The principle in law that one is innocent until proven guilty has created much discourse. There are those who feel that the moment that one is arrested, there is reasonable belief that they committed the crime. However, there are those who feel that just as the principle states, one is, and should be taken as a victim and the outcome could be either way: guilty or not guilty. In fact, this argument is supported by the many cases of malicious prosecutions and mistaken identities.
This is the reason why I chose to critically discuss the essay topic of whether is restorative justice victim-oriented. As Johnstone noted ‘when a crime is committed, our principal question should not be: what should be done with the offender? Rather, it should be: what should be done for the victim? Moreover, the starting point, in answering this question, is what the victim actually wants to happen‘.
Here, the primary focus is on the offender. The two components that social control agencies do is punish and treat the convicted felons. Ultimately, these agencies were created to help, but the effect of creating this involvement is rather harmful. Patrons of this perspective believe that justice agencies should lessen their engagement with the criminal. Noninterventionists also disapprove of the labels that agencies and society gives the offender.
The shortcoming of this approach is that it is not appropriate for more serious crimes such as rape and murder, because in cases like those, most of the time there is nothing that offenders can do to restore the loss or make things right The benefit of this approach is that all parties who are involved get the chance to face each other. The victims get an opportunity to be directly involved in the process and get a chance to respond to the crime committed against them. The offender becomes aware of how their offense has impacted the victim, and this in turn allows the offender to take responsibility and to apologize or show remorse to their wrong doings. Through the process healing is promoted to all the parties involved, the offender might be required to pay for the harm caused.
Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. ”(336) This quote relates to present time because this theory supports why police officers today assault victims. For example in 1991 Rodney King was brutally beaten by officers.
The other we have Dorn and others fighting for justice. They want all to pay for their actions and believe many get away with to much so punishment is key to correction. The only similarity between these two reform arguments is that the child gets the consequence, whether they are sent away for help or locked up in prison with older more serious
Plea bargains are negotiations between the prosecutor and the criminal defendant. In this negotiation, the criminal defendant consents to pleading guilty. When the criminal defendant takes the guilty plea, he or she is able receive reductions in their charges or sentences. There are pros and cons of plea bargains, but these bargains can be doing more harm than good. Plea bargaining is a simple process but can have long term repercussions.
In this depiction of real incidents of racial profiling the police officer is smiling as if he has a “private joke.” He is the one in control that feels he is doing justice by arresting someone that he never bothers to check is innocent and this is a
The victim deserves similar level of protection and attention from the court like that of an accused i.e. a victim 's interests need to be balanced vis-à-vis that of accused. Victims of crime go through mental and physical trauma and suffer throughout their lives , as there place in the society changes. A victim is certainly entitled to reparation, restitution and safeguards of his rights and criminal justice would look hollow if justice is not done to the victim of the crime. In recent years, the Legislature and the judiciary have taken gradual steps to develop the necessary principles by which appropriate compensation could be paid to the victims of crimes. The gradual shift in the approach of the Supreme Court is a positive sign but other organs i.e. the government and the legislature have to make conscious efforts to consider the rights of the victims.
According to Valerie Wright, author of "Deterrence in Criminal Justice", society seems to agree with the old adage that there should be minimum mandatory sentences for crimes. This "stance" on crime is society 's deterrence for would-be criminals to know that if they do the crime, they will do some time (1). The question though that begs to be asked is: should prison sentences for nonviolent offenders be rehabilitative in nature? Should the "three strikes you are out rule" be applicable for those that commit nonviolent crimes?
Taking this first step in reconciliation allows for a face to face encounter where restorative dialogue can occur between the victim and the offender in a genuine interaction (Dancig-Rosenberg and Galt, 2013). Furthermore, this process requires that the offender take explicit responsibility for the actions committed while listening and responding to the victim affected by their crime so as to present their own approach for repairing the damage caused (Dancig-Rosenberg and Galt, 2013). This process promotes honest dialogue and an empowering experience for the victim as they feel that their needs are heard and feelings expressed (Dancig-Rosenberg and Galt, 2013). In all, restorative justice benefits the victim, the offender and the community as community ties are strengthened while the process of the restorative approach discourages the offender from committing further crimes through the use of an open-minded and rehabilitative process (Dancig-Rosenberg and Galt,
A common theme among restorative justice (RJ) practices, as a whole, is to hold offenders accountable and empower victims. The sentencing circle, also known as the peacemaking circle, is a community-based practice with the primary goal of determining a suitable punishment that meets the needs of all parties associated with the offense. There are, however, other RJ practices, specifically ones used in cases of intimate family or domestic violence, that are in contract to the sentencing circle. For example, victim-survivor panels are a common RJ practice for victims of domestic or sexual violence. Victims do not face their abuser but rather the attendees are individuals, typically men, responsible for committing similar offenses as those described
Correctional programs are used to make this adjustment do that once a criminal is released back into society, they will not choose the same means to reduce the outside strain caused by certain factors outside their control. I would argue that restorative justice is a facet of rehabilitation. Restorative Justice focuses on alleviating the harm that crime caused to society, the criminal, and the victim. The analogy given in class to explain restorative justice was also recapped in the book. Imagine Lady Justice, scales tilted on one side.
The Importance of Protection Orders: Do They Work? Intimate Partner Violence is where an abuser uses the power of control over his victim who are in an intimate relationship (Gosselin, 2014, p.188). Intervention strategies have been created to deter abuse. One major aid to intimate partner violence are the police officers whose duties are to enforce “domestic violence laws and provisions of a protection order” which include mandatory and proarrest polies along with warrant exceptions (Gosselin, 2014, p.268,277,281).
What is Restorative Justice? Restorative Justice brings those harmed by crime, and those responsible for the harm, into communication, enabling everyone affected by a particular incident - victim, offender, their family or friends, and the wider community in general - to play a part in repairing the harm and finding a positive way forward. For victims, their harm or loss can be acknowledged, their questions answered and some amends made if that is what they wish.