Restorative Justice Principles and Correctional Policies - Essay Example

John Doe Plum ENG 102 November 10, 2005 Restorative Justice Principles and Correctional Policies In the current criminal justice system, crimes are viewed as being committed against the state. The basic premise of restorative justice is that crimes are committed against a community or person. Programs that use restorative justice principles bring the victim(s) and the offender together, allowing each side to express how the offense has affected them. The offender is encouraged to accept responsibility for what was done and efforts are made to make amends. This contrasts with the typical way a case is handled. Attorneys usually do all the speaking for both sides; the offender is not encouraged to take responsibility; and no attempt is made to restore the offender to the community. Restorative justice principles are becoming used more often in schools - replacing simple expulsion as an attempt at conflict resolution. According to Carol Chmelynski, “Restorative practices in schools include peer mediation, classroom circles to resolve problems, and family group conferencing, all involving face-to-face resolution to address the multiple impacts of a students offending behavior. Those most affected by it play an important role in resolving the incident.” (Education Digest 2005) It is widely believed that a main cause for youths becoming disruptive and engaging in criminal behavior is their feeling disconnected from the community. Restorative justice polices attempt to restore that connection. Many school districts across the United States have had good results by using this concept. Similar efforts have been made in handling disputes in neighborhoods and in the workplace. Efforts have also been made to incorporate this process into the criminal justice system for adult offenders. In a typical prison environment, offenses are merely punished with no attempt for the offender to understand how he has affected the victim. Although rehabilitation is a stated goal of the prison system, no serious efforts take place to actually accomplish that goal. Using restorative justice, prisoners are allowed to take full responsibility for their actions and improve their self esteem. By attempting to resolve issues calmly rather than allowing problems to escalate - or quietly fester - the offender is motivated towards future improvement. Obviously, the implementation of such policies would not be as practical - or even advisable - for the most serious crimes. It is doubtful that family members of a slain child, for example, would be willing to sit down calmly with the offender to discuss how he can accept responsibility for his actions and attempt to make restitution. However, in cases that are less severe, good results have been seen by using this method. In fact, positive results have been seen in regards to lowering re-offending rates for violent crimes (down 38%), and compensation payments (four times as many offenders actually pay restitution using this method). (Restorative Justice Consortium 2005) Since the basic concept of restorative justice is to restore good relations between the offender and the community, it should only be used for cases where that is actually possible. Minority Youths and Police Involvement There is no doubt that minority youths are over represented in the criminal justice system, from minor offenses to jail sentences. However, there is much debate on the reason for these numbers. Probably the most obvious reason for young people of color to have more contact with police than their white counterparts is discrimination. Racial profiling is an ongoing problem that plays a factor in one or more of these areas (Progress Report 1996): police resources, local crime rate, geographic features, officer’s discretion, targeted offences, or community complaints. There may also be a bias on the part of decision makers (i.e.; police officers, juvenile court officers, court staff). In some cases, according to the same report, juvenile departments may open files on youth, when it would not otherwise do so, merely because the youth and/or the youths parents do not speak English, and it may be necessary to open a file to obtain funds from the county for an interpreter. (Progress Report 1996) Undoubtedly one of the primary reasons for such minority over-representation is lower socio-economic status. In most communities, minorities more often suffer from the conditions that often lead to delinquent behavior, such as joblessness, higher housing density, poor health care, and less access to preventative social services. The community in which the juvenile lives has a stronger effect on likelihood of becoming involved in delinquency than racial characteristics. (Roscoe and Morton 2002) If more Caucasians lived in depressed neighborhoods the statistics would likely even out. Due, primarily, to the conditions in which many minorities live in, young people from such families have a negative view of their future and consequently are more likely to make poor choices - such as joining a gang. While discrimination may not always be the determining factor in the above mentioned circumstances, it is the only logical explanation for the extreme differences in how the color of a young person determines how even similar crimes are punished. Based on the results of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Report of 1999, a black youthful offender is six times more likely to be jailed than a youthful offender who is white, even if they commit the same crimes and have the same criminal backgrounds, according to a nationwide study. (Cincinnati Enquirer 2000) The following comment is typical of the response to the report. “We find that this report leaves no doubt that we are faced with a very serious national civil rights issue, virtually making our system juvenile injustice,” said Hugh B. Price, President and CEO of the National Urban League. The Effect of Prior Juvenile Record in the Juvenile Justice System Another negative factor facing minorities, is the effect that previous juvenile offenses may have on their treatment in the justice system. Such offenses may include school-related incidents, theft or burglary, assault, drugs or alcohol possession, arson, or more serious offenses. The reality of the numbers is hard to ignore. In a recent survey (Charish 2004) of court appearances, 44% of both African American and Native American youths were first time offenders, while 57% of whites were. Of those with prior offenses, 28% of African American youths had five or more priors while only 15% of white youths had five prior arrests. Having established the reality of discrimination in the juvenile justice system, the pattern can be taken to the next level. Unequal treatment of minorities continues at every level of the system. Since minority youth with no prior admissions were six times more likely to be incarcerated than White youth for similar offenses, it is understandable that they are also treated unfairly if they do have previous contact with the system. According to the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, when it comes to how minority juveniles are processed, “Legal factors (e.g., seriousness of offense and priors) were most significant, but the effects of race were compounded as juveniles penetrated deeper into the juvenile justice system.” (Bishop 1998) Although definitive conclusions are hard to come by, unstable family environments and problems in the juvenile justice system itself are possible factors. In cases where state law requires an admission of guilt before a determination can be made by a judge, lack of family cooperation and deficiencies in the youth’s background may have an influence. Minority youths tend to have less trust in the judicial process, especially if they feel they have been treated unfairly in previous dealings with authorities. In ‘The New American Apartheid‘ Randall Sheldon asserts, “Many sentencing structures have a built-in class and racial bias. This is especially the case with drug laws, which have always targeted mainly the drugs used by minorities and the poor throughout history.” Another factor that contributes to minority prior offenders being dealt with more harshly than their white counterparts is that minority youths are more prone to formal processing. This is usually due to the fact that their families may be unable to comply with the agency’s policy for one or both parents to be present at adjudication hearings. (Journal of Criminal Law 1996) Institutional bias regarding who will be referred to private treatment (i.e.; counseling services) instead of being formally processed also disfavors minorities. Even when other variables are accounted for, African American and Native American young males are significantly more likely to be detained than white youths. If such a bias exists at the first-offense processing level for minority youths, which statistics seem to indicate, the result is a young person being sent down a road of continuing discrimination in the judicial system. Works Cited Charish, Courtney. "Race Ethnicity and Gender Effects on Juvenile Justice System Processing". Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs. 8 July 2004 Chmelynski, Carol. "Restorative Justice for Discipline with Respect." Education Digest. Vol. 71 Issue 1, p17-20. Sep2005 Crowley, Patrick . "Study reveals juvenile injustice, Minorities are jailed more often". The Cincinnati Enquirer. 26 April 2000 Progress Report of the Oregon Supreme Court Implementation Committee: A Commitment to Fairness January 1996 Restorative Justice Online. Prison Fellowship International. 22 June 2005 Roscoe and Morton. "Building Blocks for Youth". ¿Dónde Está la Justicia?. Donde. July 2002 Shelden, R. and Brown, W. B. "The New American Apartheid Part I". 22 June 2004 Strategic Plan for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in Multnomah. County October 1998 Read More