Restorative Justice And Restitution Process

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.

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

Julie Hilt is the executive director of the Solano County Bar Association. Julie realized that Solano County didn’t have a restorative justice program. Julie realizes this program is new to Solano County and hope the program is supported in the community. Julie states the purpose of the restorative justice program in Solano County focus is to restore the community and promote healing after a crime; the process has additional benefits, such as increased restitution for victims, greater satisfaction with the system and potentially lower recidivism. Julie believes the restorative justice program is designed to teach the offender to be accountable for their wrong doings. Julie says the practices of the program are allowing the victim(s) who is willing the opportunity to come forward and participate in a face to face meeting with offenders.

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 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.

My initial reaction to the concept and process of restorative justice was positive. I am in full agreement to the process and feel this is a program that should be implemented in schools, justice systems, at home, and in the community. Van Wormer describes this program goal is to work together as a community (community building) to restore what was once whole and holding the offender accountable for damages (Van Wormer & Besthorn, 2011). Restorative justice is a humane way of problem solving and giving the opportunity for the offender to understand the effects made on the community, it's a form of therapy to discuss the underlying causes and issues. This provides the opportunity for both victim and offender to heal and create solutions.

Restorative justice is based on the principle that criminal behavior injures not only the victim but also the community and the offender, and any effort to resolve these problems caused by criminal behavior should involve all of these parties. Common restorative justice initiatives are victim-offender mediation, circle sentencing, community holistic healing programs, and family group conferences. A key to all these responses to criminal behavior is to address not only the offender, but all parties involved including the victim and their families, offender's family, community citizens, and even the police officers themselves.

They discuss the crime and what impact it has had on both the victim and the offender. Restorative process consists of individuals who give support to the offender and the victim during their conversation. There are mediators which help the victim and the offender in the discussion of the impact of the crime and try to help resolve any issues. This process is generally separated into three different portions; these are the preparation for the pre-conference, the conference, and the follow up conference.

A key aspect of restorative justice lies in the offender apologizing for the crime and members

I watched a video on youtube based on a restorative justice conference which is an example of restorative justice. The video was actors, that was fed actual victims and offenders words, during a particular conference. The conference started as any traditional restorative justice conference would, everyone se in a circle, and was told to give the name that they wish to be addressed as. After, the name introduction the facilitator set the ground rules, such as no verbal abuse, or curse words etc. Next, the offender a woman who burglarized the victim home, was allowed to tell her side, as to why she broke into the victims home. Once the offender shared her story, a sign of relief appeared across the victims face. The victim then proceeded to state

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.

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 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.

The perception by many involved in the justice system in general, and youth justice in particular, is that the present model of punitive retributive justice, often involving incarceration does not work. Indeed, it may be compounding an already huge social problem. This realisation has lead many to look for alternative systems. At present there is a considerable momentum building that advocates the use of a restorative justice model. Marshall has defined restorative justice as a process whereby parties with a stake in a specific offence collectively resolve how to deal with the aftermath of

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?