Restorative Justice Dialogue

While many conservatives oppose the rehabilitative measures restorative justice offers offenders and demand more prisons and penalties, advocates for restorative justice counter this demand with research. Restorative justice advocates call for restitution rather than retribution. According to promoters for restorative justice, imposing harsh penalties on offenders and lengthening prison sentences is futile. “Critical theorists argue that the ‘old methods’ of punishment are a failure and that upwards of two-thirds of all prison inmates recidivate soon after their release” (Siegel, 2008, p. 188). While conservatives want to build more prisons and lock away more offenders for longer terms, supporters of restorative justice believe that a more rehabilitative approach is beneficial for not only the offender, but also the community. “The offender is asked to recognize that he or she caused injury to personal and social relations along with a determination and acceptance of responsibility. Only then can the offender be restored as a productive member of society” (Siegel, 2008, p. 190). Placing an offender in prison for any amount of time is shown to be harmful to the offender, their victim, and society. “Rather than reduce recidivism, harsher punishments may increase the likelihood of reoffending” (Siegel, 2008, p. 86). A conservative asking for more prisons would likely be met with a barrage of evidence explaining why restorative justice will and

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

Fagliano, S. (2008, May 19). How Victim-Offender Mediation Impacts Juvenile Offenders. Retrieved from Stanford.edu: http://web.stanford.edu/dept/URBS/programs/documents/faglianothesis.pdf

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.

Finding a new way to deal with criminal issues for young adults is very rare, especialy in a predomenatly impoverished area. So to be a part of the Restorative Justice Research team was an honor, also very insightful. At first I knew only a brief description about restorative justice being used in a way of restoring small issues not applying it to a more serious incidents such as criminal justice. I looked at it as harm causing problems were as justice repairs a partial amount of the problem. For this project however, it was way more than just rebuilding but a way to bring justice in a creative way that can not only benefit people who have done crimes but help repair community thoughts and views in the process.

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.

There have been findings that have concluded that victims who partook in the restorative justice practices experienced a huge decrease in post-trauma symptoms (Dancig-Rosenberg, and Galt, 2013). Victims finally get the chance to talk about what happened to them, how they

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.

In this research design, the purpose of the study will be to understand if there is a correlation between juvenile delinquency and victim offender mediation. In the adult criminal justice system, victim offender mediation has been something that has shown great success in situations where both parties are open to the program. In the instance of juvenile delinquents, the question is whether victim offender mediation will have a positive effect on the juveniles, therefore leading to a higher percentage of recidivism and lower amount of juvenile arrests and court cases. Victim-offender mediation is a process that provides interested victims of primarily property crimes and minor assaults the opportunity to meet the juvenile or adult offender,

Currently in the United Kingdom there are youth offending specialist teams who work exclusively with juvenile offenders and their victims. As part of this diversionary program, juvenile probation officers organize restorative conferencing with the offender, the victim, the probation officer and community representatives, if appropriate. The conference involves the offender in a written agreement with the victim - as a form of apology, reparation, and restitution. A crucial principle of restorative justice is that the victim is compensated by the offender - for example, by working in their garden, painting a garage or shed etc. In this way the victim can be compensated and where reconciliation is achieved between victim and perpetrator,

There are already existing restorative practices that are place within the conventional criminal justice system at present namely probation, restitution and community service (Zehr, 1990). Admittedly they are not readily termed restorative justice programs however they are grounded in its theory.

During this type of healing circle, the offence will be discussed as well as how it affected the victim and the community and the relationship between them and the offender (Justice Education Society, 2016). Not only does the circle attempt to heal community ties, the circle also focuses on the offender and the fundamental causes of their offence (Justice Education Society, 2016). Following a healing circle that is directed towards offenders and victims, a consensus is taken to decide the subsequent steps that should be taken by the offender to correct the harms caused by their actions (Justice Education Society, 2016). These steps could include specialized counseling or treatment programs, community work service, potlatch or other traditional remedies, direct restitution to the victim or community and in some cases, unique and creative solutions emerge (Justice Education Society, 2016).

The focus of the current mainstream criminal justice (CJ) system and the focus of restorative justice (RJ) are where true differences lie. The current criminal justice system focuses on punishment, while restorative justice emphasizes repairing the harm that has been caused (Wormer and Walker, 2013). In the restorative justice process, many people are directly involved, including: those who have been harmed and their families, those who have caused harm and their families, and the relevant community (Wormer and Walker, 2013). Today’s criminal justice system is different in that individuals are

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.

Re-integration not segregation might be said to be the moral centre of restorative justice. Daly and others see it, as at least in part, a feminist issue, with the role of the state being a dominating masculine presence, which is in essence aggressive to both victim and offender, and a change in this dynamic must occur to allow inclusiveness (Daly,2008).