1. There is no agreed upon definition of restorative justice.
a. Within the criminal justice community, there has been no consensus on exactly how restorative justice should be defined. As a result, there is also some confusion within the community on whether or not restorative justice should be viewed as an outcome or a process (Daly, 2015)
b. Because there is no agreement on the definition, there are multiple definitions. This can also result/create theoretical and policy confusion.
2. Restorative Justice deals more so with the penalty than fact-finding phase of the criminal process.
a. Most of the practices in restorative justice, such as community conferences and victim-offender mediation, seem to deal or are concerned with what a justice
…show more content…
The Re-Integrative Shaming Experiments, or RISE, collected ratings from victims on the sincerity of the apology from offenders. 41% of cases viewed the offenders apologies as “sincere,” 36% of victims viewed the offenders’ apology as “somewhat sincere.” They concluded that the “ideal of reconciliation and repair was achieved in less than half of all cases.” About 27% of victims felt that the main reason for the offender apologizing was because of true remorse (Daly, 2015).
4. Victims’ feeling of recovery is dependent on the degree of distress they experienced from the crime.
a. Victims of lighter crimes were more readily to cooperate in the process versus those of high distress victims. After conferences or mediations, the high distress victims were far more likely to remain angry and fearful of the offenders (Daly, 2015).
b. Victims from graver crimes may not view the restorative justice system as beneficial. While 78% of the low distress crimes seemed to have recovered a year later after the offense, 71% of high distress victims had not recovered (Daly, 2002).
c. Compared to the recovered victims, non/partly recovered victims viewed the offenders more negatively. They were less satisfied with how their case was handled and more likely to wished their case had gone to court. The restorative justice process may not be very beneficial to those victims who had been strongly affected by the crime.
5. RJ practices can increase re-victimization fears in
Money is everything in today’s world, more money means more power , so corporations for their major contributions to the economy by giving jobs and paying taxes are favoured by judges whilst an individual is nothing to compare, and yet again corporation can afford to hire better lawyers than what an individual could, rarely does it happen that you hear on the news about an individual who beat a corporation in a court debate, also because of the toll and srees that an individual would have to go through in order to beat a corporation in court. Natalie DeFreitas has made numerous points as to why restorative justice as better than/more effective than the current law system here in Canada. The speaker talked about the 70% recurrence of crimes whereas only 15% repeat crimes after restorative justice, Texas’ crime rates and jail enrollment have dropped, the cost of jail enrollment is 115,000 CAD$ for one year per person, whereas restorative justice only costs about 10,000 CAD$ for the same person throughout the same term and how much more effective can restorative justice be with a provided life example of John’s case, the bottom line is that restorative justice reduces crimes, improves the lives of criminals by healing and makes communities a safer
Some benefits reduce crime victims’ post-traumatic stress systems and it reduces crime victims’ desire for violent rage against their offenders. It also reduces repeat offending for some offenders although not all. Circle Justice has many benefits but It also has lots of weaknesses such as how its inability to prevent potential for uneven or discriminating outcomes for sentencing and restitution, it encourages perpetrators of crimes to restore the harm they created. In US Criminal
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.
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.
This process will ensure that each offender receives the proper punishment and that the community is satisfied with the decision. The offender-based models, retributive and utilitarian, does not help the victim recover. Restorative justice is designed
The impacts and benefits youth restorative justice has on victims are that it allows for the victims to talk to the youth offender and tell their story, ask questions of the offender, and understand the offence committed against them and the offender's story. This allows the victim to have a say about not only the crime but also the outcome and what the young person should do to make up for the harm. From this, the victim can begin to move on from the crime and regain their confidence and sense of safety while they are out and in the community. Not only does restorative justice conferencing impact the victims, but the victims also have an impact on the youth offenders.
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:
Restorative Justice processes are likely to reduce criminals from repeating offenses, as numerous recidivism studies have demonstrated. Thus, it would be more than justified to employ restorative processes a response to crimes under
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).
I believe that restorative justice could be a good idea for the United States if it is used correctly. I think that if restorative justice is used correctly, it could really benefit everyone involved: the victim, offender, family, and the community. Some of the restorative justice ways can also help victims move past what has happened to them and live a more normal life again. I think restorative justice would also benefit the United States because it can help the offender have a better life after. I think that restorative justice needs to be used correctly because if it is not done right it could actually cause more harm.
The Restorative Justice System focuses on problem solving, liabilities, and obligations. It focuses on the future instead of the past. It would help the boys take responsibility for their actions and be able to restore the crime they committed in the community. The four boys are also first time offenders, which also plays a huge factor because you can see they never intended for what they did to turn out so bad in the end. For the Restorative Justice System you have to be first time offenders so that they are able to help you.
In fact, restorative justice has been called a process, not a program. It works best with a paradigm shift in the way people think about justice and punishment,
Discussion 1_ Going Straight Explanation of the Four “H’s” as they Relate the Society Bartollas & Miller (2014), identify four key components that are critical to facilitating a juveniles’ ability to turn their lives around for the better. These four essential components included habilitation, healing, hope, and honor. Habilitation involves teaching juveniles to respect the system and abide by its principles and conventions. It helps juveniles appreciate the importance of living productively within the community, and assist the juvenile become a better citizen in order to be released into the community.
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.