Disadvantages Of Restorative Justice

There are many debates on how to punish offenders and how to stop them re-offending. Retribution Theorists believe in the old fashion way of punishment, an ‘eye for an eye’ and that the suffering of the victim should determine the level of punishment, for example if a victim is brutally murdered, the offender should pay the price and suffer from a range of punishments themselves. Therefore the punishments differ to the seriousness to the crime, from theft to murder, minor to serious punishments occur. Whereas a reductivist approach believes that we punish offenders to help them change for the better which would be to rehabilitate them for example. (Cavadino 2013) states that the rehabilitation programs might “facilitate change” rather than

Restorative Justice processes are likely to reduce criminals from repeating offenses, as numerous recidivism studies have demonstrated. Thus, it would be more than justified to employ restorative processes a response to crimes under

The current retributive justice system recognises victims only symbolically, thereby denying them real participation in decision making. In order to ensure maximum victim participation, the restorative justice approach comes as a contrast to the traditional criminal justice system. The process of recovery from crime needs to involve a process of coming to terms with the occurrence of crime and reducing self blame . These feelings of self-blame and the impact of crime tend to be more devastating and long lasting for cases of sexual offending. The restorative approach prefers the use of the term ‘survivor’ rather than the term ‘victim’ which is ingrained in passivity, suffering and self-blame. The effects of sexual violence upon the survivors and the society are invasive and far reaching; so much so that all conventional attempts to address the issue and seek justice for victims have not only failed but have also left victims without a sense of justice and often magnified the adverse impacts of initial

The attractiveness of this theory is primarily based on the ethical code that Hampton subscribes to, which is that pain-inflicted punishments should not be condoned when it comes to disciplining wrongdoers. Rather, constructive analysis done pertaining to why certain actions are morally wrong in society would be intellectually stimulating and productive for both the wrongdoers and the public, all while avoiding the infliction of physical pain. Compared to the retributivist argument, which circulates around the idea that the purpose of punishment is to make wrongdoers pay for their misdeeds, and that they should be treated the way that they have treated others, the MET is a more humane way to treat wrongdoers, and in the long run, would perhaps help them emerge from confinement as better citizens within society, rather than as potential repeat offenders. Therefore, the appeal of the MET stems from the positive implications of treating wrongdoers with respect and dignity, all while teaching them why their actions were wrong while simultaneously instilling positive and moral values in their psyche before allowing them to re-enter

The first point of criticism against victim participation in restorative justice processes arises from scepticism about an apology to the victim as a way of dealing with criminal matters. The perception sometimes exists as to it simply being a way to get away with the crime.106 Members of the public should thus be educated to understand that restorative justice is more than a mere saying sorry, but in the context of victim offender mediation or family group conferences it rather affords the victim the opportunity to confront the child offender with the real and human cost of his or her criminal actions. Another concern deals with the possible secondary victimisation of the victim in the case where the offender pretends

Today our justice system has a multitude of options when dealing with those who are convicted of offenses. However, many argue that retributive justice is the only real justice there is. This is mainly because its advantage is that it gives criminals the appropriate punishment that they deserve. The goals of this approach are clear and direct. In his book The Little Book of Restorative Justice, Zehr Howard (2002), illustrates that the central focus of retributive justice is offenders getting what they deserve (p. 30). This reflection paper will first address the advantages of using retributive justice approach in three court-cases. Second, it will discuss the disadvantages of using retributive justice approaches by analyzing the three court-cases listed above. Third, it will elaborate on ways that the system could have used restorative justice processes in the cases, as well as present potential outcomes that could have been reached if restoration justice was taken into consideration.

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.

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,

It is clear that we have not embraced the theory of rehabilitation because we still use prisons to “warehouse” offenders. The concern with “warehousing” is that the offender will more than likely end up back in prison. We have learned that recidivism is a major concern facing society today because offenders have little chance of employment, no funds or housing, and often time’s very little support from family or friends. I stand behind rehabilitation for offenders because I feel like it is the only way to truly stop crime. In

This Blue Bloods episode had a range of excitement from undercover operations to the ever popular “letter from prison” story line. It even had the all too familiar opinion from the rugged police officer which peaks with the idea it is impossible for rehabilitation to work on the worst case prisoners. The Sarah story line started out with a heartfelt and emotional request. Sarah asked Frank is he would walk her down the aisle at her wedding in the next few days, because of her family’s death when she was 6. Frank said yes, but sensed something else was wrong. Sarah revealed that the killer, Donald Berry, had written her a letter as part of a restorative justice program, in hopes that Sarah would agree to meet with him. Sarah did not want to

This type of justice system is designed very differently when compared with the retributive justice system. The restorative justice system endeavours to bring the victim and the offender together and allow them to speak with each other in the hopes to support the healing process. It will enable the victims to express themselves to the offender and lets the offender apologize and express their feelings to the victim. The restorative justice system often offers the victims of crime closure. The system encourages both parties to reveal themselves to each other and develop a solution for the future to satisfy both parties involved. A study done by Criminal justice inspection Northern Ireland found the rate of recidivism went down when young offenders were diverted into restorative justice furthermore study concludes that people were often quite pleased with the outcome of the restorative justice(Restorative Justice Council,

Retributive Justice is flawed in many ways, and while the intent may be well rounded, the process of implementing such a system is far stretched and not ideal. A better system of criminal justice is much more restitution theory focused. The idea of punishment in the retributive view is to cause more harm to someone than serve justice to the victim. Our criminal justice system has a need to serve justice, not punish and provide entertainment. Punishment is simply not a logical answer to everything our legal systems face, and restitution can be a much easier process.

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.

I believe that restorative justice could be a good idea for the United States if it is used correctly. I think that if restorative justice is used correctly, it could really benefit everyone involved: the victim, offender, family, and the community. Some of the restorative justice ways can also help victims move past what has happened to them and live a more normal life again. I think restorative justice would also benefit the United States because it can help the offender have a better life after.

In the developing world, incarceration goes beyond the idea of applying a just punishment upon the offender for committing a criminal action or following a destructive behavior that disturb the public interest and the stability of the community. Incarceration also holds the responsibility to prepare the offender to integrate with the community after he goes out. This rehabilitation should be done on healthy bases that assure the mental health of the offender.