Restorative Justice - Report Example

Name: xxxxxxxxxxx Institution: xxxxxxxxxxx Course: xxxxxxxxxxx Title: Restorative Justice Tutor: xxxxxxxxxxx @ 2009 Restorative Justice Introduction Restorative justice is a widely used term that encompasses on theories of justice which focus on crimes acted against the community. The approaches used in restorative justice comprise of retributive and therapeutic models of justice. The objectives of these approaches consider the needs of the victims and the rights of the offenders. Moreover, approaches of restorative justice accentuates on the need to protect the public and rehabilitate the offenders (Wachtel & McCold 2000). This essay seeks to present an incisive and comprehensive outlook on restorative justice. It will attempt to explain what restorative justice is, how it works, its aptitudes and limitations. Moreover, this essay will seek to explain the ways in which restorative justice prevents crime and reduces neutralization within first nation sentencing and healing circles. Additionally, this essay will give an introspective analysis on three restorative justice processes. The concept of restorative justice Restorative justice is considered to be a progressive and constructive model of responding to crime. Its proponents are not entirely issues of taxonomy rather it entails the evaluation of the eventual outcomes. In the book, “Handbook of restorative justice” by Gerry Johnstone and Daniel Van Ness, the authors are quick to point out that not all agendas or practices that are implemented meet the standards of restorative justice. Discrepancies and counterfeit forms of restorative justice have inevitably existed in the course of executing restorative justice. Therefore not all progressive or constructive models of dealing with crime can be termed as restorative justice. According to Johnstone and Van Ness (2007), certain outstanding features or qualities set apart counterfeit and credible restorative justice processes and systems. By evaluating these qualities one is able to differentiate between credible and counterfeit restorative justice systems and processes. Credible restorative justice systems have informal discussion processes that involve offenders, victims and other involved parties. The informal discussions are often times geared towards finding out what happened and what should be done in order to prevent such an act from occurring again. Restorative justice processes that are credible tend to empower the lives of ordinary people who have been affected by crime. Furthermore, processes that are credible accentuate on repairing and strengthening relationships thereafter the power of healthy relationships are used to resolve the emerging conflicts. Facilitators and decision makers in valid restorative justice systems promote outcomes that are less geared towards punishing and stigmatizing offender. Instead they focus on ensuring that the offenders take the responsibility of amending their behavior so that they are integrated into the community as law abiding citizens. In the course of these processes the facilitators and decision makers in credible restorative justice systems are guided by certain values and principles. Moreover, credible restorative justice systems have facilitators and decision makers who are devoted towards ensuring that a significant attention is given to the injuries subjected to the victims of crime and that the tangible needs of the victims are fully addressed (Johnstone & Van Ness 2007). Concisely, restorative justice can be termed as an open concept that is appraisive and internally complex. This process continues to develop over time with experience. Nevertheless, it is imperative to establish whether restorative justice promises to restore justice and deliver the expectations of the community. If not what are its limitations and if these processes promise to restore justice what methods will it incorporate? Proponents and cohorts of restorative justice systems argue that the process and mechanisms of restorative justice are quite different from the civil litigations or the adversarial legal processes. This is mainly due to the fact that the process of restorative justice has greater chances of restoring justice and meeting the expectations of the community as compared to other legal processes. In legal processes that aim at bringing justice, legal representatives focus on reducing issues between the victims and the perpetrators of crime to legal relevancy. Consequently, the perpetrators of crime are protected whereas the plight of the victims is neglected. However, restorative justice promises to expand and explore issues that are beyond legal relevancy, this process promises to bring justice to both the victims and the suspected offenders (Liebmann 2007). Liebmann (2007) further illustrates that restorative justice brings about balance between the two sides of tension. The concept of restorative justice incorporates both retributive and therapeutic models of justice so as to ensure that the needs of the both the victims and the offenders are actualized fairly. The procedure in this process considers both the needs of the victims and the rights of the offenders. Furthermore, the approaches of restorative justice accentuates on the need to protect the public and rehabilitate the offenders. The process of restorative justice provides an elaborate platform for victims to express their grievances concerning the harm done to them and their opinion about what ought to be done in order to put things right. Recent research studies have indicated that the outcomes of restorative justice programs leave victims involved in the process feeling satisfied with this kind of justice system. Moreover, in restorative justice programs the victims are more likely to obtain restitution from the perpetrator. The involvement in restorative justice programs lessens the fears of the victims towards the offender and the occurrence of a similar crime attack. It helps victims to heal emotionally. Nevertheless, there exist certain limitations that somewhat limit the restorative justice systems from delivering the expectations of the community by restoring justice. For instance, restorative justice processes are emotionally draining, in most cases victims have a hard time meeting the offenders. This process can be termed as time consuming and expensive since it involves a series of processes that require lengthy time and financial adherence. Financial constraints could act as a major impediment to restorative justice systems in the course of restoring justice. As a result of the lengthy processes involved in restorative justice systems it is somewhat difficult for the parties involved to offer full attendance or commitment as they have to attend to other issues. Consequently, the course of restoring justice is compromised (Hennessey 2005). Ways that restorative justice can prevent crime and reduce neutralization Restorative justice forums should promote restorative practices for both the victims and offenders. These forums need to foster a policy environment for the operation of good standards and practices. The processes of restorative justice should comprise of autonomous committees that work in order to ensure that crime is averted and neutralization is reduced within the healing circles or first nation sentencing. It is worth noting that restorative justice should not only be a matter of autonomous programs it should also incorporate principles derived from criminal justice practices. (Walgrave 2000). The practices of restorative justice systems need to be flexible and creative in such way that they are able to counter the needs of both the victims and offenders. Moreover, these forums should have the freedom to respond and act appropriately to particular issues and cases. Restorative justice systems can prove to be inherently successful in meeting the needs of victims and having a reformative impact on perpetrators of crime. In order for this to be actualized, there is need that these forums should be integrated with other practices. The integration of these programs with counseling, police, court and probation interventions further increases the likelihood of averting crime and reducing neutralization within the healing circles or first nation sentencing (Mccalin 2005). Restorative practices should focus on building social capitals that are geared towards promoting social discipline through participatory decision-making and learning. This field needs to offers common threads that integrate research practices in fields such as criminal justice, counseling, organizational management and social work. Unifying hypothesis in restorative justice systems need to aim at producing happier and productive individuals through the application of certain theoretical and practical frame works. The hypotheses in the applied theoretical and practical frameworks should acknowledge that both permissive and punitive modes are not as effective as restorative processes that use the engaging and participatory modes (McCold & Wachtel 2003). Moreover, there is need to create restorative conferences and circles that provide a plat form whereby victims, their respective acquaintances and offenders can come together and share how everyone has been affected by the alleged crime. In the course of these proceedings healing and forgiveness can be actualized. Moreover, victims should be invited to decide on how the harm they have been subjected to can be repaired so as to meet their needs. Consequently, neutralization will be reduced within the healing circles or first nation sentencing (Hennessey 2005). Principles and values need to be the core operating basis of effective restorative justice processes that eventually avert crime and reduce neutralization within healing circle. Processes that indeed offer justice to both the victims and the offenders need work with the principle that violation or crimes are committed on individuals and not the state thus the persons affected should be given priority. In order for crime to prevented and neutralization to be reduced within the healing circle it is essential that this process should promote restitution to the victims by the perpetrators rather than retribution by the state against the perpetrators of crime. This process should end the escalating trends of violence and revenge, it main focus should lie in restoring relationships. In the book “Integrating justice and restorative justice” Walgrave observes that healing is not only crucial for victims but also to the offenders therefore rehabilitation of both the victims and offenders is an imperative aspect of restorative justice processes. Offenders should be treated with dignity and their needs should be tackled. The processes of restorative justice should use restrictions on the offenders as the last result. Walgrave further observes that that best way to avert reoffending is through re-integration (Walgrave 2000). It is overly essential that restorative justice process should focus on the needs of the victims, the offenders and the community at large. This is due to the fact that their needs can aid in determining how law ought to be applied most fairly in particular issues or cases. Moreover, restorative justice systems should be integrated with legal justice processes so that effectiveness, quality and efficiency of justice is promoted as whole. This kind of justice process promotes transformation that averts similar harm from occurring in future. Furthermore, it strengthens the community by promoting healing (Newburn 2007). Circles of accountability and support can play a great role in averting crime and reducing neutralization within the healing circles. This innovation is a restorative justice practice that is highly regarded due to its evidence based practice that has demonstrated its aptitude in enhancing safe integration of offenders. The circles of accountability and support can aid offenders to amend their behavior so that they are integrated in the society as law abiding citizens. In most cases offenders are judged too harshly by the community however if they experience positive support and accountability they are bound to reform their behaviors. Community-based support and accountability reduces the chances of the offender committing a similar offense. Recent research studies indicate that surrounding an offender who is 'core member' of a support and accountability group with five or more carefully selected and trained volunteers or circle members can significantly reduce re-offences by upwards of 50% (McCold 2000). Sentencing circles also referred to as peace making circles greatly aid in the healing process of both victims and offenders. These circles incorporate traditional structures which involve victims, offenders, their supporters, court personnel, the police and involved members of the community. Within these circles both victims and offenders can openly express their concerns and search for understanding on how healing can be effected to the affected individuals and future crimes can be prevented. (Hennessey 2005). The sentencing circles comprise of steps that are geared towards developing consensus regarding the sentencing plan and its various elements. The circles also comprise of follow up steps that monitor the healing progress of both the victims and the offenders. Nevertheless there is bound to be neutralization in the healing circles, neutralization can be reduced through the involvement of neutral and expert personnel from the field of criminal justice. The role of the expert personnel will be to ensure that principles and practices of restorative justice are upheld in the sentencing process (Goulding & Steels 2007). Restorative justice processes Restorative justice processes provide a platform whereby involved parties can actively participate in the process of repairing the harm that was subjected to them with the help of professional facilitators. Each process is geared towards enabling the participants to explore the arising issues in a structured way. There are a number of restorative justice processes that are designed to counter specific circumstances and needs. This section will give an analysis of three restorative justice processes namely, community restorative conferencing, victim offender mediation and restorative circles. Community restorative conferencing Community restorative conferencing involves a wider circle of participants. The conference integrates meeting structures between victims, offenders, their immediate families and friends. The aim of these conferences lies in exploring and finding options of dealing with consequence of crime and identifying ways that can be used to repair the harm subjected to the victims of crime. These conferences also provide victims and other affected parties the appropriate opportunity to confront the perpetrators, ask questions, express their feelings and give their opinions on the way forward. On the other hand, offenders get an opportunity to get first hand information on how their unacceptable behavior has affected people. As a result the offender may begin to mend the created harm by apologizing to the affected parties, transforming their behavior and agreeing to the proposed solutions such as community service or financial restitution. The conferences keep the offenders accountable while providing them with an opportunity of discarding the label of an offender thus integrating them into the community (PFI 2009). The involvement of persons in these conferences is on a voluntary basis. Offenders and victims agree to attend the conferences moreover the facilitators of these conferences invite the families and close acquaintances of the victims and offenders. However, in some cases the victims could be unwilling to have face to face encounters with the offenders. In such cases the facilitators of these conferences recommends to the victims that they should write a statement that will be used in the conference on their behalf. Alternatively, a surrogate victim could take the place of the unwilling victim(Johnstone & Van Ness 2007). The role of facilitators in restorative conferencing practices is to empower participation circle by striving to break off from the retributive patterns of justice. Facilitators play a great role in laying the operating foundations of these conferences by accentuating that each participant should be viewed as a human being rather than being viewed as an offender or a victim. The typical composition of restorative conferences geared towards decision making consists of a small group of people who have been prepared through intense training. During the conferences the group of decision makers discuss on the appropriate step that should be taken in regard to the opinions of both the victims and the offenders. When a consensus is reached both the victims and the offender are informed thereafter the board submits a report to the court. Community restorative conferencing have proved to be inherently effective when it comes to reducing reoffending and empowering victims. This is mainly due to the fact that these conferences focus on the specific needs of both the victims and the offenders. These conferences have support and accountability systems to ensure that the offenders recognize their mistakes and amend their behavior. However, these conferences are limited due to the fact that people involved come voluntarily and some can be unwilling to participate in this process thus limiting its aptitude (Mccalin 2005). Victim -offender mediation Victim offender mediation also referred to as victim offender dialogue is essentially a face to face meeting between the victim, the offender and a trained mediator. This system of restorative justice comprises of a small number of participants and it is often used as an alternative of court procession. In the course of these meetings the mediator facilitates dialogue between the two parties with the aim of bringing about mutual understanding and reconciliation. During these sessions the facilitator encourages the victims to express their feelings concerning the harm that was subjected to them. On the other hand, the offender is provided with a platform whereby they can understand how their actions have affected others. Furthermore, the offender has an opportunity of seeking forgiveness from the victims (PFI 2009). Evidently, the mediator is in most cases faced with a great challenge of facilitating the sessions between the victim and the offender. In some instances the victims or the offender might not be willing to go through these sessions. For the victims these sessions might be somewhat emotionally draining whereas the offender could be filled with guilt when facing the victim. It is therefore the work of the mediator to ensure that both parties have an appropriate platform for expressing their wishes and concerns. Despite of the various challenges and limitations of victim offender mediation processes, this system has over the course of time proved to be an effective method of reducing reoffending and fostering forgiveness between the victim and the offender. Through these processes the victim is enabled to understand that to err is human and is therefore able to forgive the offender. The offender on the other hand understands the implications of their actions and as a result amends their behavior thus reducing the chances of reoffending. Restorative circles Restorative circles are in most cases provided for offenders who have been subjected to imprisonment in order for them to be incorporated back into the society as law abiding citizens. Additionally, restorative circles offer a suitable base for victims to experience healing. Circles of support accountability and healing make up restorative circles. Circles of accountability, support and healing play a great role in empowering the victims and reducing the chances of reoffending. These restorative justice processes are highly recommended due to their evidence based practice that has demonstrated aptitude in enhancing safe integration of offenders in to the community and the empowerment of victims (PFI 2009). In most cases offenders are judged too harshly by the community however in the circles of support and accountability they are viewed like human beings. Through positive support and accountability from trained facilitators in the field of counseling and criminal justice they are bound to reform their behaviors. Community-based support and accountability reduces the chances of the offender committing a similar offense. In the circles of healing victims undergo cognitive counseling that empowers and enables them to get through the harm that was subjected to them and live normal lives (McCold 1996). Conclusion The approaches used in restorative justice comprise of retributive and therapeutic models of justice. Restorative justice processes provide a platform whereby both the victims and offenders can actively participate in the process of justice and reconciliation with the help of professional facilitators. There exist certain limitations that somewhat limit the restorative justice systems from delivering the expectations of the community by restoring justice. For instance, restorative justice processes are emotionally draining, time consuming and expensive. Nevertheless, restorative justice processes have over the course of time proved to be effective in empowering victims and reducing reoffending (Goulding & Steels 2007). Bibliography Goulding, D & Steels, B, 2007, Developing, implementing and researching a communitarian model of restorative justice for adult offenders in magistrate’s court, Willan publishing, Cullompton. Hennessey, H, 2005, Assessing Reoffending in Restorative Justice Conferences, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 77, 38(1). Hilde tubex, H & Houchin, R, 2009, Opportunities for restorative justice in the contemporary climate. Criminal Justice Press, New York. Johnstone, G, & Van Ness, D, 2007, Handbook of restorative justice, Willan Publishing, Devon. Liebmann, M, 2007, Restorative justice, how it works. Willan publishing, Cullompton. Mccalin, W, 2005, The sentencing circle: seeds of a community healing process, Living justice press, St Paul. McCold, P, 1996, Restorative justice and the role of community, Criminal Justice Press, New York. McCold, P, 2000, Toward a mid-range theory of restorative criminal justice: A reply to the Maximalist model. Contemporary Justice Review, 3(4), 357-414. McCold, P, & Wachtel, T, 2003, In pursuit of paradigm: A theory of restorative justice. Retrieved November 10, 2009, from Newburn, T, 2007, Criminology, Willan publishing, Cullompton. Prison Fellowship International, Beyond crime and punishment, Retrieved on November10, 2009 from Wachtel, T., & McCold, P, 2000, Restorative justice in everyday life. Cambridge University Press, New York. Walgrave, L, 2000, Integrating justice and restorative justice, Willan publishing, Cullompton. . . Read More