Essay Restorative Justice: A New Paradigm or a Complementary Model

Entry #1: Maynard, Robyn. "Incarcerating youth as justice? An in-depth examination of youth, incarceration, and restorative justice." Canadian Dimension Sept.-Oct. 2011: 25+. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 24 Oct. 2016.

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).

Restorative justice also known as transformation justice focusses on the needs of the victims, offenders and the community. Transformation or Restorative Justice twists that idea and focus on repairing the harm the crime caused, while also making sure that those who are responsible for the crime take responsibility and accountability for their actions. My paper will explain how Restorative Justice can be used as a rehabilitation process in today’s society. If you were to ask someone to explain what justice was to them, most people would say something like “getting revenge on the offender for what they have done to us and or the community in which we live in”. People commonly mistake justice for punishment-often severe punishment. The difference between justice and punishment is that justice will force the person at fault to take accountability for their actions and punishment is just a way for the victims to make themselves feel better about the situation. Howard Zehr, was an American criminologist said “that helpful equity contrasts from the customary criminal equity framework as a result of the terms and controlling inquiries that it inquires:”. (Wikepdia, 2016) Therapeutic Justice asks the accompanying inquiries:

Although Although theoretically conferencing may be seen as a viable alternative for adolescents to court proceedings, and indeed some evidence suggests it reduces recidivism, it will ultimately be concluded that the success of restorative justice programs depends on more than just its ability to reduce recidivism, and thus it will not always provide a useful alternative to more traditional criminal justice approaches.

Umbreit etal have conducted a study on the significance of the lens on restorative justice dialogue in Minnesota in 2009. In most RJ programs, victims and offenders engage in direct dialogue about a specific offense or infraction, with the presence of at least one-third person who serves as a mediator, facilitator, convener, or circle keeper. The purpose of the study was to learn whether the use of Restorative Justice Programs would bring positive outcomes when restoring broken relationship and trust between victim and offender. The survey also covered participation

After reading the article on school violence and the restorative justice approach, I feel that restorative justice is a positive approach towards handling violence. As mentioned in the article, in the past, students often experienced formal punishments, such as suspensions, for their misbehavior or negative actions. In other words, students often were immediately punished for their actions potentially without explanations. Therefore, this restorative justice approach seems like a good idea because it brings awareness towards issues or consequences from these issues and provides explanations for better ways of handling situations. This approach seems similar to the authoritative parenting approach, which includes high levels of responsiveness

This essay aims to make clear the system of restorative justice and its aims towards youth offending, whilst arguing points for and against the current system and whether or not it is more appropriate in terms of dealing with youth offending. It will also define restorative justice as well as defining what is meant by conventional justice. Making clear how and why these two systems came to be a part of youth justice whilst concluding as to which if either is more appropriate in dealing with youth offending behaviour.

Since the traditional approach is only concern about the victims and giving a punitive authoritarian reward to the offenders, restorative approach is design to restore the damage relationship, and reintegrate the both the offenders and the victims back to the community. This approach is concern about two significant things, which are safe school community and behavioural change. This approach helps the offender to acknowledge the wrongdoing and the rate of harm he or she has caused the victims and the community, also to act ‘restoratively’. This approach through pre-conference provides the offender the understanding that he or she had a choice of amendment with the victims and the community, also understanding

The chief objective of this is to identify that crime endangers community and this system aim to repair this by involving everyone in the remedial process of the crime. Another purpose of Restorative Justice is to regain the trust of the community to the justice system. Since victims have a higher satisfaction rate using this process, community reacts positively to this as community can also be viewed as a secondary victim in the offense. Peace and order is disrupted because of the offense and the offender is held liable not only to the direct victim but also to the community .This research paper first provides a definition of restorative justice and discusses the differences and similarities between restorative and other models of justice. It then describes core value–based principles that should guide restorative intervention and policy development and discusses the varieties of restorative practice. In addition, research is summarized that generally demonstrates the effectiveness and efficiency of restorative justice. Following this is a discussion of how these doctrine relate to several criminological and social science theories that may aid in

Think some teenagers are getting out of hand these days, or heading down the wrong path? There are many different types of alternative punishment; the amount of juvenile crime would dramatically drop if any of these were more greatly enforced. The most effective way to help these teenagers and to get them started down the correct path is enforcing alternative punishment upon them. This form of punishment is sometimes also known as juvenile justice, restorative justice, and community justice (Karp, 2004). One of the most important characteristics of this punishment is "the idea of discussion, dialogue, and negotiation between the parties involved in and affected by a given crime" (Karp, 2004, ph. 2). This not only forms a connection between

Albert Eglash first used the term restorative justice in the milieu of the criminal justice system in the 1950’s (Daniel W. Van Ness, 2014, p. 90). Eglash found restorative justice to be one of three components to the formula of criminal justice. He indicated two additional elements, retributive and distributive justice, focus solely on the offender resulting with the victims having little to no active involvement in the justice process. Restorative justice however, offers the offender and the victim both active roles in reparation and rehabilitation throughout the process of justice (Daniel W. Van Ness, 2014, p. 91).

Restorative Justice (RJ) is a program that if implemented correctly, could not only revolutionize our justice system but perhaps transform our society as a whole, by greatly reducing crime. This is a bold statement; but if people can be taught about the harm the smallest crimes can have on our society, as well as the grave potential it could lead to other more harmful crimes. When added in the home training, as well as our school system, as young as preschool, there is no doubt this would greatly reduce crime, because society would have been talked earlier on about the impacts of crime. Yes, there will be those who would only see this as a program to be soft of criminals, however when they see the true goal of this program, responsibility,

In the restorative process punishment is being looked at as instrumental, “as it is not imposed as it is not imposed with the offender’s negative moral status in mind, but rather the desirable consequences it is believed or hoped the disposition will have on the offender. Punishment is not intentional; it is a side-effect of the reparation process” (293). Punitive punishment in this way as Braithwaite sees it cannot be a part of the restorative justice process due to its attempt to reduce crime and attempt to change the behavioral inside of shaming the individual person. However, Charles Barton in the book “Restorative Justice: an empowerment model” examines how punitive and restorative elements work together to create a form of punishment. Barton says “It is a mistake to think that punitive elements of agreement automatically undermine or weaken restorative potential. Quite the contrary. Some appropriate level and form of punitiveness will enhance the effectiveness of the restorative justice response and will often have to form some type of agreements to be acceptable to relevant parities” (2003, 22). Barton is looking at how it is fundamentally right to punish the offenders and make them take accountability for their actions. Being through jail time or having an encounter with the stakeholders as restorative justice allows. The restorative elements come in where emotion is

There has been a strong oppositional difference and contrast between restorative justice and criminal justice in Chicago dating around four decades ago (Braithwaite, John Bradford). Consequently, this contrast seems to have become a permanent fixture providing two alternative systems under the same justice umbrella. Up until recently, criminal justice has been canonized in the judicial system, but with recent developments in academic works in juvenile justice and criminology, restorative justice, especially in juvenile violations, has shown great significance and positive outcomes. Even though some states might argue that restorative justice favors the proprietor of a crime rather than the victim, the state of Chicago should consider the inevitable change from the old system of criminal justice that focuses on punitive measures especially for juvenile violations. This is because restorative justice provides a greater satisfaction to the victims, drastically reduces the frequency of repeat offenses, and ensures accountability to the victims. However, we cannot potentially consider restorative justice without the relation to the traditional criminal justice. This is because the restorative justice is based upon principles of the traditional criminal justice that preceded it.

When victims want the juvenile offender to be punished for the harm they have caused, this is called retributive justice. Often Americans think that upping the consequences for committing crime is deterrent for others who are thinking of committing criminal acts. However, retributive justice has been proven to be outdated, and it doesn’t do much from deterring youth from committing crime. Though, there is an alternative, and it is called restorative justice.