Introduction: The foundation of victim’s rights and services is built on the ideas of restorative justice. “Injustices involving large-scale wrong doing historically lead to cycles of further violence and hatred” (Kaphake, 2004). During the end of the twentieth century, a growing number of organizational/ non-profits began to adopt a way that seeks to restore the rights and lives of the victim. Restorative justice theory is most often associated with courts and the criminal justice system. Rather than focusing on retribution, restorative justice seeks to reconcile and rebuild the damage to victims, wrongdoers, and communities caused by the criminal behavior (Kaphake, 2004).
Restorative justice often focuses on how the community can be made to feel comfortable accepting the offender back into society and works to achieve meaningful reintegration; this is a sharp contrast from retributive justice, which can make it extremely ostracizing for an ex-offender to reenter society. The model also encourages—or even mandates—offenders to repay the community for the crime committed, thus forging a path for reentry (Karmen, 2015). The increased communication channels between victim and perpetrator in a restorative justice setting allow for the parties to discuss the issues that may have led to the crime’s occurrence (Karmen, 2015). Additionally, the victim and perpetrator may also ask one another questions, a process which may lead to a better personal understanding and, eventually,
The Restorative justice processes provide an opportunity for forgiveness and reconciliation to materialize, if the victims are willing to, and generally, it is not surprising for this to occur with greater or lesser intensity. Forgiveness itself includes individual transformation of the victims that can free the pain of the past thereby healing the wounds caused by the crime. The decision to forgive has multifaceted explanations. Often, the victims themselves find it difficult to identify clearly the reason or reasons that led them to forgive and also it is common that there is more than one cause. Restorative justice seeks to uphold the humanization of the consequences of crime, encouraging the postulation of accountability on the part of
In the contemporary criminal justice process, the community is represented by the state and has no involvement. The victim has no say about what will happen to the offender and may have many lingering questions on why this happened to them and may never be able to discover the answers to these questions. The offender may take accountability for his or her actions. If the offender insists he or she did not commit the crime there is the cost of a trial, the cost of possible prison or other punishment methods, and any other costs that may come up. There is a greater chance of the offender committing more crimes
However, restorative justice uniquely contains several elements that differentiate it from the traditional system, specifically, the practice of this system focuses the offender, the offense, and the victim (Wenzel, Michael, et al. 378). The system thus is concerned with the ability to potentially suppress the offender's past behavior and as such rehabilitate them through changing their future behavioral characteristics. It can then, be argued that restorative justice focuses on the potential outcomes in reference to
Chapter 4 Restorative justice processes and programs and the Criminal justice system 1 Introduction South Africa as in most countries in the world is still applying a retributive justice system. The accusatorial system is still dominating our courts whereby the accused person is in the Centre of interrogation and there is no or little concern regarding the victim of crime. In response to the challenges faced by the criminal justice system and simultaneously transforming the administration of justice, the Justice Crime Prevention and Security Cluster (JCPS) has adopted the Restorative Justice approach for several reasons including the fact that Restorative Justice is largely informed by indigenous and
Rape victims may come to terms with what happened to them and go on with their life, as they should, but they will flinch at an unknown touch, they will feel frightened as they walk alone, and they will have an extremely tough time trusting anyone again. Murder victims families will mourn that family member forever and wonder what they could have done to keep them safe. All these victims of street crime will forever hold what happened to them. Victims of white-collar crime will only have to earn that money back, they will not have to go to therapy or support groups. To sum up what has been said, street crime takes a more physiological toll on people than white-collar crime
This approach posits that punishment is to right the wrong done in the criminal offence. While the offenders’ suffering or loss which in most cases imprisonment is what constitutes the ‘pay back’ to society and the victims (Batley 2005; 25). In contrast, restorative justice gives a very profound and different meaning to the term ‘paying back’ for the crime. In restorative justice the offender pays back for the crime committed by taking responsibility and fully acknowledging their actions, that includes repairing the harm and restore the relationship while allowing the victim to know what happened. By so doing, victims and the