Though there are core principles and guidelines, the way each case is handled is heavily based on context. The main objectives that drive restorative justice practices in sexual violence cases are “reparation, retribution, and rehabilitation of the community” (Wolthuis et al., 2015). Restorative justice seeks to find a way that “maximizes healing for all parties and minimizes the chance of the process inadvertently causing harm” (Restorative justice standards for sexual offending cases, 2013). Particularly in sexual violence cases, the primary focus in a restorative justice case is to lower the potential chances of harm. The principles are set in place to allow the victim to have a chance to hold the offender accountable while having the opportunity to voice one's story.
The due process model is seen to focus on the suspect whereas the crime control model focuses on the society. This paper analyzes these two models and based on the rate of crime in the society, makes recommendations as to which is the best model in criminal justice. 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.
Your paper was clear and interesting to read, you provided a number of points and topics to include. It is safe to say that through the observation I had involving the prediction of sex offender recidivism, the offenders that undergo treatment are faced with pros and cons meaning that treatment is necessary when an offender is actively participating. On the other hand, the cons involve an offender that receives treatment but isn 't willing to change the behavior and mindset to re-offend. Moreover, you provided an imperative reasoning for the scenario choice, you provided clear motive, history and background, and professional observation.
While the retributive justice system primarily focuses on the community response to offending, thereby totally ignoring the legitimate needs of the victims, the restorative justice system works on the idea of victim empowerment. Having said that, we also have to take into account the recent paradigm shift, which has been a result of the various movements against the deficiencies in the current criminal justice system. The Courts are slowly making certain changes in the sentencing policies by paying heed to the wailings of the victims, one major instance being that of the scope for victim compensation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Supreme Court has taken a pro-active role and resorted to affirmative action to protect the rights of victims of sexual offences. Since restorative justice is an emerging concept in India, previous research on this area clearly points out that the main difference between restorative and retributive approaches is the former’s emphasis on reintegration, restitution and reparation.
He continues by arguing that risk factors and intervention plans are based on empirical research instead of theories and it avoids difficult theoretical questions about which risk factors have causal effects. The paradigm itself is useful due to it interlocking with and providing intellectual underpinning for contemporary policy preoccupations. It has been adopted in many countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and more and because of societies need to target individuals likely to cause trouble and commit crime there has been increasing interest in risk assessment in the 1990’s. Goddard(2014) agrees with the key advantages of the paradigm. Policy makers, researchers, and practitioners increasingly value a prevention orientated response to crime and disorder.
Restorative Justice past practices and activities that are popular within the Restorative justice movement are Prisoner rights and alternatives to prisons, which is a program to change prison condition and minimize incarceration sentencing, Conflict Resolution is a program that creates neighborhood justice centers available to the community. The Victim offender Reconciliation program (VORPs) is a meeting between the victim and the community, Victim-Offender Mediation (VOMS) is mediation between the victim and the offender, Victim Advocacy is the victim rights group which focused on the efforts for restitution for the crime. The family group conferences (FGCs) allow the victim and family and the offenders to meet. The Sentencing Circle includes
It allows the victim to feel empowered verse being afraid or feelings of hopelessness. Victims need to know they have the right to restitution and compensation as a financial means of recovering for lost of wages, hospital bills, counseling cost, and/or property damages. It is always the victims right as to whether they want to pursue civil actions against the offender.
Batley (2005) stated that restorative justice is about restoring, healing and re- integrating victims, offenders, as well as the society and also preventing further harm. In this assignment, I will be discussing approaches to restorative justice and illustrating their advantages and disadvantages to offending. I will also provide the applications of these five approaches of restorative justice which are retributive approach, utilitarian deterrence approach, rehabilitation approach, restitution approach and restorative approach in the given case study. I will then explain my preferred approach to justice through identifying a personal belief or value that underpins my choice. Retributive approach This approach might be the oldest theory;
A very important aspect of the criminal justice system is to ensure there is a way to rehabilitate offenders, not only incarcerate them. Rehabilitation in the criminal justice system means that there is an attempt by the system to restore a criminal back to a productive and useful member of society free of the life of crime. By rehabilitating an offender, the system is trying to alter their behavior and attitude in a positive way and to make them once again, law abiding citizens (Seiter, 2014). Rehabilitation can come in many forms, such as drug treatment, education, mental health treatment, develop better decision making skills, therapeutic counseling and even job training. An offender does need to be punished for breaking the law, but they need to accept responsibility for their crimes and eventually change their
Restorative justice can be defined as a flexible and just approach by which apt reparation is made, for the harm committed, irrespective of the life situations, through a proper communication in adequate perspectives, between the victim and the offender, thereby preventing recidivism and re-establishing peace and harmony to the ultimate benefit of the society. In this particular context, we focus on the criminal justice systems. Restorative justice views crimes not only as a violation of laws but also as harm to the society and community. The core objective of restorative justice system is the safe and satisfied involvement of the victims who agreed to be involved in the process. The goals behind the design of this system include making offenders
Informed policy needs to be created so the appropriate steps can be made to move from our current system of mass incarceration to a system that effectively rehabilitees offenders which results in lower crime rates. After all our criminal justice system was not established solely to incapacitate offenders, it should also aid in reducing recidivism. Rehabilitation, alternative sentencing, and mental health all used to be crucial components of the criminal justice system. Then our society saw a massive decrease in mental health facilities as well as a perceived increase in crime. Crime was perceived to have increased due to politicians and the federal government preying on society’s fear of crime to further their political campaigns and agendas.