Restorative Justice - Dissertation Example

?Restorative Justice Instruction: Task: Restorative Justice In every society, there is an urgent need to punish crime in order to maintain fairness and equality. This is mostly imperative, if the dispensation of justice is through a legal process. Similarly, there must be testifying witnesses to corroborate the evidence of conviction to make the case watertight and valid (Vance, 2007). Alternatively, it is fundamental to ensure both sides of the case present their accounts so that there is no inconvenience during the verdict. This means there must be a deep respect for both the plaintiff and defendant to encourage a sense of testimony without compromise. It is also important to consider the cost and efficiency of the selected legal system in different contexts. For instance, the individual should ascertain whether the process satisfies the victim and the offender. Alternatively, the person should also find out if the system reduces crime or recidivism in the community. In other words, are the set goals and objectives set for a legal framework met? And if there are attained within a given time frame, then what is the way forward? That is why there is restorative justice and its many processes. This mechanism is preferable because it encourages a lot of neutrality between the warring parties. It also sets high standards of communal justice when dispensed with fairness and equality (Seligram, 2000). The justice system also has varied options of handling cases unlike the natural courts where the law is the same. Another technicality is the acrimony of victims against offenders and vice versa that is not common in restorative justice. Instead, there are family group conferences, victim mediation processes and teen courts that achieve a level of neutrality without any compromise. Furthermore, the legal process is cheaper and requires legal expertise to maneuver than the normal system According to Vance (2007), restitution entails the laws of gains-based upturn and is in contrast with the law of compensation. The law of compensation entails the law of low-based revival and is the opposite of restitution. Vance argues that restitution is a legal response that has obligations in the payment of compensation to real world events. Therefore, the author attests that if there is a court order for restitution, it means the surrenders his gains to the claimant. Alternatively, restitution may also mean the receivership by the claimant for his /her loss from the defendant following court orders. On that account, there is a restoration of the conferred benefits in the context of non-breaching party who is the plaintiff. This suggests that the plaintiff has the benefit of receiving the value of what is conferred in the contract to the defendant. However, there are two boundaries to the recovery such as the total contravention of the contracted when it is required and the capped damages. In the same view, Vance mentions restitutions for wrongs such as a common law tort, a statutory tort, an equitable wrong and a breach of contract. There are also the criminal offenses in the category of restitutions of wrongs that should reverse unfair enrichment. On the other hand, in Emmer’s ideologies (2002), community service is an activity conducted by a person or a group for the advantage of society or its various institutions. In other words, community service is also donated service because an individual renders his/her services to an entity. Therefore, because such persons always act out of free will, it suggests the presence of an authority in the activity. For instance, according to the author, it may be the government because it is a citizenship requirement or as part of the military service. Additionally, the community service may arise from the courts because of sanctions emanating from criminal justice such as a punishment for a conviction. Furthermore, community service sometimes is instituted by the school to attain the conditions of a class that in this case may be service learning or graduation requirements. On the other hand, it may be also because of parents who need to offer an engagement in order to achieve developmental, sociological and educational goals. Moreover, the author posits that service learning is part of community service and is the intentional connection of service to set learning goals. However, there is a fallacy that service learning may be assigned by youth workers or educators, which is not true. In the same prospect, according to Welsh and Siegel (2011), teen courts have the task of solving problems as permitted by law in several states in the U.S. Alternatively, there are other options that are sometimes used interchangeably such as youth court, peer court and teen court in order to offer choices juveniles who committed crimes a chance to argue their case. These crimes may include a misdemeanor or any other minor offense to qualify for some diversion during the trial. Therefore, in view of the authors, a majority of teen courts are valid and legal as avenues of hearing cases concerning juveniles. On that account, there are requisite conditions such as community support, conformity with traditional court systems and even training. Moreover, the writers point out the role of teen courts in sentencing and even fulfilling a sentence in a set correctional facility. It is also imperative to note that teen courts have a structure in the context of staffing by youth volunteers who have roles in certain capacities. Additionally, the staff of the teen courts includes bailiffs, clerks and even jurors who have training and act in such capacities. However, in the view of Seligram (2000), family group conference is the meeting of ‘family’ members and it incorporates a structured decision making. On the same context, the determination of the ‘family’ entails parents, extended family, children and important friends and even family neighbors. However, there may be no actual blood relationship between these people. Seligram notes that time are apportioned to a group in order to arrive at a plan for the facilitation of protection and safety of child/children in need. Alternatively, there is the participation of a professional who dispenses information at the start of the process and the evaluation of the plan after the decision. However, the professionals have no permission during the private session, but only the family members in attendance. Therefore, as the author observes, Family Group Conferences have the purpose of devising plans for children in several dissimilar contexts. For example, there are Youth Offending, Child Welfare, Domestic Violence and Education Welfare. Others include Child as Young Careers, Adoption and Foster Breakdown. On the same view, the writer highlights the defining principles of most Family Group Conferences in the context of assisting the child wholly. For instance, interests of the child come first, availability of resources to the child for his/her story to be heard and respect of the views, feelings and valid solutions of the child during the participation process (Seligram, 2000). Others entail partnering with families for the benefit of the child, and caring for the children within the families to attain the highest services. Furthermore, the writer confesses that the reflection of these principles set in the Children Act 1989 gives the Family Group Conference a momentum in the practice. Moreover, it is noteworthy to state the five stages before the occurrence of a Family Group Conference and they entail Stage One also known as referral, Stage Two also called first contract and Stage Three also called information sharing. There is also Stage Four, which is the private family time and finally Stage Five where there is an agreement and recording of the final family decision. Alternatively, according to the article in Correction Service in Canada (2010), victim-offender mediation entails the voluntary course whereby mediator within the community with training prepares the offenders and interested victims for an action. This may be the communication and provision of a meeting at a safe and structured locale. Therefore, in the view of the article, the victims have an opportunity to explain their story, narrate to the wrongdoer the crime’s emotional, financial and physical repercussion on their lives and evaluate unanswered queries. Additionally, the queries are about the wrongdoer and the offence and hence the process is directed at finding alternatives of addressing the harms suffered. In the same breadth, the wrongdoers find a chance to gain insights and offer information that helps in the contribution of personal growth and accountability. Furthermore, in the viewpoint of the article, the approach is different from the conventional mediation because the disputants are the not the parties. However, in this case there is a victim and an offender who had admitted his/her offense. Therefore, reaching of a settlement is not the sole purpose of the process, but has other guiding values and principles. Similarly, the values and principles work as the guiding light of restorative justice with the inclusion of choice, accountability, interaction, safety and community engagement. In other words, there are existing disparities according to Correctional Service Canada article in the context of common features. For example, there is an extensive preparatory work, voluntary participation, and elements of confidentiality to mitigate on the interference by National Parole Board (Correction Service in Canada, 2010). This is in terms of the decisions of the National Parole Board and the perception of the highly trained mediators who are considered neutral from all quarters. In the same prospect, the meetings are always face to face, but there are also other workable options. For instance, there is the use of video messages, exchange of letters and use of e-mails. The mediator may also play the role of a go-between in terms of conveying messages between the wrongdoers and victims. Similarly, it is the preference of the model that guides the needs of the participants in order to attain an amicable solution. However, it is important to note that programs above may have several repercussions that may be either positive or negative. For example, in the view of Zehr (2008), in the Journal of Peace Building, there are several necessities of restorative justice programs. First, it assists in the development of social support within the community in bringing a sense of peace. This is in the context of coming up with an amicable way of dealing with conflicts in the community. Alternatively, the solutions to the conflicts should meet the expectations of the social group in through satisfaction and neutrality. The author notes that restorative justice helps those who have been engaged in the conflict to participate actively in the justice process. In turn, this enables the victims to have a reparative reaction while avoiding punitive actions that are found in most of the European legislations. Therefore, it is fundamental to evaluate the societal developments that are relevant when instituting policies and strategies of restorative justice. For example, there is the social or life world element that deals with the realization of crime as a disturbance or disruption to human relations of society living together. It also incorporates the comprehension of the existing emotional experience of the parties involved and the arising needs from the scenario. This may be harming or hurting a person including the superseding experience of getting hurt or harmed. In the same prospect, it is critical to emphasize on the victim because it influences the evolution of restorative justice. Therefore, there are main elements of restorative justice that makes it a necessary alternative since it defines communal expectations. For example, there is the social element or life world that deals with crime perception in the context of disruption or disturbance of human relations of people cohabiting in one place (Maiese, 2003). This suggests that the experience includes emotional involvement and infliction of injury. Furthermore, there is a democratic or participatory element that includes the people who are affected through reconciliation and reparation. In other words, there is a promotion of responsibility in the side of the offender. Additionally, there is a reparative element that has two orientations entailing the comprehension of the interruption of social relations and victim involvement. Restorative justice also restores the balance of wrong doers and the victims in terms of balance and neutrality. On that perspective, if it comes to cost, restorative justice is less costly in the delivery of goals such as reducing recidivism and victim restoration. According to Maiese (2003), restorative justice utilizes a few resources because most matters are settled out of court. In other words, matters such as victim mediation with the offender only require the presence of the parties irrespective of the circumstance. The face to face meeting also forges a sense of peace and harmony between the culprit, and the victim to avoid repetition of a crime. In other words, the author argues, reconciliation is better than the payment of fines, bails and bonds that are characteristic of direct legal processes. Therefore, in terms of reducing recidivism and giving the victims peace, restorative justice is the most effective because it allows for numerous options such as community service and family conferences that are mostly funded by the state or any other organization. In the same prospect, according to Day and Nadin (2010), delivery of justice is paramount if there is mechanism of restorative technique. This begins from the teen courts or youth courts where offending teens are charged and tried for crimes instead of the adult courts. This is because it contravenes the stipulations of the Child Act that deem such a behavior a violation of their rights. There are also the effects of verdicts that are more tangible when delivered by the elements of restorative justice because it promotes a sense of equality and equity. In other words, whenever techniques of this system are used, most victims feel a sense of renewal and peace. This is because the offender makes a confession before his/her victim and pleads for forgiveness of the committed crimes. Moreover, there is a reparative process that emanates from the issue of restorative justice because none is victimized in the process of peace finding. Therefore, it is always important to weigh the existing merits and demerits of the selected legal system. This is in terms of cost, efficiency, delivery and even flexibility both for the victim and the offender. In other words, such helpful considerations will ensure no incurrence of extra costs and resources for the aggrieved parties in the case. In the same context, there is a need to consider the emotional experience of the parties in the case without breaching their privacy and existing fundamental rights (Vance, 2007). Society should have the encouragement of using restorative justice system because it promotes a feeling of communality and nationhood. This is through easy legal processes that have the motivation of both the defendant and the claimant in the case. It is critical to ensure the victims receive the justice they deserve in terms of making the case fair and equal without favor. In turn, this will also promote the development of values and ethics in the reduction of recidivism cases hence making people exist in peace and harmony. It will offer the pardoned offenders a chance to renew their lives through seeking of gainful employment and helping society in advancement. References Correction Service in Canada (2010). Victim-Offender Mediation. Service Correctionnel Canada. Retrieved from http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rj/vom-eng.shtml Day, M. & Nadin, R. (2010, March 8). Locking up non-violent youths costs millions and does little to reduce crime. Restorative Justice Online. Retrieved from http://www.restorativejustice.org/RJOB/locking-up-non-violent-youths-costs-millions-and-does-little-to-reduce-crime Emmer, R. (2002). Community Service. New York, NY: The Rosen Publishing Group. Maiese, M. (2003, October 2). The Aims of Restorative Justice. Beyond Intractability. Retrieved from http://www.beyondintractability.org/bi-essay/restorative-justice Seligram, M. (2000). Conducting Effective Conferences with Parents of Children with Disabilities: A Guide for Teachers. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Siegel, L. & Welsh, B. (2011). Juvenile Delinquency: Theory, Practice, and Law. Mason, OH: Cenegage Learning. Vance, L. (2007). Restitution. New Jersey, NJ: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Zehr, H. (2008). Doing Justice, Healing Trauma: The Role of Restorative Justice in Peace building. South Asian Journal of Peace building, 1 (1), 1-15. Read More