Does Restorative Justice Prevent Crime - Essay Example

?Does restorative justice prevent crime? Restorative Justice is defined as a theory of justice which focuses on “repairing the harm caused or revealed by criminal behaviour”. This justice process is said to be accomplished in a best way with the help of cooperative processes that incorporate all stakeholders (What is restorative justice?, 2012). According to Rogers and Robinson (2004), “Since Nils Christie’s classic 1976 article ‘Conflict as Property’, there has been widespread interest in the potential of ‘restorative justice’ programmes – programmes that seek to give victims and the public a larger role in the criminal justice processes by bringing victims, offenders and their associates together” (Rogers and Robinson, 2004: p.26). Researchers and authors have critically argued that although significant number of attempts has been made by advocates of Restorative Justice in contrasting this model with various other approaches of justice, this model has suffered from several pitfalls. One of the most important pitfalls has been that those attempts have raised different meanings. These meanings have been attributed to different retribution and to rehabilitation (Mantle et al., 2005: p.2). Principles and practices incorporate a view of crime in terms of a conflict between individuals, instead of conflicts between the state and the offender. The aspect which is closely associated with this view tells that the governments’ responsibility with respect to providing security to individuals, crimes and conditions of disorder need to be shared “among all the members of the community”. This justice approach has been considered as a humanitarian approach which “brings to the foreground ambitions of forgiveness, healing, reparation and reintegration” (Mantle et al., 2005:p.3). Hence, this approach includes the offender as well as the victim, their families, friends and community representatives. This urges offenders and the victim to make face-to-face contacts with each other. These aspects of mutual interaction have been used to mark voices of both victim and the offender with regard to their experiences as well as understanding of the crime. These interactions have been introduced in this approach for the purpose of reaching a mutually acceptable solution to the problem (Mantle et al., 2005:p.3). Advocates of this unique approach of justice argue that mental lockdown of the crime is not required in the modern world and society; rather what is required is the justice policy which will repair the damage caused by the crime. Due to this reason, in the restorative justice all parties associated with the crime are incorporated into the justice procedure. The level of conflict, generated by the system or procedure of criminal justice, has been reduced by the restorative justice. These conflicts arise when harsh punishments are provided to people who belong to the powerless social outcasts of nation. According to the advocates of Restorative Justice, old or traditional modes of justice and methods of punishment have failed considerably to provide a significant system of justice for offenders, victims and others (Siegel, 2011:p.285). However, restorative justice has been praised by various researchers with respect to the fact that it helps in the process of increasing the likelihood of the victim of reporting the crime and also provides different alternative punishments to sanction which ‘get tough’ on these offenders from their respective communities (Sullivan and Tifft, 2006:p.490). Restorative justice has widely been used by NGOs across the globe for providing proper and effective justice to women and children (mainly). Various rights in regard to society, such as rights to work, rights to speech etc., have been developed with greater use of Restorative Justice. Greater use of restorative justice has made the criminal justice system more effective in terms of reducing the level of occurrence of crimes in the society. For instance, in the United States of America, greater use of restorative justice on the people of the country has reduced their intensity to commit street crimes (Tyler, 2007: p.158). Restorative justice, along with the ingenious conflict resolution approach, has been regarded as one of the most significant notions in preventing crimes from societies (Spuy et al., 2006: p.234). Restorative justice has also been praised by researchers and authors on the ground that it not only reduced the chance of repeating the offence or the absolute number of crimes or criminal activities in modern society, but this justice approach also reduced “the likelihood of victim retaliation against the offender” (Welsh and Farrington, 2006:p.234). Along with this the less costly compared to those criminal cases which are assigned in criminal courts by the legal system of human civilization. In a study conducted by Moore (2012), on people of UK, it has been shown that 94% of offenders have argued that they “should be required as part of their sentence to do unpaid work in the community” (Moore, 2012:p.7). Also the study has shown that 84% have agreed that victims should be allowed to inform the offender. Also 72% have agreed that “victims should have a say in how the offender can make amends for the harm caused”. Also 79% and 76% of respondents have argued that Restorative Justice Initiatives have been effective in reducing the number of crime and criminal activities in the United Kingdom. Also after conducting the study Moore (2012) has opined that after the application of this justice approach the rate of crime in the UK has gone down by more than 3%, which is in essence a significant reduction. In view of all these empirical aspects, facts and figures it can be said that Restorative Justice has been effective in preventing crimes (Moore, 2012: pp.7-10). This approach of criminal justice system has been significantly mentioned by the researchers as most significant in terms of improving the level of motivation of both the offender as well as the victim towards criminal activities (Walgrave, 1998:p.94). Due to all these reasons this justice approach has been regarded by researchers and authors as ‘community of life’ where different communities have been merged together for the purpose of making mutual interaction between them. These interactions have been introduced for the purpose of restoring the balance between the present and future and to make a better and improved human society (Strang and Braithwaite, 2001:p.3). Due to all these this justice approach has been regarded as one of the most significant approaches in the criminal system of the whole world (Ness and Strong, 2010:p.58). Those relatively “softer punishments” have been the highly significant aspects of this justice approach which has been the strongest point in favour of considering it as the most significant legal structure in modern societies (Carlan et al., n.d.: pp. 26-27). A study conducted by Braithwaite (2008), have revealed that Restorative Justice can prevent crimes or criminal activities “from its marginal status and in the system of criminal justice, mainstreaming it into the enforcement process”. This justice approach can provide greater level of motivation and prevent criminal activities to occur with the help of widespread approach of community participation programmes. These programmes work for the purpose of protecting people from committing crimes and also to capture the organised interests of those people in preventing crimes. Greater motivation helps these people to build up a community where people realise the fact that crimes not only create negative effects on the victim(s), but also on the offender(s). In this context, various conferences conducted between by the people or by the court, help in preventing crime within a specifically selected community. Greater participation by the people of the selected community also works as an indication of the fact that those people are aiming at implementing better crime-preventive measures. Deliberation in the conference has been regarded as highly significant approach in preventing crime. In New Zealand, people have been gathered in a conference to mark their view in favour of Restorative Justice Approach in preventing crimes in country (Braithwaite, 2008). Also in Australia, the Canberra conference has revealed the fact people become more and more concerned about reducing crimes from the country, in situations when they are gone through this justice approach. In New Zealand 58%, in UK, Canadian as well as British states 64% to 100%, in West Germany 76%, in Finland 85% and in Australia 91% of people have argued that restorative justice approach is effective in preventing crimes from countries by improving the motivation of these people. In a research project conducted in Rockdale of Australia has revealed that after applying Restorative Justice Theory among the people of the state and also on the criminal offenders, significant results have been found. Results have shown that cases of domestic burglary have reduced by 27% in the country as a whole and these have reduced by 72% in the region (Braithwaite, 2008). According to a research, conducted by Crawford (2010), it has been shown that in New Zealand a group of young offenders (whose age ranges between 14 and 16) have been referred to family group conferences under this justice approach. However, the study has also revealed that this justice approach has been more effective on young and less experienced offenders compared to old and experienced offenders. This has been supported by the fact that almost 35% of total respondents who were young have expressed their satisfaction after participating into this justice programme, whereas 65% of respondents who were experienced offenders have expressed their opinion against use of Restorative Justice. Due to this reason it has been opined by the researcher that justice programmes associated with the Restorative Justice Approach should be applied more on less experienced offenders. The research has also concluded that 17.17 months of follow-up period, a total of 75 of reduction have occurred in the criminal activities in New Zealand, creating favourable impacts on recidivism. Also restorative justice approaches have been more effecting on criminal cases of low-risk offenders, compared to high-risk offenders. This is because for high-risk offenders this justice approach has not been sufficient to reduce recidivism. Along with these facts successful use of this justice approach in the country has reduced the increase in percentage of young generation of the country into various criminal activities. This fact has been regarded as one of the most significant aspect in improving the future of societal and cultural life of the country (Crawford, 2010:pp.45-46). In Alberta, use of restorative justice approach has also been helpful in reducing the number of crimes. Different Family-based Programmes, Community-based Programmes, School-based Programmes as well as Placed-focused Programmes have significantly reduced the absolute number of criminal activities in the country. These programmes gave greater respect to all participants of the programmes and improved the level of restoration between the victim and the offender. With greater community involvement in the country this programmes eventually improved the motivation of offenders towards not committing any offensive act in the future. In these programmes both the victim and the offender have been given equal importance to reveal their opinion regarding the crime and hence effectiveness of the justice approach has been increased. The most significant result in the country has been reduction in the number of fraud cases after the successful application of the Restorative Justice approach in the country (Crime Prevention and Restorative Justice, 2012). Different studies conducted by researchers and authors have concluded that restorative justice has not been fully effective in reducing crimes or criminal activities in different countries across the globe. In some countries this justice approach has been more effective in preventing crimes compared to other countries. Again, in same country this justice approach has been effective to different degrees in comparison to the national level assessment and the region wise assessment. Again in Alberta and in the United Kingdom this justice approach has been highly effective in reducing the number of criminal activities. Considering all these aspects it is difficult to say that restorative justice has significantly reduced crimes or prevent criminal activities to occur. However, it can also be said that in the absolute sense, restorative justice has been effective in preventing crimes in different socially and culturally as well as economically developed countries. Finally it is difficult to arrive at a conclusive answer to the question addressed in the paper but one can safely say that at least for some cases restorative justice can be more effective than any other means of rendering justice. References 1. Braithwaite, J. (2008), Linking Crime Prevention to Restorative Justice, International Journal for Restorative Justice, available at: http://www.iirp.edu/article_detail.php?article_id=NDU1 (accessed on April 3, 2012) 2. Carlan: E. (n.d.), An Introduction to Criminal Law, UK: Jones & Bartlett Publishers 3. Crawford, A. (2010), Restorative Justice and Crime Prevention Presenting a theoretical exploration, an empirical analysis and the policy perspective, JPEN, available at: http://www.euforumrj.org/Projects/Restorative%20Justice%20and%20Crime%20Prevention%20Final%20report.pdf (accessed on April 3, 2012) 4. Crime Prevention and Restorative Justice, (2012), Government of Alberta: Solicitor General and Public Security, available at: http://www.solgps.alberta.ca/safe_communities/crime_prevention/Pages/default.aspx (accessed on April 3, 2012) 5. Mantle, G. et al., (2005), RESTORATIVE JUSTICE AND THREE INDIVIDUAL THEORIES OF CRIME, Internet Journal of Criminology IJC, available at: http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/Mantle,%20Fox%20&%20Dhami%20-%20Restorative%20Justice.pdf (accessed on April 2, 2012) 6. Moore, E. (2012), Restorative Justice Initiatives: Public opinion and supports in NSW, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, No.77, available at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/bb77.pdf/$file/bb77.pdf (accessed on April 2, 2012) 7. Ness, D. W. V. and Strong, K. H. (2010), Restoring Justice: An Introduction to Restorative Justice, UK: Elsevier 8. Rogers, B. and Robinson, E. (2004), The benefits of community engagement: A review of the evidence, Active Citizenship Centre, available at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/151525.pdf (accessed on April 2, 2012) 9. Siegel, L. J. (2011), Criminology, USA: Cengage Learning 10. Spuy, E. V. D. et al., (2007), Restorative justice: politics, policies and prospects, UK: Kluwer 11. Strang, H. and Braithwaite, J. (2001), Restorative Justice and Civil Society, UK: Cambridge University Press 12. Sullivan, D. and Tifft, L. (2006), Handbook of restorative justice: a global perspective, London: Routledge 13. Tyler, T. R. (2007), Legitimacy and criminal justice: international perspectives, UK: Russell Sage Foundation 14. Walgrave, L. (1998), Restorative justice for juveniles: potentialities, risks, and problems for research, UK: Leuven University Press 15. Welsh, B. and Farrington, D. P. (2006), Preventing crime: what works for children, offenders, victims, and places, UK: Springer 16. What is restorative justice?, Restorative Justice Online, available at: http://www.restorativejustice.org/university-classroom/01introduction (accessed on April 3, 2012) Read More