Criminal Justice Vs Restorative Justice

Restorative Justice, according to Google, is a system of criminal justice that focuses on the rehabilitation of offenders through reconciliation with victims and the community at large. It does not have a place in our society for several reasons. It is ineffective because it doesn’t punish people, doesn’t change them, and makes the situation even worse in most cases.

Restorative justice is rehabilitation of offenders through reconciliation with victims and the community. Restorative justice programs are conferences held to enable offenders, victims and community members to meet face to face to discuss the crime that was done and determine the best way to repair the harm. Usually when offenders hear their victims describe the effect the crime had on them, they often feel sympathy and express remorse. Restorative justice conferences give the victims and community member’s justice and satisfaction. I believe the system is good because it gives criminals time to try and better themselves and try to change, and also gives justice and closure to the victims.

During the 1990s, the emphasis and development of restorative justice perhaps reached its summit when both the federal government and the RCMP outwardly problematized conventional justice on the one hand, while they “championed” restorative justice on the other. Victims have generally expressed their satisfaction after participating in restorative justice programs. Moreover, while conventional justice has been plagued by significant reoffending rates, many scholars have found that restorative programs demonstrate success in this regard. Thus, we essentially have a failed experiment by Canada's leading and national police force on the one hand, but widespread academic support for restorative justice both in Canada and internationally on the

Question 1. Both Thomas Mathiesen and Stanley Cohen argue that the alternative criminal justice responses that were presented after the 1970s were not real alternatives (Tabibi, 2015a). With this they are referring to community justice alternatives generally, and Restorative Justice specifically. The argument here is that Restorative Justice cannot be a real alternative because it is finished and is based on the premises of the old system (Mathiesen, 1974). Restorative Justice is not an alternative because it has not solved the issues surrounding the penal system (Tabibi, 2015a). Cohen (1985) supports this sentiment, and suggests that community based alternatives have actually led to a net widening and expansion of the retributive criminal

Restorative justice ways are a very controversial topic. Many people have different opinions about whether restorative justice is a good idea or not. Restorative prisons are a part of restorative justice and they can positively impact many people who were involved in some way of the crime or not. One way of restorative prisons are very effective and beneficial is because it gives the perpetrator more of an option on rebuilding their life after. It also helps the perpetrator see the good in themselves as well as others see the good in this perpetrator. Restorative prisons don’t just give the perpetrator freedom right away they have to go through a process to prove that they want to be a better person so they are not just receiving freedom

The United States criminal justice is based on retributive justice. Putting offenders in prisons and jails as a source of punishment without rehabilitation has not helped them to become better citizens. " Restorative justice (RJ) is an option for doing justice after the occurrence of an offence that is primarily oriented towards repairing the individual, relational and social harm caused by that offence. (p.20)," says Prof. Dr. Katalin Gönczöl in European Best Practices of Restorative Justice in the Criminal Procedure. Retributive justice does not allow the victim, community or the offender have a say in what happens after the offence has been made.

The purpose of the restorative justice involves three basic goals: reestablishing the victims, reuniting offenders to the community, and helping to heal the community (Goodstein, and Butterfield, 2010). After being charged with an offense, the offender will always have that label on them and how everyone acts towards the offender will change. Restorative justice practices gives the offender a chance to change their outlook on life after being charged. These type of practices involve repairing and restoring relationships. Victims have the chance to come face-to-face with their offenders which could possibly lead to closure.

Bopp and Bopp (2007: 45) argue that the tendency of making use of uniform strategies in restorative justice loses values and often overlooks the heterogeneity of identities as well as the experience of the native people. This means that it is important to acknowledge the differences amongst the aboriginal people. It is evident that the use of retributive model of justice has been used in many of the corrections in Canada. This method has not been effective in reducing crime amongst the aboriginal people.

Restorative justice allows the victim and offender and their families to communicate and develop relationship to understanding why did the crime occur. It allows reestablishment of some values that were violated through the crime like respect and solidarity. The offenders are able to have active responsibility in the crime and develop empathy for what they have done. Restorative justice has been put into place into the McBride vs. Grosmaires and the families were able to receive closure. Offenders who are lucky enough to go through a restorative process are able to go through a complete transformation and better themselves for the future.

Restorative Justice is the response to bad behaviour criminal restoration and the solution of the problems caused by a crime (Heath-Thorton). In 1994 Restorative Justice began to become more common. This happened when the American Bar Association approved victim-offender mediation. Restorative Justice first appeared in 1970 as a substitute for the court process. It came out at the same time as the victims’ rights movement, which wanted more involvement of victims in the criminal justice process.

The criminal justice system is a set of agencies and processes established by governments to control crime and impose penalties on those who violate laws. Different jurisdictions have diverse laws, agencies, and ways of managing criminal justice processes. In recent years, it has been debated that the criminal justice system has two primary and possibility conflicting perspectives known as the retributive justice approach and the restorative justice approach. Retributive justice and restorative justice have contrasting approaches when imposing punishment, that will be explored within this research paper, in regards to the disadvantages and potential advantages resulting from the implementation of it’s polices within the criminal justice system. These two perspectives have been implemented amongst many different criminal justice systems internationally, however the questions still remain, what is justice? And how should justice be served? This debate has created a divide between countries, due to the differing interpretations of justice and it’s response to criminal activity. The statistical information has been extracted from various online sources listed within the references as well as primary and secondary sources, “Prisons” by Haley, James and “Alternatives to Prisons” by Jennifer Skancke.

With the rise of Civil Rights Movement in western countries, the circumstances of the criminal victims are getting more attention gradually. Due to this emphasis, it directly led to a first revolution in the criminal justice, the revival Restorative justice. For a criminal justice system, victim support and healing is a priority which might seem an obvious aim. "Restorative Justice" was first introduced by an American professor, Randy Barnett in 1977. Nowadays, restorative justice systems have been applied to criminal justice system in many countries (Tai Wan, Australia, the US and the UK etc). In spite of many researches of restorative justice composed by western scholars, however it has not yet been defined properly and cover over the cons of this system. Restorative Justice repairs the harm that caused by crime and reducing the future harm on victims, there are advantages yet there are also bad. In this essay, I will use the application of the principles of sociology, literature, ethics knowledge to demonstrate argumentation to restorative justice and to reflect the pros and cons. (160words)

1. What are the differences in the current mainstream criminal justice system and restorative justice? Define both while answering the question.

Restorative justice has some key restorative values that are vital in the restorative justice conference to make the experience ‘restorative’. Concerning addressing victim needs and concerns means for listening, respecting, being non-judgmental, not blaming the victim and apologizing. The RJ system was bought as an alternative to the criminal justice system to give greater emphasis on victim rights and needs, offender accountability and community involvement. Throughout the essay, there will be an insight into how Restorative Justice addresses needs of victims in terms of the different proponents such as Information provided to victim, restitution/compensation, emotional and practical needs met, participation and involvement of victim and protection of victim, which (Wemmers and Marisa, 2002) as essentials to victims participating in the practice. The two countries that will be addressed will have had restorative justice built out of injustices and over-representation of the current criminal justice system to the indigenous peoples of those countries.

This paper will focus on retributive justice and restorative justice. Let’s begin with the definition of each. Retributive justice is a theory of justice that considers that punishment, if proportionate, is a morally acceptable response to crime. On the other hand, restorative justice is the opposite. It is a theory of justice that focuses on the needs of the victims and the offenders. So which of these should be morally right?