Restorative Justice In Schools

My final point is that, instead of helping the situation, restorative justice has actually been proven to make things even worse. Earlier, I stated that if somebody knows that they won’t get in trouble for doing something wrong, they will just continue to do it. There are hundreds of examples all around the United States of where kids took advantage of Restorative Justice and did this exact thing. According to the New York Post, everywhere it’s been tried, this softer approach has backfired. They say that may districts are seeing even more classroom disruptions and violence. Lincoln, Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego, and Syracuse schools have all discovered that, since implementing the new restorative justice programs, kids have just become more apt to fight, with increasingly violent

Instead of being kicked out for fighting, stealing, talking back, or other troublesome behavior, schools are using restorative justice. Restorative justice in schools is to listen to each other, write letters of apology, work out solutions with the help of parents and educators, or engage in community service. I believe that way is better than kicking students out of the school system depriving them of education.

The school to prison pipeline continues to be one of the huge issues in an education system. In 1990s, zero-tolerance policies, which is “a strict enforcement of regulations and bans against undesirable behaviors or possession of items” (“zero”), have been adopted in various education system in the U.S. The purpose of these zero-tolerance policies was to prevent minor crimes that could become serious crimes, such as violation, murder, negligence, terrorism and more. Thus, many students get prosecuted and sent into the juvenile justice system because of this policy. Under this circumstance, schools should accept exception and consider the reason why they broke the rule. Also, students should not be given heavy punishments

Restorative justice is an innovative approach to the criminal justice system that focuses on repairing the harm caused by crimes committed. The methods used in the conventional justice system may deter the offender from committing further crimes, but it does neither repair the harm caused, nor help them acknowledge their responsibility, instead it stigmatises them, worsening the situation instead of improving it (Johnstone 2003). “Stigmatisation is the kind of shaming that creates outcasts; it is disrespectful, humiliating” (p.85). It breaks the moral bonds between offender and community and can result in the creation of a destructive cycle that may result in fear and isolation. The shaming by stigmatisation creates a negative effect which

With the creation of the zero tolerance policy, it changed the way student are being disciplined. In the 1990’s, in fear of the increasing crime rate, The United States Congress created a law that allowed public schools to enforce strict disciplinary policies for misbehaving students (Mental Health America). The zero tolerance policy states: “[the policy] mandates predetermined consequences or punishments for specific offenses that are intended to be applied regardless of the seriousness of the behavior, mitigating circumstances, or situational context”

While Karp does include some statistics and research findings in the seventh chapter it is minimal and still deals primarily with how participants felt about the process. The Little Book of Restorative Justice for Colleges and Universities would benefit from information like: suspensions/expulsions for conduct violations at universities with restorative systems as opposed to ‘traditional’ systems; the amount of money sent on traditional dispensary committees compared with restorative processes; the amount of money lost by expelling or suspending students under traditional approaches compared to the money saved when that student is able to be reiterated through restorative programs. This type of evidence would make restorative justice a more attractive system for college and university boards and presidents concerned with the finical side of institutions of higher

Schools that are low performing have the highest rates of suspension and expulsion and the lowest graduation rates. According to Mississippi Today, “the dropout rate for students fell slightly to 11.8 percent in 2016, the lowest in five years.” If I were to eliminate funding as a barrier, zero tolerance policies would still exist- especially in public school systems in the South, amidst people of color. Zero tolerance policies are obstacles put in place for small infractions performed by students, which can lead to disciplinary actions such as: corporal punishment, detention, and suspension. These small infractions may be in the form of getting up without permission, excessive talking, etc. Schools should offer more alternative measures, which counsel students on their misbehavior and give the student an opportunity to amend his or her actions. These methods fall under a restorative justice model. Community organizations, like Nollie Jenkins Family Center, have proposed alternatives such as peer mediation and conflict resolution to help keep youth in a learning environment, off the streets, and away from a life of crime. A case study performed by Philadelphia Police School Diversion Program, discovered that after counseling students for infraction their number of juvenile arrests and suspension “dropped by 54%.” This could potentially be a catalyst in bending the moral arc in the direction of justice,

Students are being handcuffed, arrested and expelled for possession of a butter knife or water gun, punishment that disproportionately targets African-American students, students being alienated and never returning to school after being suspended or expelled are all byproducts of the zero tolerance policies adopted by their school district. School administrators have abandoned common sense due to their adherence to zero tolerance policies by applying the same discipline to students that are guilty of minor offenses and non-violent rules violations, or just poor judgment as they due to

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.

Restorative Justice was created in effort to repare the victim of a crime (emotionally and mentally), along with restoring the criminals view and attitude towards the public/community. It is based off the Christian belief of forgiving, and working things out with the one who has done you wrong. Restorative Justice has the community focus on the victim, and takes the criminals attention away from his/her punishment. This justice system works “through a process of negotiation, meditation, victim empowerment, and reparation” (“Restorative Justice”). Restorative Justice is often used in elementary schools. For example, if a kid picked on you, you were sent into the hallway to talk through it with them. This is Restorative Justice. This justice

“Zero-Tolerance Policy” is the leading cause of most disobedient students, the reason why most students drop out of school and the cause of insubordination among students. The Zero-Tolerance Policy is a policy that, like the name states, has zero-tolerance for anything. Anything seen as a threat or anything that sends an inappropriate message towards the community is considered bad and the student could get arrested, suspended and/or expelled. The Zero-Tolerance policy applies to any student, regardless if a student has any health problems and falls to any student between the ages of 4-18. It could also apply to a student who could have the lowest amount of infractions possible. They say that removing students is necessary for learning, but, in doing that, they hurt the student as well. Some places don’t provide alternative places for students to learn at, really taking away their education. If it really ensures a safe and orderly environment for children, then there should be proof. There is no actual proof that it makes students feel safer (Wahl, "School Zero Tolerance Policies Do Harm" par. 1). It alienates the student and makes the student feel as if they are the “odd-one out”. Due to the injustices that this creates, the Zero-Tolerance Policy is ineffective, because it teaches students injustice, lowers students academic rates and minor offences are punished.

The zero tolerance policy has become a national controversy in regards to the solid proven facts that it criminalizes children and seems to catch kids who have no intention of doing harm. Although, there has been substantial evidence to prove that the policies enforced in many schools have gone far beyond the extreme to convict children of their wrongdoing. The punishments for the act of misconduct have reached a devastating high, and have pointed students in the wrong direction. Despite the opinions of administrators and parents, as well as evidence that zero tolerance policies have deterred violence in many public and private schools, the rules of conviction and punishment are unreasonable and should be modified.

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.

To what extent has the theory of restorative justice been integrated into Youth Justice practice in England and Wales? Has this gone far enough?