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.
Preventive detention refers to the use of executive power to detain as a means of preventing future crimes. Detention in these circumstances is labeled ‘preventive’ or ‘precautionary’ as the person is detained on the grounds that they are predicted to commit future criminal conduct contrary to national interest. In the juvenile justice system, preventive detention is the term given to the detention of juveniles who are in custody because they are alleged to have committed a criminal offense and are perceived to be dangerous. The District of Columbia preventive detention statutes makes clear that the juvenile is held to “assure the safety of the community” or to prevent obstruction of justice. The primary reason for keeping the person in custody is his status as dangerous.
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.
The YCJA, Youth Criminal Justice Act is a federal law was proposed in 2002 and came into effect on April 1 in 2003. The main purpose of this act is to separate youth offenders aging from 12 to 17 from the adults and immaculately protect the right of youth offenders to the maximum and provide rehabilitation and reintegration for them, because the rights of youth offender outweigh the safety of the public. In addition, a particularly successful policy is the rehabilitation and reintegration of youth offenders, this policy is clearly illustrated by the Medicine Hat case. An essential policy of the YCJA is the rehabilitation and the reintegration of youth offenders, this policy provides assistance for youth offenders to realize the crucial mistake they’ve made in the
This Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act (SVGA) 2006 was passed to help avoid harm, or risk of harm, by preventing people who are deemed unsuitable to work with children and vulnerable adults from gaining access to them through their work. The Independent Safeguarding Authority was established because of this Act. On 1 December 2012 the Criminal Records Bureau and Independent Safeguarding Authority merged to become the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). Organisations with responsibility for providing services or personnel to vulnerable groups have a legal obligation to refer relevant information to the service. The Protection of Freedoms Bill (Chapter 1 of Part 5) amends the SGVA 2006, retaining the national barring function whilst abolishing registration and monitoring requirements.
First, determinate sentencing is a set term of incarceration and sentencing could potentially be reduced by good time. Offenders also have an opportunity to get time reduced off their conviction by participating in educational programs and community services. Second, indeterminate sentencing is enforced through releasing an incarcerated offender by a parole board that can be revoked for violating those conditions. In indeterminate sentencing, punishments are generally fit the criminal rather than the crime they are committed are convicted of. Third, the mandatory sentences are those that are required by law under certain circumstances such as conviction of a specified crime or of a series of offenses.
THE JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT, 2000 THE JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT, 2000 The Children Act, 1960 had provided protection against exploitation of child employees, making the offence punishable with fine . The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, which repealed the Children Act, made the penal provision more stringent by providing for imposition of fine and imprisonment . Apparently, the provision was not enforced either in the Children Act or the Juvenile Justice Act which took its place . The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 which replaced the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 retained the provision but has diluted it by limiting it to cases of ‘hazardous employment’. Procuring of a juvenile or a child for the purposes of hazardous employment, keeping the child in bondage and withholding and / or using the earnings shall be punishable under the Act .
The existing efforts of criminal justice reform from international, regional and national level should include pretrial rights of accused person in their framework and address how accused person can access legal aid in pretrial stages. International and regional human rights instruments should bring law enforcer especial Police, investigators and judiciary in addressing access to legal aid in pretrial stages. Law enforcers are very important in making access to legal aid to accused person at earliest stages of criminal process possible because it is in the hands of these institutions pretrial rights of the accused persons are violated. The information gathered during pretrial stage shapes and influences the entire proceeding and the results of the case. 4.2.2 Specific Recommendation for
Cohen and Marcus (1979) advanced the routine activities approach motivated by Hawley’s (1950) work on human ecology and that of Shaw and McKay (1950) on juvenile delinquency. According to William and McShane (1994: 250), the routine activities approach is somewhat of a recent approach, utilizing two central concepts, freedom of choice and action based on routine behaviours to explain and predict criminal victimisation. 2.1.1 Exposition of the routine activities approach In its early development, the routine activities approach mainly focused on property crimes. As a result many scholars believed that it could not be used in explaining personal or violent crimes, as it seemed to focus on a static state of affairs as far as the victim was concerned (Mustaine and Tewksbury, 2000: 340). This misconception and understanding of the routine activities approach has changed and it is now believed to be able to be applied in understanding offenders and criminal context, instead of merely a means to explain or predict the risk of criminal victimisation (Felson, 1997: 209).
With the establishment of international criminal courts and tribunals, but also with the setting up of Truth and Reconciliation Commissions, children have started to participate in the proceedings mainly as witnesses. The testimony of children might be of vital importance for the effectiveness of the prosecutions and important for the conviction of those who carried out those crimes against children. This may in particular be the case when the child victim is the only witness (Economic and Social Council [ECOSOC] Resolution 2005/20; Parmar and al, 2010: IX). The Special Representative of the Secretary-General for children and armed conflict also states that challenges for the judicial systems might have emerged with the child witness (Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General [OSRS-G] for Children and Armed Conflict Working Paper N°3, 2011: 14). The evidence given by children might contain a double-faced challenge: the protection of the child witness during the proceeding and the insurance of trustworthy and reliable evidence given by those young witnesses (Sanin and Stirnemann, 2006: