Juvenile Restorative Justice

Exposing young inexperienced offenders to the harsh reality of adult jail leave juveniles open to being negatively influenced by older inmates. The juvenile justice system is the right place to handle at risk teens and younger juveniles. Adult jails are for those who are able to vote. There is no state were a seven-year-old child can vote. The programs offered in a juvenile detention center are tailored to the needs of juveniles. A young adult needs to learn how to respect the law. Being incarcerated with adults can and will lead to possible extortion. When placing a child in that type of environment, more than likely they become that environment. It opens doors for them to become unresponsive to necessary treatment. This leads to a bigger problem. Keeping them with their peers gives them a better chance of being rehabilitated. Influence plays a major part in juvenile’s rehabilitation. Sending a teen to adult jail is not the answer. In adult jail they are at great risk. A child has no place in adult

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 juvenile court system is a fixture of the justice system with many moving parts. Each component and member of the court system are essential in carrying out their common goal. By helping operate a complex system built to rehabilitate juveniles, these people, and the programs they run, prevent juveniles from reoffending, benefit them, and help them towards the path of becoming a productive member of society.

The Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention and Protection Act (JJDPA) was established in 1974 and was the first federal law that dealt comprehensively with juvenile delinquency to improve the juvenile justice system and support state and local efforts at delinquency prevention. This paper will assess the JJDPA and summarize its purpose and implementation and enforcement. Next, there will be a discussion of the historical context of the policy; followed by a focus of the latent consequences. Finally there will be a vignette as to how this Act has affected a person or family as well as personal reflection toward the policy.

The literature that has been reviewed directly incorporates the principles set out in Goldson and Muncie “Youth Justice with Integrity”. The analysis of the current justice model attempts to maximize diversion by providing more offences available for extrajudicial measures and the use of measures for re-offenders. Additionally, it is argued that the de-politicization of the youth justice model will help the integrity by providing effective programs and services that will address the social needs of specific individuals within the available resources in the community. The programs and services that are being used are effective, but there are areas of improvement for greater prevention strategies which will hold a person more accountable for

Imagine being a child imprisoned for committing a crime for which you did not understand the consequences. Alone and afraid, with only hardened criminals and psychopaths as adult role models, you live in fear. Through a vicious combination of physical, sexual, emotional, and mental abuse, there is no option but to turn back to crime as an adult, and continue the cycle. This is a daily reality for thousands of American juveniles. Yet, we continue to call it the juvenile justice system. Where is the justice in a system that allows juveniles to be made into victims of heinous crimes while not providing these children with necessary rehabilitation?

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.

Within the judicial and criminal justice systems, restorative justice is seen as a forward moving process in regards to the way in which the sentencing of offenders is handled (Britto & Reimund, 2013). Restorative justice works to focus on the needs of both the victim and the offender but incorporates the community as well as those who support both the victim and offender (Britto & Reimund, 2013). The approach of restorative justice in not simply a means by which society responds to and reduces crime but instead, provides an equivalently valuable social response to crime (Dancig-Rosenberg and Galt, 2013). Furthermore, the restorative approach places emphasis on the personal and relational harms which were caused by the crime while creating space for dialogue concerning the actual damage, whether directly or

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,

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.

There are indication that most criminals have a juvenile records in the US, indicating that crime manifests from a tender age. Therefore, to reverse the incidence of crime, it follows that the best strategy is to reduce the criminal orientation in the juvenile offenders as opposed to hardening them and preparing them for criminal careers. The case of the Crossroads Juvenile Center demonstrates the willingness of the juvenile justice systems to make these changes on the children.

The extent that I see justice practices meeting the philosophical goals of the juvenile justice system has moved toward a retributive justice philosophy that gives punishment priority. The juvenile justice systems new approach is more of a balanced approach with a philosophical framework. The balanced and restorative approach provides a significant change in toles and image of the juvenile justice system from a revolving door to a resource. The resource makes juvenile offenders accountable and enhances the quality of life within communities by community restoration using preventive services to help improve the safety of the community.

For generations, the argument whether juveniles should be waived to adult courts or not has been a prevalent one in our society. Some agree that waiving the juveniles to adult courts will reduce their recidivism rate, due to the harsh sentences and a lifelong record next to their name. However, in light of the argument these individuals fail to consider that the level of maturity of the juvenile is not the same as an adult. The cognitive development of the juvenile is still in process when they are underage, causing them to act impulsively without thinking about the consequences of their actions. In this paper, I will provide information as to why waiving juveniles to adult courts only causes their recidivism rate to increase rather

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.