The Concept of Restorative Justice - Coursework Example

The Concept of Restorative Justice Introduction There are many judicial theories in behind the reasoning for the necessity of penal punishment against criminal offenders with restorative justice being one of the newest models in the legal system. Restorative justice examines the issues for why legal punishment is necessary to restore justice to society and keep some form of social control over the many communities in the UK. It is quickly evolving to be one of the best theories found to try and understand and minimize crime. Restorative justice actually works in many ways, one of which it takes into account both the offender and the victim. It gives a good idea as to why punishment is an essential tool of the judicial process. This literature is adamantly defining the facts surrounding punishment. It is already generally conceptualized that without a reliable way to punish offenders crime would escalate to uncontrollable proportions. This is just one of the reasons for the use of punishment as a penal tool and why it is utilized by the legal system. Restorative Justice provides emphases upon the facts that criminal actions can be controlled and minimized with the proper form of punishment. Furthermore, conclusive evidence defines the fact that, as has been said, punishment is indeed crucial to law enforcement officials in gaining control over crime and maintaining a more peaceful atmosphere for the general public at large. The Primary Reasons for Restorative Justice Restorative justice is one idea of how to relate the theory of punishment to the maintenance of legal control over criminal offenders. Although restorative justice in itself has not been shown to minimize crime, it has been helpful in bringing a relative relation between the victim and the offender and what punishments are best suited to fit the criminal actions of an offender as well (Strang 2005). The main difference between this form of justice and conventional methods is the fact that there is more of a mediating process involved to solve the problems leading to crime in the communities rather than focusing solely on the state as the main victim of criminal offenders, such as the conventional method does (Goulding 2005). It has been found that the main goal of restorative justice is to correct the harm within communities that has been caused by criminal actions placed onto them by the offenders. There is still a process of punishment associated with this new area of the judicial process but it is focused on a more humane way of dealing with crime rather than corporal punishment, or other harsher sentencing, etc (Goulding 2005). However, to some in society this is a positive attribute being added to the judicial system and to others (especially law enforcement personnel) it is neglecting the proper way to control and combat crime as there are those in the judicial system that still feel severe punishments are justifiable for certain criminal actions and therefore should be continued in order to properly control crime (Goulding 2005). Nevertheless, restorative justice does have its benefits and it is effectively being used to try and determine what rehabilitative treatment methods are best for preventing offenders from repeating their criminal behavior patterns in society. Also, in regards to punishment and treatment, restorative justice has the offender become a participant in these decisions. The offender is allowed to voice what treatment and punishment that they feel would be the best solution and penalty for their criminal actions. Researchers are defining this as a positive characteristic of this form of justice because there have been hints that allowing the offender to be a part of the justice process in a more active manner can increase the statistics that they will not continue their actions in a repetitive pattern but will rather conform to societal rules depicted by the legal process (Goulding 2005). Those in favor of restorative justice argue that this form of the penal process allows the offender to see what their criminal actions have done to the victim so that they are truly aware of what they have caused, conventional methods do not allow for this and it has been voiced that it is possibly one of the reasons that offenders re-offend once released from prison. By placing the responsibility for their actions back onto the offender they develop a true sense of the adverseness of their actions onto another human being or community. Although it has not been proven, there is a strong theory that this form of justice retracts the rate of offenders repeating their behavior at a high percentage. Therefore, to a certain degree it can not be denied that it works in preventing some from re-offending (Goulding 2005). So as a form of more humane punishment and rehabilitation it is not perceived in a wholly negative fashion because there are quite a few positive attributes to this process. Furthermore, it is claimed that the punishments that restorative justice doles out to the offenders makes them have to face up to their criminal actions in a more profound manner than simply sitting in a prison cell can do (Wilson 2004). For example, one case of drunk driving that resulted in the death of the victim lead to the punishment of the offender having to carry a picture of the victim for five consecutive years, pay $50 a month to the daughter of the victim, and write apologetic letters to the family left behind as well (Wilson 2004). It is stated that this form of punishment is harsher than any form of corporal or conventional punishment could ever be because it really enforces the realization of the offenders’ actions into their minds so that they hopefully won’t become repeat offenders. So, as is being emphasized the reason for penal punishment is obvious. In order to try and have these offenders truly understand the nature of their actions they must be punished and reprimanded, sometimes harshly, so that they will change their behaviors and improve upon themselves in order to function in society as law abiding citizens instead of criminals. Nevertheless, there are some in law enforcement who feel restorative justice is not sufficient enough to properly control and minimize crime. Also, many do not believe that this form of punishment can guarantee that offenders won’t re-offend regardless of what other bodies of the judicial system claim. Therefore, many feel conventional means might be best focused on instead of this new form of justice. These opposing views are mainly being voiced by police officers themselves who say the sentences passed down through the process of restorative justice are to light and ultimately neglecting the victims from receiving proper justice by disallowing for harsher punishment of the offender. Furthermore, it is defined that for to many years the idea of punishment was passed off as best served as a method of quarantine. In this regard, what is meant is that offenders where best punished by being put in prison and left to meditate on their actions but in recent years the criminal justice system has found that more intense forms of punishment are necessary to minimize the risks associated with crime (Kyron 2003). Therefore more severe penalties have become a necessity to many minds in the legal system. The following quote emphasizes this point more clearly, “Police officers are also fed up with such soft sentencing. Restorative sentencing offers no deterrent to those seeking to perpetrate crimes” (Wilson 2004). Therefore some judicial authorities and citizens feel that traditional methods would be better served to minimize crime more so than restorative justice does. Regardless of which means is used the focus is on the fact that punishment is a necessity which is minimally open for debate. In order to correctly implement punishment into the judicial process, the ethics of the criminal process have to be considered as well. The judicial system can not just punish an offender without first ensuring it is going to properly control crime. Therefore there are other means of punishment besides the theory of restorative justice and the more conventional means of passing penal punishment as well (Marshall 2004). One idea of an alternative means of punishment is known as “Communicative punishment” and it is in favor of the victim more so than the offender’s needs (Marshall 2004). The communicative process is a multi-step one, going through the criminal proceedings in criminal court, and forcing the offender to accept the responsibility of his or her actions against the victim and the public at large as well. Often the victim is included in these proceedings during the sentencing stage and further into the punishment stage as well with the victim having some say so of what form of punishment should be placed onto the offender. It is very similar to the restorative justice process but harsher to some degrees. Of course the main objective of this legal process is to try and protect the victim from any further form of criminal intent by the offender and of course to keep the offender from repeating their criminal behavior again. The main goal of any penal process is to limit and control criminal actions of individuals, and again this is defining the fact that punishment is necessary in order to carry this theorization out. An offender who goes unpunished would ultimately have no reason to not commit that same crime again, and in that regard the judicial system would be failing not only the public but those who commit crime as well (Marshall 2004). Therefore, although some do view conventional punishments to be a more reliable way of ensuring the rehabilitation of offenders, a good percentage of others state that the philosophy of restorative justice has turned to be the more humane way of attempting to control crime despite there are obstacles that can be impediments in this form of justice’s path. What makes restorative justice stand out from conventional forms of justice is the fact that it takes the crime that has been committed and views it as something to which had a direct cause to the adversities that the victim might be encountering following the criminal actions. It focuses more on the occurrence of the crime between the victim and the offender in order to fully understand it and punish it rather than as it being a form of crime against the body of the state itself, which has been briefly mentioned in this literature (Hudson 2003). The following quite gives cohesion into the thoughts that have been developed on the concept of restorative justice thus far, With Restorative Justice, the emphasis is not on following the rules It is on right relationships rather than right rules. The aim is the restoration or creation of good relationships between the offender, the victim, and the Community, so that all parties feel satisfied with the outcome of the justice process, and so that the undesirable event is less likely to be repeated (Hudson 2003). Therefore, the main goal of restorative justice is to provide a good outcome for all parties involved in a criminal situation. This provides closure and allows for the ability to learn and accept responsibility for the actions of the dilemma, especially by the offender. So again, restorative justice appears to be a very humane way of enforcing the law and attempting to keep social control in the communities, by using a more moral and ethical code than the other forms of justice go by. In conclusion, though restorative justice is new to the judicial process it has obvious possibilities in assisting the legal system of maintaining and control order in the communities. As has been said, it does have a long way to go to be fully effective but it is still a form of justice that is being found to be reliable and morally correct in understanding and changing the actions of criminal offenders. Hopefully one day it will have more of an impact in society and law enforcement and will be able to guarantee that repeat crimes will not continue, as well as work as a good means of preventing crime from escalating any more than what it already is. Works Cited Goulding, Dorothy. (2005, 04 April). Restoration or Renovation? Evaluating Restorative Justice Outcomes. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law Journal, 1. Hudson, B. (2003, 2nd ed). Understanding Justice: An Introduction to Ideas, Perspectives, and Controversies in Penal Theory. Buckingham Open University Press. Kyron, Huigens. (2003, 22 September). Dignity and Desert in Punishment Theory. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 1. Marshall, S.E. (2004, 22 June). Communicative Punishment and the Role of the Victim. Journal of Criminal Justice Ethics, 1. Strang, Heather. (2005, 01 October). Letter: Restorative Justice. The Independent,1. Wilson, Kate. (2004, 23, January). Perspective: Victims of Crime need the Restoration of Justice. The Birmingham Post, 1. Read More