* * * I feel that it would be impossible to ensure that there were the safeguards in place to protect society from your possible actions.” (victim parent, 2002). As empathetic starts, citizens will side with the victims of the defendant’s crimes because they belief the defendant’s crimes were out of evil and cruel torture and deserves all the punishment he can get and not get a break and let back to society where he has the ability to commit potential
Dangerous exits: Escaping abusive relationships in rural America Introduction “A key objective of this book is to give voice to a marginalized group of women who, for the most part, have suffered in silence” (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 2002). The book Dangerous Exits: Escaping abusive relationships in rural America, gives insight to the hushed topic of intimate partner violence and specifically women experiencing violence from attempting to leave their partner. Women are constantly advised to end relationships that turn violent, but this act could potentially put them at greater risk for further victimization. The authors take on a feminist approach to try and decipher this phenomenon of “a war against women”.
110). According to the author, the aim of restorative justice is to heal communities from an incident where people were harmed and, ideally, help prevent the same thing from happening again. I believe that, there is going to be a higher possibility of crime reduction in schools and in different neighborhood if victims and offenders mediate a restitution agreement to the satisfaction of each other. In conjunction to this, if the government can be more committed in supporting these approaches, I believe that there will be a massive drop in crime
Changes have to be made for the future, police that is handling cases such as intimate violence should have a prompt response. The restraining order wouldn’t do any good if it isn’t enforced, the perpetrator should be return to police custody to guarantee the safety of the victim. Compensation can be used as a tool to discourage offenders from committing acts. Families and victims should be compensated for the grief that they were put through and the losses they may have had (Fattah & Peters,
A “truth and reconciliation model involves providing a public forum for survivors/victims to testify to the events of their victimization and for offenders to admit previous wrongdoing, take responsibility, and ask forgiveness”(Colvin & Hill, 2020). This process provides the survivors/victims to be heard and share their traumatic experiences and to allow the offenders to take responsibility for their actions and correct the wrong they did. Both sides contribute to healing and growing. Survivors/victims are able to heal through confronting their offender and understanding why their offender behaved the way they did while the offender is able to learn and grow from their mistakes. They do recognize that this process is only in the beginning of what they hope will turn into a system that will be implemented in all states and countries.
This type of community-based option has proven to be quite effective in easing the reintegration process, but there are additional programs that offer an even more personal and interactive approach. Circles of Support and Accountability is a perfect example; COSA works with people who have committed crimes, specifically sex offenders, to reintegrate them into communities where they feel unwelcome and unwanted. The core members of the program learn how to, “carry out basic aspects of community life such as looking for work or accommodation and adjusting to life outside of prison. In addition, the volunteers hold the [offenders] to account for their own reintegration” (Clarke et al, p. 3). This is one of the main reasons the program has proven
Abstract The purpose of this research paper is to choose which of these models of justice: retributive, utilitarian, restorative or parallel, is appropriate for the Jonathan Nathaniel Ramsey case. We need justice to be delivered efficiently, effectively in order to make sure the offenders are held accountable and the victims receive assistance. Each crime that is committed needs to be addressed properly. When the crimes are not then that leads to the unrest in the community and to the victims.
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
Victim witness programs are used by the government in order to provide support and assistance to those who fall victim to a crime. According to Victim Witness Program, the primary goals of such programs, include but are not limited to, encouraging victims to participate in any parole and supervised release processes of their offender, notify and facilitate victims in participation of any hearing or release dates in regards to their offender, provide options for supportive services, and advocate for crime victims (2015, para.1). The organization under which the victim-witness program is located is under a system, which has many internal constituencies, thus creating competing and conflicting purposes. The goals of the victim-witness program are quite simple and seek out to give the victim the right to be represented during the processing of the offender, however, given the multiple roles the court, for example, must serve, the goals of the victim-witness program can be both complex and conflicting.
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.
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).
There are three components that make up the criminal justice system – the police, courts, and correctional facilities – they all work together in order to protect individuals and their rights as a citizen of society to live without the fear of becoming the victim of a crime. Crime, simply put is when a person violates criminal law; the criminal justice system is society’s way of implementing social control. When all three components of the criminal justice work together, it functions almost perfectly. For a person to enter the criminal justice system, the process must begin with the law enforcement.
4 Criticism and Challenges 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
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.