Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The concept of restorative justice
Importance of restorative justice
Advantages of victim/offender mediation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The concept of restorative justice
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. The primary purpose is to investigate stakeholder’s involvement for victims. Additionally, to see what victims are recognized as a stakeholder. Another purpose was to show how the courts change the victim’s roles as stakeholders. This program was planned to provide a service to victims. Furthermore, Woods discusses how restorative justice changes literature in the late 1900’s. The study started in late 1999 and analyzed juvenile courts over five years. Victims, stakeholders, and criminals are the three of the main participants. However, court administrators, four court managers, several probation staff, the Restorative Community Service Coordinator, two mediation and victim staff members, and others participated as well.
Wood does not specify the gender or age of the participants. The study took place in the state of Washington and Vancouver, Canada. According to Woods, his evaluation consisted
…show more content…
The courtrooms did not allow the use of electronic recording devices; therefore, data was obtained through note taking. The first year VOM was used in 2000, 85 victim-offender mediations were conducted out of a total of 1,140 cases. The 85 VOMs were 48% of the 176 victim referrals. Each year victim referrals increased significantly. In 2000, Victim referrals started with 176 and ended with 1,149 referrals. On the other hand, the VOMs decreased considerably. The VOMs started with 85 and by 2005 ended with 28. In 2004, probation and felonies started integrating into the Victim Impact
Jenson, Jeffrey and Howard, Matthew. "Youth Crime, Public Policy, and Practice in the Juvenile Justice System: Recent Trends and Needed Reforms." Social Work 43 (1998): 324-32
Juvenile Justice Reforms in the United States. (n.d.). Retrieved September 20, 2011, from Juvenile Transfer to Criminal Courts: http://www.ojjdp.gov
Young, M. (1999) Restorative community justice in the United States: A new paradigm. International Review of Victimology, 6, p265-277.
Vito, Gennaro F., and Clifford E. Simonsen. Juvenile justice today. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2004. Print.
Henggeler, S. & Schoenwald, S. J. (2011). Evidence-based interventions for juvenile offenders and juvenile justice policies that support them. Social policy report, 25 (1), pp. 1--20.
Instead of focusing on crime prevention, restoration focuses on repairing the harm done to the victim and the community. Along with restoring property and personal injuries, restoration is meant to bring back some kind of security. Legislators and victims want to know that justice has been done. Van Ness and Strong (1997: 8-9) suggested three core principles for the nature of restorative justice. First, Justice requires the healing of victims, offenders, and communities injured by the crime. Also, they should be permitted to stay involved in the justice process in a timely manner. Lastly, the government should be responsible for preserving a just order and the community should be responsible for establishing peace. The victims family in a murder case can have a since of relief when the offender is sentenced to the death penalty. They can know that justice has been done and will have a sense of security knowing the offender cannot harm anyone else again. The family can now mourn over there loss more
I hope to use the information from my research so I can support my belief on juvenile justice. I a...
Numerous studies have been conducted with juvenile crimes and the outcomes from what happens after they have been put into criminal court.
Cox, S. M., Allen, J. M., Hanser, R. D., & Conrad, J. J. (2014). Juvenile Justice A Guide to Theory, Policy and Practice (8th ed.). Sage publications Inc.
The modern teen court concept began in the early 1970’s when a small number of local communities in America began to establish the first Global Youth Justice programs (Peterson, p. 2). In 1994 there were 78 youth court programs in existence. As of March, 2010, there are over 1,050 youth court programs in operation in 49 states and the District of Columbia. Teen courts serve as a “diversion” program used to divert first time offenders away from a lifetime of criminal activity. The primary function of most teen court programs is to determine a fair and restorative sentence or disposition for the youth respondent. Although the primary function of teen courts is to rehabilitate offenders, some may wonder if teen courts are actually beneficial to young offenders.
Voss, Brenda and Kelly Vannan. A Jury of Your Peers: Recidivism Among Teen Court Participants. Journal of Juvenile Justice. Vol 3. Issue 1. Fall 2013.
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
Additionally, intervention are an important component to dispositional sanctions imposed by the courts (Lipsey, Wilson, & Cothern, 2000). Amongst the many goals of interventions, one in particular, is to reduce the rate of recidivism and encourage desistance. The National Institute of Justice (2014) defines recidivism as, “a person's relapse into criminal behavior, often after the person receives sanctions or undergoes intervention for a previous crime.” Recidivism is measured during a three year period following an individual’s release, where the individual engages in criminal acts which lead to rearrest, reconviction, or return to incarceration with or without a new sentence (“Recidivism,” 2014). An important connection exists between recidivism and criminal desistance.