Restorative Justice Gaining Support in South Africa

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.

Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW), and is intended to allow for the exercise of professional judgement, Justice Campbell utilised his discretion to put forth a lessened sentence that would not be “crushing”, as his sentence focused largely on the rehabilitation of Loveridge rather than the level of punishment this is in accordance to section 3A of the Crimes (sentencing procedure) act 1999 (NSW). The questionable "lenient" sentence has been put in place with the expectation that throughout the duration of his sentence Loveridge can ‘pay’ for the results of his offences, and furthermore work towards correcting his conduct, in order to be discharged back into the community. This sentence sparked an enormous outcry from members of Thomas Kelly’s family and friends the public and the legal community, as it does not reflect the morals of society.

Restorative justice is rehabilitation of offenders through reconciliation with victims and the community. Restorative justice programs are conferences held to enable offenders, victims and community members to meet face to face to discuss the crime that was done and determine the best way to repair the harm. Usually when offenders hear their victims describe the effect the crime had on them, they often feel sympathy and express remorse. Restorative justice conferences give the victims and community member’s justice and satisfaction. I believe the system is good because it gives criminals time to try and better themselves and try to change, and also gives justice and closure to the victims.

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

Some principles of restorative justice that I believe are very important are, being responsive to ones needs, showing empathy, respect, and openminded to both parties, being able to recognize the capability of those impacted. Learn from and repair harm and promote healing for everyone, work together not against one another, and being understanding to all situations from a less judgemental stand point. These are just a few that caught my attention completely when we were given a brief summary of some of things being provided to those whom either commited a crime or was a victim of a crime. Being able to find out the reason why a young adult commited a crime for the first time, as well as finding out how the victim felt knowing the reason for the criminals action.

The United States criminal justice is based on retributive justice. Putting offenders in prisons and jails as a source of punishment without rehabilitation has not helped them to become better citizens. " Restorative justice (RJ) is an option for doing justice after the occurrence of an offence that is primarily oriented towards repairing the individual, relational and social harm caused by that offence. (p.20)," says Prof. Dr. Katalin Gönczöl in European Best Practices of Restorative Justice in the Criminal Procedure. Retributive justice does not allow the victim, community or the offender have a say in what happens after the offence has been made.

Today more than thirty states either have Restorative Justice principles in their mission statements and policy plans or their lawmaking committee.(Armour) Restorative Justice considers those directly affected by an offender’s actions and those

Our current system of law and justice is oriented completely to the offender. “Restorative” justice is a term used to describe a number of programs that seek to do…what? What is “Restorative” justice and how may it work? Pg 67

In the utilitarian justice system of America, the idea of restorative justice is far-fetched. American culture is tainted by the mentality of revenge, and this is the reason why most crimes are met with severe punishment. Restorative justice tries to examine how “formal criminal justice processing” effects the victim and the offender (Braswell et al., 2015). According to broadcast and print journalist Molly Rowan Leach, most people feel that this type of justice tries to force the victim to forgive the offender, but this is not its main premise (Leach, 2013). The purpose of restorative justice is to compensate for the suffering of the victim, and punish the offender in a way that makes them aware of their mistake so that they

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

The Supreme Court case, R v Murray[4], states that the appellant pleaded not guilty to one charge of murder – where the appellant was found guilty of manslaughter – where, although the appellant intended to kill the deceased, he was only criminally responsible for manslaughter because of provocation under section 304[5] - where the appellant was sentenced to nine years imprisonment under section 161B[6] - where there was a declaration that the applicant had been convicted of a serious violence offence. Where the case R v McDougall and Collas[7] was applied as a precedent to the final decision of the case.