical mediation setting, the parties with the assistance of a neutral third party work toward arriving at a mutual resolution of the dispute based on the assumption that each party contributed to the conflict. Victim- Offender Mediation is a distinct form of mediation; it begins with an innocent victim and his offender, who already admits to committing the offence. In such a situation the goal of determining retribution is not at issue, the main objective is to get the parties to communicate with each other. The parties are not very much interested in negotiating a settlement but more concerned with confronting and communicating with each other.
Victim-Offender Mediation differs from Mediation in that the mediator applies a more humanistic model of mediation, which concentrates on establishing dialogue between the victim and offender, with emphasis on victim healing, offender accountability and restoration of losses as against settlement driven
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.
Victim-offender mediation emanated from Canada, in Ontario precisely where in the early 1970s, two young offenders who committed vandalism were asked to meet the victims their crime had affected . Following the meetings, the judge decided that the two offenders should pay restitution to those victims. The justification for victim-offender mediation was therefore initially that it would benefit both the victim and the offender, it is based on the value of reconciliation that is lacking in the traditional system and it was brought by the way of probation. Mediation can be seen as a progress from the...
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
Mediation is typically ordered in types of cases that there is significant emotional ties; creating a potential for hostility, loss of relationships or personal feelings getting in the way of reaching an agreement. Arbitration is the best option for cases where the parties simply cannot come to an agreement and decide to have someone else decide the outcome of the case for them, without the expense and formality of a trial. Arbitration is also useful in highly complex cases where it is necessary to have a highly trained professional come to the
There is some theoretical ambiguity in the meaning of Restorative Justice in spite of the many definitions and studies done on the subject. Restorative Justice has been defined as “an ethos with practical goals, among which to restore harm by including affected parties in a (direct or indirect) encounter and a process of understanding through voluntary and honest dialogue.” It is primarily concerned with the reinstatement of victims to life before the crime, restoration of the Offender to a well behaved and lawful life, restoration of the injury caused to the community and the creation of a better society in the present and the future.
Retzinger and Scheff observed that two things happen in a restorative justice practices (ex. Victim offender mediation); material and symbolic reparation. Material reparation occurs between the offender and victim in a form of settlement, this could be compensation or community service. However, symbolic reparation is less visible and usually takes the form of “gestures and expressions of courtesy, respect, remorse, and forgiveness” (Barton, 2000). These conferences usually require the offender’s apology and the victim’s forgiveness, the key to reconciliation, victim satisfaction and decreased recidivism. The restoration process help to repair and restore a bond between the victim and
Umbreit, M., Coates, R. and Roberts, A. (1997) Cross-national impact of Restorative Justice through mediation and dialogue ICCA Journal on Community Corrections 8:2 pages 46–50.
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.
Wood evaluated the roles of victims in restorative justice. He analyzed a program created in 1999 called the Victim Offender Mediation (VOM). This program was designed as an interview with the victims, the criminal, and a mediator. These face to face interviews were intended to create an agreement for the punishment. It gives victims a role in decision making.
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...
In order to do so, I will review how restorative justice works, and what defines it in a society. Personally, I find restorative justice acts in a more integrated fashion to actually allowing offenders to actually seek forgiveness and make amends for any wrongdoings. As such, this essay will also highlight how restorative justice is a boon to the modern justice system. One of the benefits restorative justice offers that the traditional retributive justice system does not is the emotional bonds and relationships created between offenders and those that they have offended. The values of restorative justice and their purpose will also be examined, alongside how restorative justice matches with the current justice system.
Ott, Marvin C. "Mediation as a Method of Conflict Resolution: Two Cases." International Organization 26.04 (1972): 595-618. JSTOR. Web. 3 Dec. 2013.
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.
Although functions of mediators and arbitrators have several characteristics in common, there are significant instrumental differences that make them distinct from one another. Firstly, whereas the arbitration process is similar to litigation in its adversarial nature, in which parties have the objective to win the dispute, the fundamental goal of mediation is to bring the disputants to settlement through compromise and cooperation without finding a guilty party. In arbitration, parties compete against each other in “win-lose” situation. During mediation, parties work on mutually acceptable conditions with the assistance of a facilitator. In this process, mediators do not have power to make decisions, they work to reconcile the competing needs and interests of involved parties. The mediator’s tasks are to assist disputants to identify, understand, and articulate their needs and interests to each other (Christopher W. Moore,
Mediation is a way to solve a dispute without having to resort to court procedure which sometimes could turned out to be rigid, formal and time consuming especially when it needed a lot of paperwork and the possibility of adjournment which could consume years. Besides that, unlike in court, mediator as a third impartial party did not acted as a judge who decides on the resolution however, the mediator will help the parties to explore the needs and issue which before preventing them from achieving a mutual resolution and settlement. The mediation process gave the authority towards the parties to agree with each other and open up the chance for the parties to meet with a resolution at the end of the mediation session.