Restorative Justice Model And Domestic Violence

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.

Restorative justice is defined as “using humanistic, no punitive strategies to right wrongs and restore social harmony” (Siegel, 2008, p. 189). Instead of imposing harsh penalties on offenders like long prison sentences or even the death penalty, restorative justice calls for a more rehabilitative approach, such as reconciliation and offender assistance.

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

RJ focuses on crime and the violation of the law, while DTR focuses on the student's misbehavior and the violation of a school rule. Therefore, the secondary victims for DTR are usually students, teachers, parents, administration, and then the community, whereas for RJ, the secondary victims are family members, friends, witnesses, criminal justice official, and the community. Restorative Justice realizes that offender who poses safety risks should be placed in a setting where there is emphasis on safety, values, ethics, responsibility, accountability, and civility

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

Restorative justice is a style of discipline found within the criminal justice system that focuses on the rehabilitation of juvenile and adult offenders through reconciliation with victims and society at large (Richards 2009). Practices and programs that reflect restorative purposes will respond to crime by identifying harm and pain caused, taking steps to mitigate damage, and finally repairing the harm caused. Restorative justice encompasses all

Restorative justice is a system of criminal justice that emphasizes the rehabilitation of offenders through mending ties with the victims and the community. A better explanation of restorative justice is a theory of justice that emphasizes repairing the harm caused by criminal behavior. It is best accomplished through cooperative processes that include everyone involved. This can lead to transformation of people, relationships and communities.

Restorative justice is a system of criminal justice that focuses on the rehabilitation of offenders through reconciliation with victims and the community at large. Understanding the definition may be really hard to understand, however when we put it in a different form that many can understand it comes down to repair, encounter and transformation. Our book describes restorative justice in three parts as accountability, community protection and competency development (Sieh, 2006).

Restorative justice is a system of criminal justice that focuses on the rehabilitation of offenders through reconciliation with victims and the community at large. This criminal justice system that restores promotes accountability between parties involved and builds the community through the provision of assistance and respects to victims and anyone involved in the community because crime disrupts lives.

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.

“Restorative justice is a process whereby parties with a stake in a specific offence collectively resolve how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future” (Munchie, 2004).

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.

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.