Restorative Justice Theory - Research Paper Example

Restorative Justice Process Introduction: Restorative Justice Theory refers to the process of consensus between the victim and the offender in order to resolve the conflict between them. It is a process of transformation for the offender by repairing harm done not only to the victim but also to the people directly or indirectly related to the victim. It provides opportunities for all those who are most affected by the crime to be directly involved in responding to the harm caused. All these individuals are known as “Primary Stakeholders”. (Maiese, 2003) The objectives of Restorative Justice includes: priority should be given to victim needs either through financial, material, emotional or social means; to avoid re-offending by re-integrating the offenders into the community; to make offenders accept their responsibility for their actions; and rehabilitation of offenders and victims by recreating the working community in order to avoid crime and to avoid the long process of the justice system and the related costs and delays. (Marshall, 1991). The Restorative Justice process is based upon the following assumptions: the root cause of a crime could be social conditions, the responsibility has to be shared by the local government and communities because they are also responsible for such social conditions, and in order to rectify it they have to accept some responsibility; collaboration of all parties in order to solve the problems present and to achieve resolution, along with including the collaboration among victims, offenders and community are essential factors that lead toward effectiveness and efficiency; The conditions of the legal outcome should be flexible enough in order to take proactive actions in any case; and lastly, justice is meant to represent balance between both the parties and no single justification will be allowed to dominate other. (Marshall, 1991). Victim-Offender Mediation: The process of victim-offender mediation provides the victims and offenders a safe and secure place with the purpose of holding the offender accountable for their misconduct. It is a platform provided to the victims where they can, with the help of a mediator, let the offender know how much they have been affected by the crime, to receive compensation and to get some answers to their questions. Victims can be a part of the restitution plan and may claim their losses directly. Therefore, the offender has to accept their responsibility for their behavior and assist within the process to develop a plan that provides compensation for the victim. It is through this stage that the offender is expected to obtain understanding and clarity regarding the impact of their behavior on others. (Umbreit, 1998) Through this mediation, victims are provided opportunities to know about the progress of their cases and they are well informed about the proceedings. If victims demand for emotional reparation in recovery then this reparation may include- apologies, forgiveness and acquiring surety about their safety, a reduction in fear, anxiety and anger, sometimes sympathy towards the offender, the chance of regaining the trust if the offender is related to the victim. Victims can also demand material reparation, which does not mean that the victim asks for material restoration if material harm has occurred. It is up to the victim whether they want to act generously or insist on restitution. Material reparation may include the offender working within community organizations or for the people affected by them. (Strong, Sherman, pg 28-34) Difference between the Traditional and Restorative Justice System: Restorative Justice is based on the assumptions of the concerned parties- offender, victims and community. It is believed that crime is an offense against another person or community and violating human rights; whereas, in Traditional Approach the crime committed is considered as lawbreaking. (Ventura, 2006) According to the Traditional system approach, justice is perceived through receiving punishment whereas, in the Restorative Justice approach, the offenders assume their responsibility and have to repair the harm caused. Unlike the typical way of proving guilty at trial, offenders are not required to be “just deserts” but the Restorative Justice, demands compensation in terms of monetary reparation or per victim demands. In order to fully resolve the matter between the victims and offenders, negotiation between the two is extremely important. (Ventura, 2006) In the Classical Deterrence Theory, punishment can discourage both- the crime and the offender. The Restorative Justice system condemns punishment and believes that punishment alone cannot change the behavior and that punishment is disruptive to the harmony of the community and relationships. (Ventura, 2006) In contrast to the Traditional Justice system where the rights of the victims are embraced and validated through punishment, the Restorative Justice process ensures that the victims have a central role in the negotiation and reparation process; it is impossible to deal with offenders without the involvement of the victims. Also, the cases in the court are extended and take a long time toward a hearing in the Traditional approach; in the Restorative Justice system, it takes less time and victims are well informed about their case; the Restorative Justice system provides the platform of reconciliation through the interests of the victims, offenders and the community through mutual cooperation and the needs of all the stakeholders. (Ventura, 2006) Theories of Restorative Justice: Howard Zehr is known as the father of the Restorative Justice System and was the first writer to speak about it in a small pamphlet called ‘Retributive Justice, Restoration Justice’ in 1985 and then in his book Changing Lenses in 1990. He describes Restorative Justice as an “alternative justice paradigm”. According to his research, the assumptions behind this system are that, “crime violates people and relationships, justice aims to identify needs and obligations, so that things can be made right. Justice encourages dialogue and mutual agreement, gives victims and offenders central roles and is judged by the extent to which responsibilities are assumed, needs met, and healing (of individuals and relationships) is encouraged”. (Leung, 1999) Zehr’s work has influenced many other authors and is supported within the works of Mark Umbreit in I985, in America, Martin Wright in I99I and John Harding in I992 in Britain. They believed that the mediation process was a significant component between the victim and offender and considered the private negotiation process as a sufficient response to crime. (Van Ness, Strong, 2010) Martin Wright’s work has contributed to the development of the Restorative Justice approach in Europe. In his book, “Justice for Victims and Offenders” in 1991, he explains from his experience as an advocate for both the victim and offender, that justice should be restorative rather than retributive. He emphasized on increasing the compensation, restitution and negotiation process so both parties can participate more greatly. He suggested constructing two governmental departments. The first one would be responsible for deterrence through negotiation rather punishment. And the second department would be responsible for assisting the justice system with process & procedure, as well as, programs to enhance mediation, victim support, reparation and a court that focuses on restitution. (Van Ness, Strong, 2010) Virginia Mackey wrote a discussion paper on the Restorative Justice system for Criminal Justice Program of the Presbyterian Church (USA). This document was used to enhance and enlighten conversations within faith communities on the present problems of the current approaches to crime and biblically reflective alternatives. Virginia, using Fay Honey Knopp’s terminology, proposed a “Community Safety/Restorative Model”. The model was based on six principles: safety should be considered as first priority for the community, the offenders should be held accountable for their misconduct and harm resulted, the restoration of the victims and communities harmed by the crime, conflicts should be resolved which led to the crime, if possible, there must be a treatment option available and lastly, there must be a cooperative system that is comprised of public and private resources. (Van Ness, Strong, 2010) Conclusion: The purpose of the Restorative Justice system is not to make the victims “just desert” but rather provides an opportunity for the offender to accept accountability for their crime and offers victims monetary or symbolic reparation, reconciliation by resolving the issues and rehabilitation for the offenders by re-integrating them into the community. It is a process, which gives opportunity to the offender to recognize his behavior and assume responsibility to rectify his mistake. It includes all cultures and social classes; justice is not only given to the rich but all classes are equal in regard to the process of reparation when violation of human rights has occurred. Restorative Justice not only supports human rights but tries to maintain the peace and harmony in the community by having the offenders assume their guilt in a responsible and respectful manner and providing them with a chance for change by re-integration within the community. Victims report more contentment with case resolution through the Restorative Justice process rather than in the Traditional process. References: Top of Form Van, N. D. W., & Strong, K. H. (2010). Restoring justice: An introduction to restorative justice. New Providence, NJ: LexisNexis. Bottom of Form Tony F. Marshall (1991). Restorative Justice An Overview. Michelle Maiese. The Aims of Restorative Justice May Leung. The Origins of Restorative Justice. Briathwaite. Resource Material Series No.63 Mark S. Umbreit (1998). Restorative Justice Through Victim-Offender Mediation: A Multi-Site Assessment. Holy Elizabeth Ventura, Restorative justice and youth courts: An examination of implementation intensity, recidivism, and accountability Lawrence W. Sherman & Heather Strong, Repairing the Harm: Victims and Restorative Justice Read More