Debates in the Effectiveness of Restorative Justice - Essay Example

Restorative Justice Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Date Restorative Justice Introduction Restorative justice tends to accord the victims the chance to either communicate or meet with their offenders so that the victims could explain to the offenders the real effect of the given crime that they committed (Strang, 2002). Following this, restorative justice tends to empower the victims by enabling them to have a voice in the situation. At the same time, restorative justice tends to make the offenders accountable for the particular crime that they committed which ultimately assists them to take the responsibility and try to make amends (Strang, 2002). In the restorative justice process, both the victim and the offender will typically come to an agreement regarding particular actions which the offender will be required to partake so that they could repair the detrimental harm that they caused (Zehr, 2015). It has been argued that restorative justice may encourage desistance while at the same time may assist in building support, self-efficacy, and personal responsibility (Zehr, 2015). Therefore, the paper will discuss the debates that exist regarding the effectiveness of restorative justice and at the same time analyze the empirical evidence on the restorative justice processes as well as its impacts on the participants. Debates in the Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Opponents’ Arguments A section of the core critiques of the process argues that restorative justice does not work typically because it fails to meet its claims. These are the sociological and philosophical claims which state that human beings tend to continue carrying vengeful motivations which have proven to be impervious to the said transformative process of the restorative justice process (Sullivan & Tifft, 2001). Legally speaking, the opponents of the process argue that restorative justice tends to manipulate and unfairly coerce the participants, who are the victims to forgive the offenders than the legal rules and rights would allow when they are put in the formal justice institutions (Sullivan & Tifft, 2001). Therefore, they argue that the restorative justice is not sufficient and does not work because it fails to deliver equity justice. The other set of opponents are the anthropological critiques who argue that the ideology of restorative justice is not culturally universal, but instead they are culturally specific (Von Hirsch et al., 2003). In the same light, they argue that since the community notions are social constructs, there are chances that they could be manipulated and result in bad ends. From the political perspective, the opponents argue that the restorative justice process is prone to manipulations, corruption, as well as deformation which will, in turn, produce some levels of oppression, increased inappropriate social control, and increased state surveillance (Von Hirsch et al., 2003). Additionally, critiques have also placed forward an argument that the restorative justice process tends to privatize some aspects of the process which need to made public which results in the prevention of precedents as well as will tend to hide the result from evaluation and measurement (Daly, 2002). In the restorative justice movement, the theorists and practitioners of that justice system have also presented their worries that there are possibilities that the offenders may be stigmatized in a rather harmful way (Latimer, Dowden & Muise, 2005). In the same light, they also worry that the victims may be prone to be feeling re-victimized when they are required to retell the tales of the way they were injured or had to suffer in the hands of the offenders (Latimer, Dowden & Muise, 2005). On the contrary, the criminologists tend to have worries that the restorative justice process may result in non-rational, non-objective, and subjective evaluations of the harm which may produce significant injuries both for the offenders and the victims (Johnstone, 2013). The thing that may be considered very painful for a given victim may be tolerable to another victim. Similarly, on the victims’ perspectives, the impact of the coerced compassion, especially those that have been harmed detrimentally, may be that they will probably be subjected to feeling ashamed because of the desires that they have of retribution, vengeance, and punishment (Johnstone, 2013). According to research, feminists have also proven to be among the strongest critics of the restorative justice process although there are also a good number of proponents in the same context (Ashworth, 2002). The feminists argue that the models of restorative justice tend to often decriminalize the violence that is committed against the women through seeking to have lesser punishments to the offenders for these crimes with no incarceration for these wrongful doings (Ashworth, 2002). Other practitioners in the criminology field also argue that since the restorative justice process is usually structured around narrative and dialogue, it may significantly privilege the well-educated and verbal people while at the same time disempower the individuals who are not educated adequately (Ashworth, 2002). Following these various reasons, according to the opponents, the restorative justice processes do not work and are therefore not effective. Proponents of the Restorative Justice Process As much as there have been a significant number of opponents of the restorative justice process, there is also a significant number of proponents who argue that the restorative process works and is useful in various aspects (Sullivan & Tifft, 2007). One of the arguments that support the process is that the restorative justice process improves the understanding of the primary causes of conflicts and crime. This is because it gives both the offender and the victims the opportunity to discuss in-depth about the reason that led the offender to undertake the crime that they did, while at the same time gives the victim the chance to tell the offender what they felt after being harmed (Sullivan & Tifft, 2007). Following this, both of them will have a profound understanding of the other person’s perspectives and will probably lead to ease in getting over the incidence and healing which means that the process does work and it is effective (Sullivan & Tifft, 2007). Another reasoning that has been put forward to support the restorative justice process is that the given process offers the offender the opportunity to transform, repair, and reclaim their bad actions and in the end strive to re-integrate them into doing other productive activities (Sherman & Strang, 2007). This is because they are subjected to conditions where they are required to own up their wrongdoings and like express what they intend to do so that they do not repeat the same crime. Although the opponents have argued that doing this brings the offender to shame, the proponents claim that it is not shaming them, but it is instead bringing the criminals to being accountable for their wrongdoings and help them to transform for the better (Sherman & Strang, 2007). Additionally, the process assists in the transformation because it enables the offender to be reintegrated and assist them to change to doing other productive activities, consequently, becoming an efficient process (Sherman & Strang, 2007). Proponents have also argued that the restorative justice process tends to improve or increase democratic participation, community norm development, as well as community building (Johnstone, 2003). This is realized because the restorative justice process increases the number of community members and stakeholders who are involved in the deliberations during the restorative justice process. As research has documented, the restorative process has to have a facilitator, the offender, the victim, and other representatives of the community members who are willing to assist the two of them to come to an understanding and move forward on a rather positive note (Johnstone, 2003). In so doing, democratic participation is achieved because both of the parties will need to give their consent to undertake the process (Johnstone, 2003). The community members are also not forced to take part in the process, and it should be voluntary. Since all of these people in the community are involved, there is the community building and development which is a positive outcome of the process which makes it useful and workable. According to studies, the restorative justice processes tend to be rich in expressing various typically justice values that are competing simultaneously (Weitekamp & Kerner, 2012). These justice values that are usually competing for include fault acknowledgment, recognizing the aftermath which follows a given wrongful activity, social healing and learning, victims’ compensation, and the moral judgment (Weitekamp & Kerner, 2012). Following this, the restorative justice process is argued to be a flexible and creative way of addressing these issues as well as are a representation of a particular type of responsive justice. In the same light, the processes which make use of the values of restorative justice are likely to oversee that the individuals are engaged into some voluntary commitments for self and those of others and at the same time oversee the enhancement of self-esteem and self-empowerment. In doing this, the process proves to be efficient and easily workable (Weitekamp & Kerner, 2012). Empirical Evidence on the Restorative Justice Processes The restorative justice process is dependent on the process of bringing both the victims and offenders together, whether by communication through the use of third parties or just in person (Morris, 2002). The restorative process is made of three primary stages which begin by finding the cases that need this approach, acquiring the consent of all the parties to participate in the process, and lastly is reaching some amicable agreements. If the restorative process is utilized so that it could supplement the criminal justice procedure, then the fourth stage would be to transmit the reached agreement to the decision makers of the criminal justice system (Morris, 2002). Finding Cases Various assessment reports and studies regarding restorative justice have emphasized the difficulty that is often experienced when it comes to recruiting the offenders and victims into the restorative justice processes (Strang & Sherman, 2003). In the case that the problem of recruiting either the perpetrator or the victim is found, the difficulty is typically linked to the aim of utilizing the restorative justice process which is often considered an ‘add-on’ to the organization or agency which has a lot of work already (Strang & Sherman, 2003). On the other hand, if a given assemblage of individuals has received some funding to undertake restorative justice all the time, then the case recruitment and the case flow has proven to be very successful (Strang & Sherman, 2003). Consent to the Restorative Justice Process When the cases that are to be subjected to the restorative justice have been found at the right time, then it is usually not difficult to acquire the necessary consent both from the offenders and the victims (Strang & Sherman, 2003). According to studies, the number of the take-ups of the victims has been regarded to be rather substantial when compared to the skepticism which is usually experienced regarding the crime victims communicating or meeting with their respective offenders (Strang & Sherman, 2003). However, in the routine youth justice, some low rates of the involvement of the victims have been recorded which depicted an indication of the challenge that exists in ensuring that the restorative justice succeeds with the lack of a given unit which possesses a unique brief for the restorative justice (Strang & Sherman, 2003). Following this, whether or not the victims decide to take part in restorative justice is dependent on numerous factors. Some of the factors include the person who asks them to participate, the way they ask them, and the type of priority that is accorded to emotional and convenience states. These different factors tend to impact the possibility of the victims to participate in the process (Daly, 2000). Reaching Offender-Victims Agreements After the restorative justice facilitators become successful in making the victims and offenders come to an agreement on the principle which they are going to utilize in undertaking the restorative process, various other reasons arise which may hinder the process from being successful (Strang & Sherman, 2003). This success is concerning both the victims and offenders coming to an agreement. There are multiple grounds as to why the process of reaching an agreement may be difficult when even compared to just sentencing the particular offender in the court of law (Strang & Sherman, 2003). However, as evidence depicts, it is possible to make the process easy. This is through eliminating the obstacles that may hinder the offender compliance levels (Daly, 2000). Also, the facilitator will need to honor their promise to the victim regarding them being given a restorative justice conference through actually holding the meeting. Through doing this, the agreements between the offender and the victim could be reached faster and in an amicable manner (Daly, 2000). Report to the Restorative Justice Office After the victim and the offender come to an agreement regarding the given case, the agreement may be put down in the form of writing and can afterward be utilized for various serious reasons (Zehr, 2015). The restorative justice agreement may represent a significant material and/or moral part of the life of an offender. However, since the agreement is designed in such a way that is reflected on a given group’s consensus in a rather intense and emotional discussion, the restorative justice agreement is not supposed to resemble a court document or a pre-sentence report (Zehr, 2015). This agreement report is usually short, even as short as just a sentence. Due to the size of the agreement, according to research, various judges have in turn found these agreements not sufficient and comprehensive and thus do not fulfill the required intentions (Zehr, 2015). Impact of Restorative Justice on Participants As research has documented, the restorative justice process has some effects on the participants of the process (Morris, 2002). One of the effects of the restorative justice process is that it tends to empower the victims through offering them the opportunity to participate actively in the process of crime resolution (Morris, 2002). During this process, the victims control the degree and the type of their particular involvement in the case. As the paper has already discussed, the victims are more often satisfied with the restorative justice approach when compared to the conventional system of criminal justice (Morris, 2002). Therefore, during the restorative justice system, the victims usually feel much empowered during and after the case. Notwithstanding there being a significant amount of research on the impact that restorative justice has on the victims in the case, there is no adequate research which has been carried out regarding the satisfaction elements of both the offenders and the victims (Latimer, Dowden & Muise, 2005). There is a given survey which documented the healing impacts of the offender-victim mediation on the victims. The research depicted that approximately 90% of the victims in who took part in the process ended up being satisfied with the restorative justice process (Latimer, Dowden & Muise, 2005). On the other hand, the offenders had just about 67% satisfaction level. In the same light, the restorative process made the victims less fearful of their offenders after talking to them while the offenders were unwilling to hurt the victims again the way they previously did (Latimer, Dowden & Muise, 2005). Despite the fact that the aspect of physical health has not been accorded a lot of attention in the research of restorative process, the minimal research has documented that the physical health has the probability of being impacted by the occurrence of the crime (Johnstone, 2013). Studies have documented that both the physical and psychological consequences may be because of the stressful or negative incidents of the crime and the process as well. Following this, studies have denoted that victims and offenders cite the restorative process meeting to be very difficult, but at the same time, the meeting is very rewarding (Johnstone, 2013). As several of the meetings may be stressful, the offenders often experience some difficulties to meet one-on-one with the victim and take responsibility, apologize, or admit guilt that they feel for what they caused. Whereas the offenders are usually obligated to meet the victims, the victims are given a choice to do the same (Johnstone, 2013). Therefore, the offenders may feel rather satisfied and relieved if the victims do not agree to meet them while the victims may derive satisfaction in hearing that the offenders feel remorseful and apologize to them directly for the physical and emotional harm that they caused. Conclusion Restorative justice is the process whereby the victims and the offenders are given the opportunity to meet and talk about what happened and come to an amicable agreement that both of the parties are satisfied with. There have been various arguments and debates of whether or not the restorative process works and is effective. The proponents of the restorative process have put forward some reasons for the effectiveness of the process while the opponents have done the same which have been discussed in the paper. In the same light, the restorative process has four distinct steps which have also been elaborated in detail. The restorative process affects both the victims and offenders in different ways with most of the impact being psychological, emotional, and a little bit of physical. References Ashworth, A. (2002). Responsibilities, rights and restorative justice. The British Journal of Criminology, 42(3): 578-595. Daly, K. (2000). Revisiting the relationship between retributive and restorative justice. Restorative justice: Philosophy to practice, 33-54. Daly, K. (2002). Restorative justice: The real story. Punishment & Society, 4(1): 55-79. Johnstone, G. (2013). Restorative justice: Ideas, values, debates. Routledge: London. Johnstone, G. (Ed.). (2003). A restorative justice reader: Texts, sources, context (pp. 1-18). Willan Pub.: New York. Latimer, J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D. (2005). The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: A meta-analysis. The prison journal, 85(2): 127-144. Morris, A. (2002). Critiquing the critics: A brief response to critics of restorative justice. British Journal of Criminology, 42(3): 596-615. Sherman, L. W. & Strang, H. (2007). Restorative justice: The evidence. The Smith Institute: London. Strang, H. (2002). Repair or revenge: Victims and restorative justice (p. 63). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Strang, H., & Sherman, L. W. (2003). Repairing the harm: Victims and restorative justice. Utah L. Rev., 15. Sullivan, D., & Tifft, L. (2001). Restorative justice: Healing the foundations of our everyday lives (p. 8). Monsey, NY: Willow Tree Press. Sullivan, D., & Tifft, L. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of restorative justice: A global perspective. Routledge: New York. Von Hirsch, A., Roberts, J. V., Bottoms, A. E., Roach, K., & Schiff, M. (Eds.). (2003). Restorative justice and criminal justice: Competing or reconcilable paradigms. Bloomsbury Publishing: London. Weitekamp, E. G., & Kerner, H. J. (Eds.). (2012). Restorative justice: theoretical foundations. Routledge: London. Zehr, H. (2015). The little book of restorative justice: Revised and updated. Skyhorse Publishing, Inc.: London. Read More