justice model, the crime control model, and the balanced and restorative justice model. The Parens
There are many debates on how to punish offenders and how to stop them re-offending. Retribution Theorists believe in the old fashion way of punishment, an ‘eye for an eye’ and that the suffering of the victim should determine the level of punishment, for example if a victim is brutally murdered, the offender should pay the price and suffer from a range of punishments themselves. Therefore the punishments differ to the seriousness to the crime, from theft to murder, minor to serious punishments occur. Whereas a reductivist approach believes that we punish offenders to help them change for the better which would be to rehabilitate them for example. (Cavadino 2013) states that the rehabilitation programs might “facilitate change” rather than
Retributive Justice is flawed in many ways, and while the intent may be well rounded, the process of implementing such a system is far stretched and not ideal. A better system of criminal justice is much more restitution theory focused. The idea of punishment in the retributive view is to cause more harm to someone than serve justice to the victim. Our criminal justice system has a need to serve justice, not punish and provide entertainment. Punishment is simply not a logical answer to everything our legal systems face, and restitution can be a much easier process.
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
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.
There are several different programs focused on offenders. These programs range from religious, educational, medical and job training related. The main goal in each program is to reduce the chances of them returning back to their old habit that originally placed them in jail or in other words reduce recidivism. Recidivism is a very important element in the criminal justice system, because reducing or increasing the number of re-offenses in the community could be beneficial or make the community flood with criminals and their behavior. Without a focus on recidivism, officers will be arresting the same offenders repeatedly and the individual will not be getting the help they need, which could be the difference of them being a productive member of society or not. With
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
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.
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
Restorative justice is a sentencing model that builds on restitution and community participation in an attempt to make a victim “whole again” (Schmalleger, 2010). Restorative justice can be explained as a form of punishment, which everyone involved or affected by a crime gets a feeling of peace after all if finalized. Both the victim and the offender have to agree to participate in restorative justice. There are needs that have to be met through restorative justice, which are the victim must be
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. It gives them a chance of expressing the impact of the crime, and the harms and losses the offender has caused them. Finally, it can help victims by asking questions and receiving information that will help them find closure and
2. Restorative justice also known as balanced and restorative justice is “a sentencing model that builds on restitution and community participation in an attempt to make the victim whole again (Schmalleger 269).” Restorative justice focuses on “crime as harm and justice as repairing the harm”. This type of justice places crime control primarily in the hands of the community.
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.
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.