Restorative Justice And Justice System

What is restorative justice? Restorative justice is when youths that were affected by an incident choose to repair the damage that they committed, restore trust, and find a place in the community in which they can fit into society. Not only that, but one of their main focus is to build respectful relationships that can be noticed by everyone (Murthy, 2016, para. 2). The restorative justice approach shares three goals. These three goals are known as accountability, competency, and public safety. Accountability is responsible for making amends and reestablishes the losses to victims and communities. The purpose of accountability is not to obey a curfew, attending counseling, having interaction with a probation officer, or evade the usage of drugs. The full meaning of restorative justice is simply to take full responsibility for the actions that were committed (del Carmen & Trulson, 2006, p. 446). The purpose of competency is basically doing something that’s going to value another person. Not doing an illegal crime doesn’t count as a standard for competency. Getting offenders involved in different activities would value the community. Activities that value the community are work, community service, dispute resolution, and community problem solving. All of these activities help rebuild the offender, victim, and of course the community (del Carmen & Trulson. 2006, p. 446). The last one which is public safety helps offenders get more involved within the community through

The contemporary criminal justice system must respond in a proactive manner rather than a reactive manner. This provides both the necessary and immediate penalties for the convicted, and at the same time ensure that victims’ needs are addressed

Restorative justice refers to the idea that the simple punishment through incarceration of a criminal may not necessarily end or satisfy the harm, injury or pain of the victim. Moreover, restorative justice argues that punishment by itself is unlikely to change the behavior of the offender in a way that guarantees he will not commit the same act(s) again and that he will feel remorse for the act(s) that he did commit. Accordingly, the aims of restorative justice are threefold. First, it aims to bring closure to the victim, whether it is through allowing them to fully participate in the criminal justice process, directly let their feelings known to the offender or understanding why the crime happened. Second, it aims to force the offender to

I obtained my associates degree in psychology and when I started Walden for my bachelor’s that was also in psychology, however after taking a few criminal justice classes as my concentration I liked it so much I switched my major, so explaining criminal justice to people is not new to me as many people want to know why I switched and what the difference is.

Restorative justice is becoming more popular as the guideposts to effective corrections policy, both sides prisons and within the wider community. The philosophy is based on the traditional practices of indigenous cultures around the world. Criminal behaviour is primarily caused by the alienation of certain members from society at large. Everyone is an equal member of society and has a contribution to make the greater good. When a person becomes alienated or disconnected from that society , everyone in that society is responsible to bring that person back into a harmonious relationship with him/her “self” as well as the rest of the community.

Karp argues that restorative justice is a more effective system than the prevailing retributive model. Within the book it is asserted that restorative justice systems had a higher degree of satisfaction for victims than the retributive approach(page 46). In addition to the higher degree of victim satisfaction the restorative approach was also less likely to result in an appeal, with a less than one percent of cases being appealed(page 47). (MAYBE A LITTLE MORE) These are the tangible benefits when compared empirically to retributive systems, restorative approaches have other benefits as well.

Restorative justice is the right approach. The beginning starts with the offender admitting and taking responsibility for the crimes they committed. I always notice criminals acting innocent even though they are a 100 percent guilty, refusing to admit guilt. The restorative justice program impacts the victims in a much better way than the court system often does. The courts are there to make sure that someone pays for the damages, but there is not healing or closure between the victim and the offender. Not only would this heal (to an extent) the pain of the victim but also the pain of the criminal. Those who commit crimes are damaged emotionally, poverty-stricken and are often abandoned by others close to them. Sometimes crime is all they

To What Extent Should Restorative Justice be incorporated within the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales? (2500 words)

An empirical research showed that both victims and offenders who experience a restorative justice program express high levels of satisfaction. Additionally, both victims and offenders are not satisfied with the traditional court system and believe that the restorative justice process is fair.

In the contemporary criminal system, there would have been a different outcome and the process involved. The contemporary system would have taken the statement from the victim and pursued the people responsible. Once they located the people responsible, they

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.

Since ancient times, restorative and retributive practices were used. Retributive justice is oriented toward punishing the offender for breaking laws and rules. Prevention of future crimes or rehabilitation is not considered when punishing the offender. In restorative justice, the focus is mainly on the victim. Harm is amended and the offender is rehabilitated. Both of these practices are used today around the world.

The current conventional criminal justice process takes a more punitive, ‘retributive’ view of criminal justice. The retributive approach has become grounded into our current system of justice whereby it intends to establish blame on offenders and make them repay their debt to society by inflicting a form of punishment (Ball, 2000). The general stance in relation to the ‘retributive system’ is that its more offender-oriented and its focus is the past rather than the future (Griffiths, 1999). In addition to establishing blame, it tends to give less attention to future-oriented concerns such as how to repair the damages caused by the crime and how future recurrences can be prevented (Young, M, 1999). It has been argued that the existing ‘retributive system’ places excessive emphasis on the past whilst being less constructive towards victims, offenders and the society, as a result youths tend to get labelled as criminal from an early age leading in some cases to a life delinquent offending behaviour (Braithwaite, 1989). At present a crime is viewed as a social conflict within society, and so a crime is perceived an offense against society rather

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.

Victimisation is the process of learning the various ways that authority figures determine who is a victim, while also educating the person on how to become the victim. Secondary victimisation, also known as double victimisation refers to the way the state responds to victimisation. The states response has the potential to add further burdens on to the victim. Three main components of the criminal justice system will be focused on in this paper; these are enforcement, adjudication and punishment. This paper will identify why the criminal justice system tend to commit secondary victimisation towards the victims. It will also discuss the pains of victimisation and how secondary victimisation has the ability to amplify these pains. The paper will also identify reforms that have been put in place in order to minimise the occurrence of secondary victimisation.