Restorative Justice - Essay Example

Restorative justice is a recent addition to the field of criminology and it has been formally in practice for around 30 years, its primary focus is the acknowledgment that crime, harms injures individuals and communities. It holds that all the parties involved, from the offender, victim to the society should be involved in the actions taken in response to the crime (Lawrence et al 2007, p.9). The objectives of restorative justice can be broadly described as to provide victim satisfaction, engagement with the offending party and creation of community capital, which in essence means increasing societies trust in the justice system. Therefore, for restorative justice to take effect there must be consensus between the victim and the aggressor since it is purely a voluntary process, this is referred to as the victim offender meditation. The two parties can then meet in a safe and neutral setting to discuss the crime, present can be another offended party because of the crime and a trained mediator. It could also involve family members in which the victims and the offender’s families can be present in the meeting and support both in the dealing with the problem. Peacemaking and sentencing circles are a process that involves sides, their supporters and the legal representatives such as, the arresting officer’s judges, and prosecutors (Sharman and Heather 2007, p.32). Repairing the harm occasioned by the crime can take various forms from a simple apology to monetary compensation. Apologies are meant to empower the victim since they may choose to or not to accept them, bearing in mind that the offender does not know whether his apology will be accepted, it serves to humble them. By financial compensation, the offender is made to take responsibility for their actions and this can be agreed in mediation, sentencing circles or ordered by a judge this has been shown to increase the satisfaction of the victim in the justice system. Subsequently there is the aspect of behavioural change, which is the main element of restorative justice that sets it apart from the convection means since the offenders willingly make amends to the victims. Restorative justice as an option means that sometimes, the cases are solved outside the court, which saves the country the money that would have been used in a court battle. Besides, the victims will also be saved time and funds which they may need to preparer and do the long court battles in the end. This system has been proved cost effective since research showed that, in cases where it was used, offenders were less likely to repeat the crime, furthermore the seriousness of the convictions, hence long-term application would be quite beneficial. An example of the success of restorative justice is the case, where a British Raymond and his wife Violet engaged with the youths who killed one of their sons in a street attack. According to Raymond, the brutal attack made him feel so angry and vengeful that it was eating away at his soul, when they went ahead and talked to the offenders in prison, the later reported having experienced overwhelming remorse. While this did not bring back their son, they had put a face on the suffering the attackers had caused and forced them to look at it, Raymond said that at least if this made them refrain from such action in the future, pain and suffering would at least be worth something. Restorative justice can apple to many situations and victims or/and offenders in any crime should they be both willing to use this method. Used, alongside the convectional system justice, restorative justice can go a long way in reducing cases of repeat convictions as well as cut costs in the system as it has been demonstrated herein. Forms of restorative justice have been integrated in the modern justice system through different means such as victim support services where the impacts on the victim are considered by the judge in the offenders case (“The Rise and Risk of Restorative Justice” n.d, P.9). However, this does not mean it can be a substitute since the parties are not always willing to negotiate, besides, it is mostly used in personal crimes and it does not substitute prison sentences or even execution but it is focused on allowing the victim closure and the offender a chance to make amends. Therefore, from a theoretical perspective, it might sound like a panacea for injustice and an ineffective justice system, nonetheless, it is not always the best solution and it can be impossible to use in many cases. While conceding that both the victims and offenders in a scenario where restorative justice has been often used express satisfaction at the end of the process, the system has several serious potential limitations, which might make it impractical or impossible in some situations. This is because in some instances, the offender needs a great deal of work, the mediators may hence focus too much, and the offenders and the victims may be relegated to the role of intermediaries in achieving the offender’s rehabilitation. This ultimately sidelines the victim defeating the whole idea of restoration since it was aimed at focusing on their suffering and help them copes not turn them into intermediaries for the offender. In addition, the victims may be at times pressured to participate in the process albeit not being psychologically prepared to meet with the offender. Sometimes this model can be used as a diversionary tactic to avoid dragging out affairs pertaining t the case possibly because the offender realizes this way they will get less attention than in an ordinary court hearing (Maguire, 2012). Thus, when restorative justice is used as a diversionary tactic, the ultimate loser is the victim who may be acting under presser not to solve the case to his/her satisfaction but for the convenience of those involved. Taking into consideration that this system is based purely on voluntarism, its effectiveness is seriously condensed by the fact that not all victims will be willing to meet their offenders and vice versa. In cases of violent crime such as rape and assault, the victim’s very psychological welfare may depend upon other things, not meeting or even being reminded of the attacker again. Crimes such as murder involve irreparable loss, ergo, families of the victims often dread even seeing the offender since it would bring out a sense of victimization and serve as a reminder of their kin’s demise. In conclusion, Restorative justice is a valuable addition to the justice systems and in cases when it has been used; the parties involved often expressed satisfaction. It helps victims process their pain, and meet those who caused it with the aim of bringing about forgiveness and making amends, and whether or not the offenders face legal penalties, their propensity for repeating the crime is reduced. Notwithstanding, it is limited to the willingness of the parties to meet and talk as well as situations since as explained above in some cases it impossible for the victims to bring themselves to face their attackers. References Sherman L.W., Strang, H. and Newbury-Birch D. (2008). “Restorative Justice” Youth Justice [Online] Available from: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?shva=1#inbox/13c2464466b76972 [Accessed 10/01/2013] Lawrence Sherman W and Heather S. (2007). “Restorative Justice: The Evidence” The Smith Institute. [Online] Available from: http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/RJ_full_report.pdf [Accessed 10/01/2013]. “The Rise And Risk Of Restorative Justice” (n.d). Oxford University Press. [Online] Available from: http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-925935-6.pdf [Accessed 10/01/2013]. Maguire, P. (2012). “Restorative Justice Worth The Investment” BBC. Online] Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9708000/9708665.stm [Accessed 10/01/2013]. Read More