Arkansas is one of the states that does not do allot of offender mediation programs in communities or cities. However, in 2009, Arkansas tried to promote a restorative justice program that would imposed unique sanctions on offenders through the criminal courts (Brantley, 2009). The program had a faith-based component and was not imposed on the offender but rather both victim and offender must be willingly to participate (Brantley, 2009).
Today most of the offender mediation programs are operated by Universities and schools. The University of Arkansas has a program named Ombus that participates in projects with the restorative justice program that is administered through the Office of Community Standards and Student Ethics. Ombud
…show more content…
will utilize a repayment in which the offender makes restitution to a symbolic victim by working for the community on work crews (Youth Justice, 2017).
Victim offender mediation works to bring conflicting parties together to engage in speaking and hopefully negotiating a mutually agreeable solution (Dhami, 2016). Research shows that the most common outcome of victim offender mediation is an apology and is often expected by the parties (Dhami, 2016). Victims may decide on the mediation process to teach the offender a lesson in accountability. During the process, typically the offender is required to admit responsibility, acknowledge harm, express remorse, promise they will not do the offense again, and offer some form of restitution (Dhami, 2016).
The violation of law is not the sole focus in the restorative process. It is an attempt to repair the harm of the offense by having those directly involved mutually agree how the offender can best compensate or restore their victim, community, and self (Saxon, 2013). Traditional methods of justice often remove the victim from the community and relies only on the direction of laws to impose sentences on the offender (Saxon, 2013). One of the major drawbacks of this process is that it empowers victims, offenders, and communities in making the sentencing agreement and may result in some offenders being sentenced more harshly for the same crime another person committed (Saxon, 2013).
Victim offender
The tension between rehabilitation and punishment has been increasing dramatically. This is because there have been sharp rises in the prison population and repeat offender rates. When one area is over emphasized in relation to the other, there is the possibility that imbalances will occur. Over the course of time, these issues can create challenges that will impact the criminal justice system and society at large. (Gadek, 2010) (Clear, 2011) (Gatotch, 2011)
Its most commonly known definition was provided by Marshall in 1996, that describes restorative justice as a process where both parties; victims and offenders, work together to restore, resolve and deal with the after effects of the offence and future ramifications (as cited in Van Camp & Wemmers, 2013). The concept of restorative justice originally derived from various indigenous and pre-industrial western justice practices, however, in the 1970's it begun to appear in modern times and was then developed as a reference to describe victim-offender programs that were developed in North America (Strang, 2001). Restorative Justice approaches spread across the world in the 1990's, where many countries such as Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom, began introducing these approaches as alternatives in their criminal justice systems (Braithwaite, 1999). The concept of restorative justice usually involves victim and offender direct participation and is conducted in the form of conferences or mediation. This is where both parties; the victims and offenders, come together fact-to-face in one location, alongside a facilitator, police and support people, and work out together the consequences of the offenders actions and the
In the United States, each day approximately 1,600 adults are released from state and federal penitentiaries to reintegrate back into the community (Gunnison & Helfgott, 2013). Reentry programs have been created all over the nation to help offenders successfully transition from prison into society. Offenders are confronted with numerous obstacles when attempting to reintegrate back into society. Ninety-five percent of offenders are released to reintegrate back into the community (Davis, Bahr, & Ward, 2013). Upon release, ex-offenders realize that despite the fact that they are no longer incarcerated, they face many restrictions. The restorative justice development rose to address the disappointment of the criminal justice framework to manage victims, offenders, and communities in an integrated way. A core focus of this development has been to expand the role of the community in advocating changes that will avert the issues and conditions related with crime and the demand for a criminal justice intervention (Hass & Saxon, 2012).
Fagliano, S. (2008, May 19). How Victim-Offender Mediation Impacts Juvenile Offenders. Retrieved from Stanford.edu: http://web.stanford.edu/dept/URBS/programs/documents/faglianothesis.pdf
Today we see five prevalent goals of corrections including retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation and restorative justice. Goals employed in corrections change over time depending on several factors including the trends of thought in society and issues within the prison system. Politics as well as prison overcrowding also factor into determining which goal dominates. Retribution has a long-standing history as the most culturally accepted goal because people fended for themselves prior to organized law enforcement (Bartollas, 2002, p. 71). Incapacitation, the dominant goal currently, eliminates the threat by placing the criminal outside society, typically through incarceration, and preventing the criminal from having the ability to commit additional crimes. Deterrence, like retribution, has continued as a goal throughout history. In an effort to reduce the risk of crime, law enforcement attempt to deter criminals from committing crimes. Rehabilitation gained enormous strength with an attempt at moral redemption of the offender. Reformists believed corrections needed a makeover as they worked towards rehabilitation. Rehabilitation places more focus on the individual rather than the act in an attempt to rehabilitate the person. America did not begin to look at the corrections system more substantially until the 1970s as the idea of rehabilitation fell (Bartollas, 2002, p. 75). Restorative justice promises to restore the victim as the offender
In 2014, a mother/ex wife released her victim offender mediation story with the “Community Justice Initiatives Association”. This particular case was about her son’s father who was brutally attacked after being in an argument with the offender that is named “M” in the story. The ex husband died the next day due to a brain hemorrhage. The mother explained that her ex husband suffered from alcohol abuse and so did the offender. The ex wife found out before “M” was an offender before he was actually a victim and a product of a family that was part of residential schooling through his First Nation tribe. About a year past and the ex wife wanted to set up a healing circle with “M” so that her son can have some closure with his father’s death because he was having a hard time dealing with it. The son and his mother got to meet with the offender in a mediation circle to hopefully heal with all parties involved. At first this circle was hard for the son but later on opened up about the whole situation that led him to let all the weight off of his shoulders and got release some resentment off of his fathers killer. On another hand the mother had an opportunity to fully digest what the offender was saying and came to a conclusion that “M” is an oppressed person that had history of addiction and anger issues, which led to her forgiving the offender after the mediation process.
STAR is modeled after similar state and local court programs, as well as federal programs residing in the Western District of Michigan and the District of Massachusetts. Reentry courts are based on a therapeutic model of justice (Meekins, 2006; Miller, 2007) this therapeutic model has two ways in which it could be divided; the two categories include managerial in which “a court seeks to identify the range of problems facing its targets and clients and help clients by matching them to appropriate resources that benefit them the best. In the interventionist approaches the court seeks to intervene and change the ways ex-offenders perceive themselves as responsible agents (Miller,
Restorative justice (RJ) is the practice of trying to restore the victims of harm or trauma back to a state of peace and contentment. It is used to benefit the victims so they can in a way reclaim a part of themselves. Restorative justice has three main models/practices; Victim Offender Conferencing (VOC), Circle Processes, and Family Group Conferences. Victim offender conferencing is the most common application of restorative justice in North America. In, The Little Book of Victim Offender Conferencing, Lorraine Stutzman Amstutz explains, “the victim offender conferencing process brings victims and offenders of crime together in a face-to-face meeting prepared and led by a trained facilitator, often a community volunteer, to talk about the impact of the consequences of the crime.”
between offender and community, and move forward with an agreed upon plan to ensure healing
Throughout this paper, various articles will be discussed in further detail on the issue of restorative justice within the criminal justice system in the United States. Both benefits and disadvantages of restorative justice will be analyzed, in order to have a greater understanding of the alternative justice program, and to remove any preconceived ideas unsubstantiated by facts. Focus will be on topics such as what restorative justice is, followed by how it reduces the number of suspensions and disciplinary actions required by schools to manage offenders. These programs in schools give students various life skills needed to solve and manage problems rather than resorting to violence and crime. It will also be noted how there are those who dispute that restorative justice as a powerless alternative in which change is never achieved. Additionally, successful programs currently in place will be examined, which will shed light on both sides of the spectrum, to allow one to make an educated decision on whether or not the program is an effective and necessary one or not.
Restorative justice is a comparative newcomer to the world of criminal justice; however restorative justice has been around, ‘officially’- by means of legislation for 14 years, and unofficially (in innovative practice), for longer. The knowledge and skills associated with restorative justice have slowly but surely migrated to other services, such as education, with startling results (Daniels, 2013). With the criminal justice system being so unfair and bias for years maybe even centuries, restorative justice has been bought up as a useful tool for victims and offenders. Plenty of scholarly articles, journals, books, and research have been written about Restorative Justice.
Restorative Justice programs may include counceling and interventions like, “RJ programs are typically based on a nonadversarial interaction between victims, offenders, and other individuals impacted by the criminal act in order to repair the damage caused by the crime and to encourage offender accountability”(Bouffard, Bergseth, Copper, 465) Although, the age of juveniles enhances the idea that justice practitioners prefer to have juvenile offenders go through the methods of
This “coming together” may be one single event or may occur through a series of meetings, depending on the case. The mediator is trained with skills to prepare people for the process, and is there to ensure it progresses in a safe and civilized manner. The goals of the meetings are ensuring the satisfaction and well-being of the victim, with attention to his/her emotional needs, resolution of any lingering conflict between the victim and offender, and giving the offender a chance to absolve their feelings of guilt through apology and reparation. Looking toward the future, other steps taken at the proceeding are taking on offenders reasons for the crime, making a rehab plan, and the families agreement on a system of support to ensure the offender will adhere to the plan.
There are already existing restorative practices that are place within the conventional criminal justice system at present namely probation, restitution and community service (Zehr, 1990). Admittedly they are not readily termed restorative justice programs however they are grounded in its theory.
During this type of healing circle, the offence will be discussed as well as how it affected the victim and the community and the relationship between them and the offender (Justice Education Society, 2016). Not only does the circle attempt to heal community ties, the circle also focuses on the offender and the fundamental causes of their offence (Justice Education Society, 2016). Following a healing circle that is directed towards offenders and victims, a consensus is taken to decide the subsequent steps that should be taken by the offender to correct the harms caused by their actions (Justice Education Society, 2016). These steps could include specialized counseling or treatment programs, community work service, potlatch or other traditional remedies, direct restitution to the victim or community and in some cases, unique and creative solutions emerge (Justice Education Society, 2016).