Restorative Justice Thesis

First off, restorative justice doesn’t punish people, and a criminal needs punishment. If somebody knows that they won’t get in trouble for doing something wrong, they will just continue to do it. Prison time has been proven to work effectively. The Observer states that tougher prison sentences reduce crime, according to research by a study from academics at Birmingham University.

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.

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

This is due to it being a complex argument, with many layers and many factors that need to be considered. Before determining whether restorative justice is harmful or beneficial for a victim, factors such as; the offence type, the offender, the victim, the seriousness of the offence and even the interaction between the offender and victim, all play an important role and must be carefully considered (Garkawe, 1999). It demonstrates that all cases will be different, and will offer a different outcome as to whether the restorative justice process will be proved to be a positive or negative experience. Furthermore, determining what a successful outcome of restorative justice is, of what is determined to be harmful or beneficial, will also alter depending on circumstances. In regards to harmful or negative impacts on victims whom participate in restorative justice, taking in to consideration the above mentioned factors, there are a few claims focusing on the participation of youth victims in restorative conferences that could be determined as harmful in certain cases. Between 1995 and 2000 Strang conducted a set of randomised experimental designs known as the Reintegrative Shaming Experiments Project (RISE) in the Australian Capital Territory to compare the effects on victims / offenders between court proceedings or innovative conferences (Strang, Sherman, Woods, & Barnes, 2011). Gal (2006) then

In the United States, each day approximately 1,600 adults are released from state and federal penitentiaries to reintegrate back into the community (Gunnison & Helfgott, 2013). Reentry programs have been created all over the nation to help offenders successfully transition from prison into society. Offenders are confronted with numerous obstacles when attempting to reintegrate back into society. Ninety-five percent of offenders are released to reintegrate back into the community (Davis, Bahr, & Ward, 2013). Upon release, ex-offenders realize that despite the fact that they are no longer incarcerated, they face many restrictions. The restorative justice development rose to address the disappointment of the criminal justice framework to manage victims, offenders, and communities in an integrated way. A core focus of this development has been to expand the role of the community in advocating changes that will avert the issues and conditions related with crime and the demand for a criminal justice intervention (Hass & Saxon, 2012).

Today we see five prevalent goals of corrections including retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation and restorative justice. Goals employed in corrections change over time depending on several factors including the trends of thought in society and issues within the prison system. Politics as well as prison overcrowding also factor into determining which goal dominates. Retribution has a long-standing history as the most culturally accepted goal because people fended for themselves prior to organized law enforcement (Bartollas, 2002, p. 71). Incapacitation, the dominant goal currently, eliminates the threat by placing the criminal outside society, typically through incarceration, and preventing the criminal from having the ability to commit additional crimes. Deterrence, like retribution, has continued as a goal throughout history. In an effort to reduce the risk of crime, law enforcement attempt to deter criminals from committing crimes. Rehabilitation gained enormous strength with an attempt at moral redemption of the offender. Reformists believed corrections needed a makeover as they worked towards rehabilitation. Rehabilitation places more focus on the individual rather than the act in an attempt to rehabilitate the person. America did not begin to look at the corrections system more substantially until the 1970s as the idea of rehabilitation fell (Bartollas, 2002, p. 75). Restorative justice promises to restore the victim as the offender

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

“One out of every 31 Americans (7 Million) are in prison, jail, or some other form of correctional supervision. A high incarceration rate in the United States has led to the prison-industrial complex, which has provided jobs and profits to legions of companies and people. The field of corrections is big business.”1 I believe that this fact is the best way in which to start my paper. The main idea of corrections, as the name suggests, is to correct the behavior that has caused an offender to stray from the straight and narrow. However, as our prison population grows and recidivism rates increase we are not only seeing our prison system fail, but we are seeing a new and emerging industry take hold in this country. Increasing prison populations and the number of re-offenders is showing a relatively obvious failure of the current system. In my time as a criminal justice major I have taken a variety of classes on criminal justice, one of the most interesting for me (aside from this class) was restorative justice. In my restorative justice class I was introduced to the idea that the criminal justice system was taking the conflict away from the victim and the community and was focusing too much on punishment and not enough on rehabilitation. I understand that some people feel that restorative justice is too lenient, that by allowing offenders to bypass jail restorative justice gives them a pass and allows them to basically get away with an offense, however restorative

Restorative justice ways are a very controversial topic. Many people have different opinions about whether restorative justice is a good idea or not. Restorative prisons are a part of restorative justice and they can positively impact many people who were involved in some way of the crime or not. One way of restorative prisons are very effective and beneficial is because it gives the perpetrator more of an option on rebuilding their life after. It also helps the perpetrator see the good in themselves as well as others see the good in this perpetrator. Restorative prisons don’t just give the perpetrator freedom right away they have to go through a process to prove that they want to be a better person so they are not just receiving freedom

I agree with you post in its entirety. However, I believe the down side to restorative justice would mean momentous caseloads for probation officers (burnout), offenders who can’t obtain adequate employment because they have prior conviction’s will be unable to pay restitution to their victims. Further, Restorative Justice in my opinion only works for misdemeanors o felonies that don’t include murder or sex abuse. I believe as criminal justice professionals we must concern and conform ourselves to the issues of the world in order to repair, reconcile differences and reassure change is possible. To illustrate, "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world

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.

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 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

Restorative or Community Justice is a fairly new concept. It is aimed more at repairing damages caused by the crime to the victim(s) and the community involved. In this method the victim lays out conditions for the offender and what is necessary to help repair any losses. The community provides assistance to help restore the offender to the community. Some say that this method can be dangerous and bypasses certain safeguards.

- What method of restorative justice would help the issues we’re seeing in our criminal justice system and why? (3 points)