Criminology: Alternative Methods in Justice - Research Paper Example

Criminology: Alternative Methods in Justice This paper is about the reawakening of curiosity in community custody that is happening today. This reawakening includes the increased interest in restorative justice around the world; the growth of reintegrative shaming as a way of addressing offending; the pressure to contain or reduce rising prison populations; the rapid evolution of electronic surveillance technologies; the increased interest in what might be termed multidimensional sanctions that simultaneously promote multiple sentencing goals; lastly, a growing public acceptance of community based sanctions. Introduction The initial perception of the criminal justice system is that criminal conflicts at present time are matters that concern the community. Despite being an accepted philosophy, there remain some significant factors that have to be considered. These are court caseload, prison population, costs and recidivism. These often cause the prolonged processing of legal cases taking no notice of the needs of victims as it give little interest to offenders’ reintegration (Gavrielides, 2007). Various studies just recently submitted in Canada prove that the system of crime control is not functioning as expected since victims often feel sensibly distraught by the offense, and nearly completely left without help by the present system. Consequently, numerous needs surfaced which include the victims desire to vent out his or her feelings; the desire for some type of restoration to make amends for his or her loss; the desire for some sort of justification for the suffering; the need for restitution, and lastly, the desire for forgiveness and release. However, the current system does not allow these things; rather, these come as accidental outcomes. From the victim’s standpoint, a deep-seated reality that is happening in the existing system is the non-status of the victim because the system makes the victim unnecessarily apart from being the primary witness to the crime (Northey, 2007). Restorative Justice Restorative justice (RJ) has been known in different countries in diverse forms and with numerous names for more than last two decades. It has emerged from positions of activism, academic circles and justice system bureaus (Gavrielides, 2007). Judgment of a criminal act is traditionally best performed by trained and specialized criminal justice professionals. The RJ philosophy believes that such decisions should be discussed by the principal parties involved—victim and offender—preferably in meetings with one another in the presence typically of family and close friends (Barton, n.d.). The notion of RJ reflects unconventional practice of resolving disputes like unorthodox punishment alternatives. It can also be a unique and new structure of criminal justice established around the principles of refurbishment to victims, lawbreakers and the communities where they belong. Some procedures may come in the form of deviation from formal court processes, taking actions analogous with court decisions, and setting meetings—such as conferences and sentencing circles (Gavrielides, 2007). Advocates emphasize that the RJ process may be more convenient for victims opposed to court proceedings for the reason that it regards offenders accountable and gives victims better opportunities to talk (Curtis-Fawley and Daly, n.d.). 1970 was the year when the term ‘Restorative Justice’ was first commenced in the existing criminal justice system. Though it was arguable, solid evidence implies that its concepts are of ancient origin—returning into the customs and religions for the most part traditional societies. It was even believed that there is a possibility that the term ‘Restorative Justice’ was conceived in an article by Albert Eglash in 1977. Moreover, there are some who claim that its values are founded on the old traditions of justice dating back to the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations (Braithwaite 2002, 64-68). Some of the cases that are best dealt by RJ are those involving child protection, family welfare, juvenile justice and criminal justice. Although actions are taken in parallel with court decisions, these cases are handled by RJ apart from the formal court process. Initially, the offenders have to acknowledge the offense. Secondly, offenders together with their supporters will have a face-to-face meeting with the victim together with the victim’s supporters. The victim can send or a representative for having a face-to-face meeting is not necessary. There may be other pertinent people present such as police officers. Despite the informality of the procedure the person organizing and administering the meeting should institute the ground rules for the participants that include paying attention to the person speaking and giving everyone an opportunity to speak. Thirdly, discussion and decisions rely on the wisdom and decision-making capabilities of lay actors instead of legal actors—albeit diversionary conferences usually have the presence of knowledgeable police officer. Ultimately, the objectives of the procedure are to encourage the victim to describe how the crime affected him or her; to lessen the fear and anger of the victim toward the offender; to persuade the offender to concede to the damage the crime caused the victim; and to influence the offender to apologize as well repair the harm through the penalties that both parties approved of (Curtis-Fawley and Daly, n.d.). In addition, Gavrielides (2007) discussed that at the present time, it is broadly accepted that the term “Restorative Justice” used in a criminal justice context refers to any of these four programs—victim-offender mediation, family group conferences, healing and sentencing circles, and community restorative boards. Victim-Offender Mediation Victim-offender mediation is considered one of the most popular contemporary restorative programs wherein the primary victim and offender are brought together by a trained mediator who coordinates the meeting. The mediation’s essential attribute is its competence to helping both parties to arrive at new and shared insight of their relationship which will eventually redirect their dispositions toward each other (Gavrielides, 2007). Family Group Conferences Mediation. Tracing its roots in tradition, this program can be differentiated from victim-offender mediation because it requires more parties in the process—the primary victims and offenders as well as the secondary victims, the parties’ families and close friends, community representatives or the police—brought together by a third neutral party or facilitator who is not part of the substantive discussion. An essential pre-requisite of all family-group conferences is that the offender has confessed to the offense and that all participants join voluntarily and have the desire to resolve and re-establish their relationship in an honest and humane manner. However, it is important to note that offenders are expected to cope with the human effect the offense had on their victims as well as their family and friends. Unfortunately, restored relationships and emotions are not the only potential products of this program. Initially, the director of the program asks the victims as to what ‘practical outcomes’ they wish to achieve from the conference so that the director can shape the suitable obligations on the offender. As a group, they decide on what the offender needs to accomplish in order to repair the damage, together with the assistance the offender will need in order to carry it out. The session adjourns with all parties signing a settlement enumerating their expectations and obligations to each other (Gavrielides, 2007). Healing and Sentencing Circles Mediation. Any member of the community who has an interest in the case may participate in this program—the victim, the offender, their families and friends, prosecutors, defense counsels, judges and court personnel and even the police. Originating from traditional circle rituals where tribes used to assemble and discuss their disputes these programs are community-directed processes as these are prearranged by a community justice committee which determines which cases to accept. Nowadays, they typically work alongside with the criminal justice system involving a multi-step process. It starts with the offenders submitting an application to participate in the process, and moves onward with a ‘healing circle’ for them together with their victims. After achieving a constructive result, a ‘sentencing circle’ is in order to discuss the elements of a sentencing plan and then a ‘follow-up circles’ are formed to supervise the progress of the offender at different intervals. Additionally, a selected participant will play as the ‘keeper of the circle’ whose role is to guarantee that the process is protected (Gavrielides, 2007). Community Restorative Boards Mediation. This restorative program is a conventional case where community members become significantly involved in the justice process. Community Restorative Boards are composed of small groups of active citizens specially trained to carry out public, personal meetings with offenders who are ruled by the court to participate. This program offers victims and the community an opportunity to confront offenders in a productive manner and at the same time gives the offender the chance to take personal liability. This program upholds community custody of the criminal justice system while providing them with a chance to be directly engaged in the justice proceedings in order to generate significant ‘community-driven’ penalties for criminal actions that are opt to reduce cost by parting from formal criminal justice processing. The process usually begins with a meeting between the board members deliberating the character of the offense, and the impact it had on the victim and community after which a set of proposed sanctions is developed. These sanctions are discussed with the offender and the victim until they all arrive to a reasonable agreement followed by a discussion regarding the method of performance, detailed actions and calendar for the reparation of the crime. Consequently, offenders have to verify their progress in executing the exact stipulations as stated in the signed agreement. The process ends when the predetermined period of time has collapsed and the board of members has surrendered a report to the court on the offender’s fulfillment of the agreement (Gavrielides, 2007). Reintegrative Shaming Reintegrative shaming is considered as a highly successful RJ method. It is very effective notably in cases where important and respected people in the life of the offender are present during in the meeting. Braithwaite’s theory explains that the significance of involving as many noteworthy members of the offender’s family and friends as well as their community of encouragement and care. The disapproval of the offender’s behavior expressed by these significant and respected people in the offender’s life while demonstrating comprehensible signs of respect and acceptance concerning the offender as a person at the same time generates highly positive effects on the offender (Barton, n.d.). There are two details that should be explained about the theory of reintegrative shaming. First, the theory supplies a barely limited explanation of the things that occur during restorative justice meetings. Despite pointing the unambiguous restoration and social reintegration of offenders, it does not explain restoration and healing of the victims which are equally important. Secondly, it emphasizes the confusion that surrounds the principle of reintegrative shaming which seems to be twisted by the word ‘shaming,’ for the reason that it is oftentimes mistaken to mean that offenders are deliberately humiliated during the conferences. There are two kinds of shaming. These are the disintegrative or stigmatizing shaming and reintegrative shaming. The former is employed by stigmatizing, disgracing, and humiliating for their offense; while the latter is accomplished when the behavior of an offender is condemned without compromising their self-esteem and confidence by means of positive remarks about them and gestures of pardon and (re-)acceptance. Additionally, restorative justice experience most often illustrates that deep shame is induced naturally and automatically within an offender as they are come face up with the detrimental consequences of their actions especially when heard directly from the victim, from the victim’s family and friends, in the same manner as hearing from their own family and friends about the trauma, the massive emotional and/or physical pain they all had to endure as a result of their actions. For that reason, there is certainly no need to intentionally insult the offender as it would be counterproductive for it might result to crushing all self-confidence in the offender, or provoke their resentment and insolence (Barton, n.d.). Prison Populations People have a tendency to rely on incarceration as the answer to criminal offense as proven by an ever-rising prison population. Nevertheless, the public still does not feel greater security. Moreover, this viewpoint toward imprisonment forces some difficult choices since constructing and managing prisons and jails is very costly and competition for community funds is intense (Dillingham, 1999). Since January 1999, an ad hoc committee in Wisconsin has been examining ways for the state to reduce costs in corrections without sacrificing public safety. The state spends up to $1.2 billion on its prisons which has increased by 71% from 1999. Unless the state government work on a solution to decrease prison rate, the state is expected to spend up to $2.5 billion by 2019. One Milwaukee District Attorney named John Chisholm says that the state must find ways to keep offenders from incarceration and help them become productive citizens; otherwise they are to be expected to enter and re-enter the criminal justice system again and again (Bence, May 2009; Journal Sentinel, April 2009). Probation and parole agencies all over the U.S. are employing different types of criminal case classification instruments for various purposes which have been developed through a range of techniques and based on several different populations (Gottfredson, 1987). Besides risk assessment, Bonta (1996) emphasizes the “third generation” assessments which combine assessments of offender risk and criminogenic requirement to yield a more comprehensive framework of both the likelihood of recidivism and mechanisms in order to reduce chances of failure. These third generation assessments are categorized as the CMC and the Level of Services Inventory (LSI). Both categories are projected to enhance correctional practice by concentrating on vital characteristics of offenders. The former is predominantly intended to influence and regulate agency procedures in probation and parole, while the latter is designed at addressing behavior of the offender by recognizing the criminogenic forces at work in the offender’s life. Classification and assessment guides decision-making, weaken prejudice, enhance placement of offenders, assist in managing resources in a more efficient method, and give support in legal matters (Jones, et al, May 2009). Electronic Surveillance Technologies Throughout the 1990s, many governments have spent huge money from the research to the deployment of new technology not only for their internal security forces but for their para-military and police forces as well for the purpose of increasing and enhancing policing capacities of each agency. Technocratization of the policing process resulted in a better policing response time. Moreover it proves to be cost-effective because aside from automating certain forms of control, it also augments the pace of specific activities, and decreases the number of officers that have to perform them (Statewatch, September 1998). The conception of electronic monitoring strategies started in the 1960’s through the study of a number of Harvard researchers. Dr. Ralph K. Schwitzgebel, one of these researchers, invented and patented his “Dr. Schwitzgebel’s Machine” for the American justice system. Schwitzgebel also viewed its usage as an option for a long term incarceration of certain types of chronic recidivists (Renzema 2003). Likewise the history of the EM (and now GPS) started since the 1960’s as an intricate blend of ever evolving factors—economic, ideological, political and technological conditions, various forces and interests, and processes (Mainprize 1996). Such forces and conditions consequently hoisted interest in EM during the1970’s. EM and GPS systems to monitor offenders have become known worldwide (Howard, 2006). Since its initiation in the USA during the 1980s, it has generally characterized as a type of confinement and deemed as an analogue of imprisonment such as curfew, community custody and home detention,. Multidimensional Sanctions Multidimensional sanctions are regard as sentencing reforms which are alternatives to the traditional sentencing reform (Marinos, January 1997). There are available sanctions that offenders may be directed to aside from imprisonment or Jail-Parole. Offenders ascertained to be unsuitable for the revocation center program or other programming are sentenced for revocation and serves this in jail. These other sanctions include the Community Placement Program where offenders serve their punishment in the community in various placement options—residential halfway house to home confinement and day reporting; the House arrest/home detention where offenders are monitored employing of technology—electronic monitoring and tracking systems; the Halfway house-Traditional Programming includes medication for chemical addiction and cognitive reform; the Three-day parole Hold wherein jails are utilized as transitional instruments for parole violators; the Day reporting where offenders report to a controlled community placement for 90 days; and the DOCR rooms wherein offenders are housed in hotel rooms due to shortage in community placement (Emmer, May 1999). On a similar note, due to the drastic growth of population in Wisconsin corrections, recommendations were given in order to help the state cut costs on building and maintaining prisons. Included among the recommendations are the limitations on the length of time that an offender be on extended supervision outside the prison which may be compared to parole (this may be not more than 75% of the time they were imprisoned); expansion of community-based mental health and job placement services to facilitate high-risk offenders who are on extended supervision; establishment of a state-wide goal of downgrading recidivism rates for offenders who were released from prison by approximately 25% on 2011; allowing courts to limit the sentence given to offenders upon successful completion of programs intended to decrease their risk to public safety; and, enhancement of community-based programs tracking to verify their effectively at reducing recidivism (Bauer, 1999). Conclusion The resurgence of community custody in the form of restorative justice was due to the voluntary action by enthusiastic and dedicated practitioners from around the world who wish to resolve the victim’s need to meet their offenders face to face for various reasons such as making amends for his or her loss, justifying his or her suffering, restitution and, eventually the desire for forgiveness and release (Gavrielides, 2007; Northey, 2007). Reintegrative shaming as an effective RJ approach is different from intentionally humiliating the offender; rather, it is the offender together with significant people in his or her life comes face to face with the victim together with his or her family and friends. Through the narration of the crime and enumeration of its effects as told by the victim’s party as well as the disapproval of the his or her own party and the difficulties they all had to undergo due to the crime would generate highly positive effects on the offender (Barton, n.d.). This paves way for retribution and amendments without incarceration. Instead, multidimensional sanctions such as Jail-Parole, Community Placement Program, residential halfway house to home confinement and day reporting, house arrest/home detention, Halfway house-Traditional Programming , Three-day parole Hold, Day reporting and the DOCR rooms (Emmer, 1999). Multidimensional sanctions are regard as sentencing reforms which are alternatives to the traditional sentencing reform (Marinos, 1997). Examples of which are the limitations of the length of time that an offender be on extended supervision outside the prison; expansion of community-based mental health and job placement services to facilitate high-risk offenders; establishment of a state-wide goal of downgrading recidivism rates for offenders; allowing courts to limit the sentence given to offenders; and, enhancement of community-based programs tracking to verify their effectively at reducing recidivism (Bauer, 1999). A huge amount of government money is being spent for the technocratization of internal security, para-military and police forces. This aims to increase and enhance policing capacities of each agency. Indeed, it resulted to better policing response time; has been proven to be cost-effective; augmented the pace of specific activities; and decreased the number of officers that have to perform them (Statewatch, 1998). In addition, this will aid in supervising offenders who are carrying out the agreed sentence reform. Ultimately, community custody of the criminal justice system allows direct involvement in the justice proceedings to arrive at significant ‘community-driven’ penalties for offenders which consequentially reduce cost by doing away from formal criminal justice processing and decreasing incarceration (Gavrielides, 2007). References Barton, C., (n.d.) Restorative Justice Empowerment. Retrieved on November 17, 2009 from http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/ Bence, S. (May 6, 2009). The Cost of Crime & Punishment. WUW. Retrieved on November 17, 2009 from http://www.wuwm.com/programs/news/view_news.php?articleid=4532 Braithwaite, J. and Pettit, P. (1990). Not Just Deserts: A Republican Theory of Criminal Justice, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Braithwaite, J. (2002) Restorative justice & responsive regulation, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bonta, J. 1996. Risk-needs assessment and treatment In Choosing Correctional Options That Work, A. Harland, ed. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Bauer, S. (2009). Report: Cutting prison population would save $2B. Chicago Tribune. Curtis-Fawley, S. and Daly, K., (n.d.). Gendered Violence and Restorative Justice: The Views of Victim Advocates. Retrieved on November 17, 2009 from http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/ Dillingham, D.D. (1999). Annual issue 1999: Classification and risk assessment. National Institute of Corrections. Eglash, A. (1977). Beyond restitution: creative restitution, In J. Hudson and B. Galaway (eds) Restitution in Criminal justice, Lexington, MA: DC Heath and Company. Emmer, W. (May 6, 2009). The challenge of risk management in a small corrections system. the cost of crime & punishment. WUW. Retrieved on November 17, 2009 from http://www.wuwm.com/programs/news/view_news.php?articleid=4532 Gavrielides, T., (2007). Restorative justice theory and practice: addressing the discrepancy. European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control, Publication Series No. 52. Howard, J. (2006).Electronic (radio frequency) and gps monitored community based supervision programs. Retrieved on November 13, 2009 from http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/pub/PDF/monitorupdate.pdf Jones, D.A., Johnson, S., Latessa, E., Travis, L.F. (May 6, 2009). Case classification in community corrections: preliminary findings from a national survey: The cost of crime & punishment. WUW. Retrieved on November 17, 2009 from http://www.wuwm.com/programs/news/view_news.php?articleid=4532 Journal Sentinel ( 2009). Being smarter about who goes to prison. Retrieved on November 13, 2009 from http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/43200412.html Mainprize, S. (1996). Elective affinities in the engineering of social control: the evolution of electronic monitoring. Electronic Journal of Sociology, 2(2), 26. Marinos, V. (1997). Equivalency and interchangeability: the unexamined complexities of reforming the fine. Canadian Justice fro Criminology, vol. 39, no,1. Northey, W. (2007). A new paradigm of justice. Justice Reflections, Issue 15, p. 1. Renzema, M. (2003). Electronic monitoring’s impact on reoffending Retrieved on November 17, 2009 from http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/doc-pdf/elecmon.pdf Statewatch (1998). An appraisal of the technologies of political control: An omega foundation summary & options report for the European parliament. Retrieved on November 13, 2009 from http://cryptome.org/stoa-atpc.htm Read More