Society's Response to Crime - Literature review Example

LASA 2 Society’s Response to Crime Is restorative justice useful in lowering the rate of recidivism? For whichtypes of crimes and offenders is it most useful? The intention of restorative justice is to refurbish the harm resulting from crime plus violence by facilitating a process that tackles the victim’s needs, and holding the offenders responsible for the crime committed. This occurs if, the criminal accepts their part in crime and the victims volunteer to take part. In this context, the participants of the restoration process possess a unique understanding of crime (Tyler, 2006). The idea is not to consider crime as an infringement of law alone, but a breach of associations between people and disruption of peace in the society. The process of restoration entails participation of all persons influenced by the criminal conduct. Usually, a facilitator performs the role of guiding the discussion where, the affected explains the occurrence of the offense. In this case, the victim plus the affected have a chance to suggest measures that they feel are right for them to be comfortable. Restorative justice allows the victims to express their feelings and the impact the crime had on them. This process is preferable because the court procedures may not allow such expressions. Participating in restorative justice is fundamental because it reduces rates of recidivism (Tyler, 2006). This is evident because the evil doer has a chance to reconcile with the victim. The offender is likely not to repeat the offense due to the agreement reached during the discussion. This contrasts the issue of the court process where the offender undergoes torture in prison, and instead of ceasing from criminal acts, they proceed with the criminal acts even to the point of being vengeful. The psychology of offenders who have served in prison differs. However, most recidivate due to the harsh experiences encountered in prison (Sherman, Tyler, Strang, Barnes & Woods, 2007). A Meta analysis performed by Jeff, Craig & Danielle indicated a considerable outcome on the usefulness of restorative justice in preventing and reducing recidivism. The results from the Meta analysis conducted on 32 tests were 72 percent positive. These results meant that restorative approaches lowered recidivism unlike the case with retributive approaches. Crimes and offenders that restorative justice are useful Although restorative approach was applicable to lesser crimes, for example, theft assault and mischief, the approach is useful in all forms of offenses especially, where the victim intends to express feelings and pose questions (McLaughlin, 2003). Although cases of theft are sometimes, without direct contact between the offender and the victim, the effects are detrimental to the society. Restorative justice is applicable for the purpose of informing the criminal of the wrong doing and preventing a future occurrence. In this case, the offender has is accountable for the crime and liable to repairs for damages. Burglary is a non violence act; however, it has repercussions especially, to the victim’s psychology and emotions (Tyler, 2006). Application of restorative justice is significant, in this case, because the offender knows the feelings of the victims. The offender can compensate the victims according to the agreement reached during the conference with a facilitator. Offenses associated with hate crime, corruption and domestic violence can apply in restorative justice. In hate crime, restoration of justice can reconcile the parties making a repeat of the crime impossible (Sherman et al., 2007). This is because of the understanding that emanate during discussions. Cases of domestic violence may remain unreported because the victims fear that conviction of the offender would leave them without support. In this case, the process of justice restoration can provide the victim with options for an improved future. Other crimes that restoration of justice can apply include crimes related to sexual violence, homicide and environment (Tyler, 2006). Is procedural or moral justice more applicable for this aim? For which types of crimes and offenders is it most useful? Procedural justice performs a different approach to issues that regard social order plus control. Procedural justice depends on the morals plus values of persons which guides the behavior and adherence to rules. Procedural justice concentrates on every day adherence to rules and argues in support of legitimate law for the purpose of ensuring compliance. Procedural justice ensures that legal authorities exercise fairness. This process motivates individuals to obey the rule of law because of the notion that the law is right (Sherman et al., 2007). Procedural justice ensures various encounters to persons participating in the process. There is a feeling of legitimacy due to the experiences that people face in procedural justice proceedings. Procedural justice becomes educational thus; people become informed of various laws. Fair treatment of offenders especially by the police enables individuals to develop social values such that they do not repeat offense in the future. There have been questions of the applicability of procedural justice especially in cases where individuals are poor. These questions tend to make procedural justice less applicable for the purpose of lowering recidivism (Tyler, 2006). Moral justice cannot reduce recidivism because persons behave in accordance to their own notion on what is the right action to take in a situation (Sherman et al., 2007). In this situation, the conduct of individuals is due to feelings that they are responsible for following various principles of morality. Usually, people develop a sense of guilt when they fail to adhere to the moral principles. However, procedural justice is more applicable than moral justice and reduces recidivism as compared to moral justice. Offenders and crimes that procedural justice is most useful Procedural justice is useful in cases that require negotiation, mediation or adjudication. Cases involving international disputes may require procedural justice in order to prevent intensification of conflicts. Procedural justice is applicable in crimes that involve violations of human rights, for example, assault. Cases of war between countries, which lead to violation of human rights, can utilize procedural justice in order to bring peace to the nation. Procedural justice is useful in tackling affairs of domestic violence (Sherman et al., 2007). Since the process encourages fairness, offenders are likely to change and adopt behaviors that are acceptable by law. Procedural justice becomes useful when dealing with issues of violence, for example, those which involve sexual violence. Which type of justice is most useful based on the psychological theories of crime? For which types of crimes and offenders is it most useful? There are various psychological theories that describe causation of crimes. Through review of these theories, it is possible to determine justice that is most useful for reducing recidivism (Tyler, 2006). For example, criminal models associate criminal behavior with undesired or negative childhood encounters, which make children unable to develop adequate social values thus, developing criminal behaviors. This suggests that offenders can reform if; the law uses appropriate approaches to justice. The social learning theory suggests behavior to be a learned phenomenon only when reinforced. The notion of cognitive development indicates the learning of behavior from interaction with friends plus families and the entire community. According to evidence based review, treatment of criminals based on restorative justice is convenient than other types (Sherman et al., 2007). This is because restorative justice joins the parties making the offender responsible for the crime. In addition, the offender becomes aware of the consequence of crime to the society (Tyler, 2006). The process aids in changing the erroneous thinking pattern of the offender modifying their thinking in relation to life. Restorative justice can be useful in tackling a variety of offenders and crimes. It is evident in cases of warring communities where a facilitator intervenes in order to restore peace between communities (McLaughlin, 2003). Restorative justice is useful in issues of domestic violence, theft and other minor crimes. Reference McLaughlin, E. (2003). Restorative justice: Critical issues. London [u.a.: Sage Publ. [u.a.. Sherman, L., Tyler, T. R., Strang, H., Barnes, G. C., & Woods, D. (2007). Reintegrative Shaming, Procedural Justice, and Recidivism: The Engagement of Offenders Psychological Mechanisms in the Canberra RISE Drinking-and-Driving Experiment. Law & Society Review, 41(3), 553-586. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5893.2007.00314.x Tyler, T. R. (2006). Restorative Justice and Procedural Justice: Dealing with Rule Breaking. Journal Of Social Issues, 62(2), 307-326. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2006.00452.x Read More