Criticism Of Restorative Justice

In “Juvenile Mediation Cuts Repeat Offenses”, associate Professor Donna Decker at the University of New Haven contends that if a juvenile faces the consequences of their actions, they are less likely to commit another crime. She stated that the juveniles did not realize that their actions could result in consequences thus making it much easier to commit crimes. In an effort to support this statement, Morris conducted a study on the juvenile offenders in Bridgeport. “She utilized the results from mediations conducted by the Dispute Settlement Center between 2005 and 2006” (Cuda, 2010). The program which started in the year 2005 allows juvenile offenders to get their case dropped, but they must face the consequences of their actions by engaging in conversation with the victim.

There are several old ways of solving crime according to many sources, but restorative justice is a type of rehabilitation process which focuses on repairing, and as the word suggest brings restoration. It rebuilds the lives of individuals who are involve in crime. While crime damages a person life, restorative justice repairs it (Office for Victims of Crime, 2000; Morris and Maxwell, 2001). There are three main stakeholders in a restorative justice process, these are the victims, the offender, and the community, therefore when crime is committed restorative justice sees it as an office against people and not against the state.

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,

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.

Traditionally, crime has been viewed as a violation against the state. Still too little attention is given to the fact that criminal acts are also violations of the victims and the communities. Punishing and correcting offenders’ criminal behaviors should not only be conducted using the concepts of retribution, incapacitation, and deterrence, it should also be designed to repair the damages done to the victims and the communities. Many benefits are associated with shifting to the restorative justice model, for the victim, the offender, and the community. Restorative justice benefits the victims by giving them a voice regarding the accountability of the offender.

I selected two cases this week to help debate the use of rehabilitation. Several case studies have shown that young homicide offenders tend to come from broken homes and violent families, have experienced parental alcoholism and child abuse, have low school achievement, and have run away from home or troubles in school. I believe cases that involve children or history of abuse may under proper screening and analysis be amenable by rehabilitation. Alex and Derek King and Lyle and Erik Menendez:

The theories of Restorative Justice and Utilitarianism seem to have much in common. Both aim to reach a virtuous response to crime, and therefore they are positive and forward looking. Utilitarians argue that punishing offenders crimes are likely to be reduced. Jeremy Bentham identified two objectives for punishment that share the same idea. Specific deterrence and general deterrence purpose are to increase the "price" for a criminal act in order to discourage potential offenders from choosing to commit crimes.

The movie "Sleepers" directed by Barry Levinston stared four boys Shakes, Tommy, Micheal and John. The boys stole a hot dog cart from a vendor, while the boys were running away with the cart it slipped away from their hands into the subway station, and it accidentally crushed the man at the bottom of the stairs severely injuring him. Now the four boys are facing three charges mischief causing danger to life, mischief under over $5000 and theft. The Canadian criminal code outlines mischief causing danger to life as an indictable offence with the max penalty of life imprisonment, mischief to property and theft over $5000 can either be a summary conviction or indictable offences with the max penalty of 10 years imprisonment (Criminal

B. Restorative Justice 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. Restorative Justice is not easily defined because it covers a wide range of practices introduced at different stages of the criminal process, including diversion from prosecution, actions analogous with court decisions and meetings between victims and offenders at any stage of the criminal process. One widely-accepted definition of restorative justice was put forward by Tony Marshall which was also accepted by the United Nations Working Party on Restorative Justice, defined restorative justice as; “a process whereby all parties with a stake in a particular offence come together to resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of an offence and its implications for the future.”

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.

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.

The messaging in Moonlight converges with academic and legal discourses of public protection, welfare, and diverges with responsibility and punishment. Although they intersect and disseminate in an endless and opposed course. Under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, concern for the welfare or best interests of children has been made marginal to concerns with holding young criminals more accountable like adults and controlling them in custody and in the community through measures based on risk management and the outcome of Chiron reveals a more punitive approach (Trepanier, 61). Interventions, therefore should prioritize the welfare needs of individual children which are better responded to outside the criminal justice system. The answer is the objective to be needs centered and non-criminalizing.

The Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Proponents of restorative justice contend that it is more likely than retributive justice to reduce the incidence of crime because of its central concern for the safety of victims. The studies have demonstrated that restorative justice can have a reductive effect in certain cases and can change the behaviour of offenders. On the whole, however, there is more evidence that restorative justice is effective in reducing either the frequency or severity of reoffending for juveniles than in the case of adult offenders. Conclusion and

Offenders who are fortunate enough to experience these programs have showed significantly lower rates of recidivism than those who do not receive any reintegrative support. One of the prime examples is Circles of Support and Accountability; by working directly with sex offenders in a safe environment, helping them share their voice, and equipping them with tools to succeed in society, these offenders, “had a significantly lower rate of any recidivism (11.4%) compared with controls [offenders who did not experience a circle process] (38.6%). They also… had a significantly lower rate of sexual recidivism (2.3%) compared with controls (13.7%)” (Clarke et al, p. 21). These programs are imperative in helping offenders build up confidence and self-esteem so that they can reintegrate properly and safely into their community.

JDAI involves families as whole when juveniles are going through the court process, and they also include them in any future plans for the juvenile. JDAI has even used parents who have had kids that were involved in the court system to work as mentors for other people going through the same process (Casey, 2015). In the program that I am involved with, we not only provide counseling for the juveniles, but for the whole family as well. One of JDAI’s methods is to get as many people involved in making the juvenile justice system better suited to help these young offenders. JDAI is not about letting these juveniles offender off the hook with no consequences.