Restorative Criminal Justice Research Paper

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.

Rooted in our civilization, restorative justice was once viewed as a sin against a sovereign society of a King, Queen, or Emperor. Albert Eglash (1975) first articulated restorative justice over retributive and rehabilitative justice, an indeed search for the original status of security of the victim’s feelings. Restorative Justice, a more victim-centered aspect of punishment than the offender, however, the victim should consider, what it is that restorative justice will restore to its original state of security, and would it be enough justice that the victim seeks.

This essay will critically analyse and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of retributivism. Throughout history the term “retributivism” has had a diverse though correlated meanings. The most significant meaning of retributivism is righting or rebalancing the scale of justice, through the use of mechanisms such as punishment e.g. punishing criminals in order to achieve justice for the offence they have committed. Retributivism also looks back at the offence, since the offender has committed a wrongful offence which needs to be punished. One of the core reasons why offenders should be punished is that they need to ‘pay back’ for the offence they have committed; the theory that is associated with retributivism is the just deserts theory. A theory is a concept that is based upon a hypothesis that can be supported with evidence. The just desert theory is used to justify retributivism punishment. Unlike other theories of punishment that mainly concentrates on preventing future crime, such as rehabilitation, deterrence and reductivism. The retributivist theory primarily concentrates on punishing past crimes. Although others would disagree with this for the reason that they think punishment should be used to ‘reduce’ and ‘prevent future crimes’ (Carlsmith et al., 2002 p284). The essay will take into account the views of various theories; theorist and philosophers so that the strengths and weaknesses of

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- an approach to corrective justice that focuses on meeting the need of all concerned.

Restorative justice is a system of criminal justice that focuses on the rehabilitation of offenders through reconciliation with victims and the community at large. Understanding the definition may be really hard to understand, however when we put it in a different form that many can understand it comes down to repair, encounter and transformation. Our book describes restorative justice in three parts as accountability, community protection and competency development (Sieh, 2006).

However, it quickly became a way of making the offender pay for every little thing possible, all in the name of “correcting the wrong”. There are certainly flaws within this policy, as there are in all areas of the criminal justice system. On the bright side, the underlying reasoning for the restorative justice program seem to be right, and there are many things within this model that could be seen as beneficial for both the victim and the offender. Many areas within this model allow for closure, and allow for forgiveness. It also allows for more possibility than the retributive model. This is not always the case in models that focus on more harsh punishment for the

It is important to know what works in restorative justice and for which type of victim it is a suitable alternative or addition to criminal justice. The goal of this study was to find out to what extent a victim’s pre-mediation level of PTSD, propensity to forgive (depending on interpersonal commitment), and anger are associated with the victims’ general satisfaction with victim-offender mediation. The expectation was that PTSD and anger would be negatively associated with general satisfaction, and that forgiveness would be positively associated, but that this relationship would be more evident when the victim had a stronger commitment before the offense. For this purpose, existing data were used of a research project in the Netherlands on

Although there is an increased commitment towards the approach of Restorative Justice, the theories, though advancing remain somewhat problematic within the criminal justice system. There, is no one meaning for the term restorative justice, but over the years advocates have advanced many philosophies toward the movement. The two definitions which stand out and cover the main principles of restorative justice were given by proponents of the movement Howard Zehr a renowned leader in the Restorative Justice movement, in his book Changing Lenses and Tony F. Marshall in his article the evolution of restorative justice in Britain. They are defined as follows: “Restorative Justice is a process to involve, to the extent possible, those who have a stake in a specific offence and to collectively identify and address harms, needs and obligations, in order to heal and put things as right as possible” (Zehr, 2002). “Restorative Justice is a process whereby all the parties with a stake in a particular offence come together

According to retributivism, the wrong caused to the victim by the offender must also be inflicted on him as a form of punishment. Thus, the justification for such punishment consists of a compensatory measure in response to the offence caused. Furthermore, although some authors argue that this compensation should be painfully done (Flew 1969, check page), it does not necessarily involves imprisonment, since non-custodial alternatives can also cause pain (check reference). Nevertheless, the emergence of the paradigm of restorative justice has brought new contours to this subject (Zedner, Principled Sentencing: 191), mitigating this relationship between punishment and pain.

The criminal justice system views any crime as a crime committed against the state and places much emphasis on retribution and paying back to the community, through time, fines or community work. Historically punishment has been a very public affair, which was once a key aspect of the punishment process, through the use of the stocks, dunking chair, pillory, and hangman’s noose, although in today’s society punishment has become a lot more private (Newburn, 2007). However it has been argued that although the debt against the state has been paid, the victim of the crime has been left with no legal input to seek adequate retribution from the offender, leaving the victim perhaps feeling unsatisfied with the criminal justice process.

Restorative Justice aims to create a response to crime which respects the dignity and equality of each person, builds understanding and promotes social harmony, it addresses the needs of the victims as well as that of the offender, allows the offender to take responsibility for the wrong that was committed , allows the victim and society to be actively involved in the resolution process in the form of mediation, rehabilitates the offender and integrates the offender back into society by repairing the relationship between the offender and the community together with the victim.

Restorative justice takes into consideration many things. Community safety recognizes the right of the community to live in a safe environment, with relative peace, harmony and mutual respect. Accountability emphasizes the importance of the offender being held accountable for their behavior and actions. Competency considers the ability of people to have care and concern for those around them. All of these aspects combine to accomplish restorative justice (DeVore, D., & Gentilcore,

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?

Restorative justice is most suitable for cases that involve an identifiable victim who have suffered a crime of dishonesty and violence, as it allows the victim and the offender to rectify the imbalances and aid in coming to terms with the injustice.