Restorative Punishment Analysis

It is beneficial for society to know and understand the Restorative programs and how juveniles can amend their actions and correct their behavior. (Hagan and King 1992) Juvenile Justice is often thought of as dealing with juveniles who commit theft or unruly. Society today has to face the reality that the current generation of juveniles are committing crimes such as murder, drug offenses, and sexual assaults. Restorative justice is known through objectives and in contrast to the former retributive and rehabilitative beliefs of punishment. (Mulligan 2009)

Cullen and Gendreau (2000). give us some history on the restorative incarceration. The original theory of restorative justice was based on simple human behavior regulated by incentive instead of punishment, which instituted the concept of parole as a means of reward for a prisoner for rehabilitation. Further studies in criminology proved that this idea was too simplistic and married it to the positivist theory of criminology and instituted individual assessment and treatment for each prisoner based on their specific needs for reformation.

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.

Punishment versus Rehabilitation, there has been many debates on the effectiveness of punishment compared to the effectiveness of rehabilitation of convicted offenders in prison and under community supervision. Punishment is defined as a penalty that is imposed on an individual for doing something wrong. The term rehabilitation is defined as a way to help somebody to return to good health or a normal life by providing training or therapy (StudyMode). If an individual commits a crime serious enough to warrant incarceration, then the individual is sent to prison as a form of punishment. While incarcerated

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

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

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.

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

Discuss: The tension between rehabilitation and punishment in an incarceration setting. What happens when one is emphasized over the other? Is it possible to strike a balance?

This belief indicated that if offenders could not be rehabilitated then they should be punished and it was time to get tough on crime. Within a relatively short time parole was attacked and the individual approach of indeterminate sentencing, or release by the authority of a parole board was abolished in 16 states (Rhine, Smith, and Jackson, 1991) and some form of determinate sentencing was adopted in all 50 states (Mackenzie, 2000)].

This critical essay will be explaining Braithwaite’s and other studies’ opinions and suggestive on restorative justice, theories behind it and how it can be applied in order to have a healthier society-offender relationship.

In order for us to understand the moral theories surrounding the justification of punishment we must first accept that punishment exists to benefit the society we live in. Punishment as a whole should protect a community by sanctioning crimes to a significant degree whilst preventing them from reoccurring. If a punishment does not protect a community it is believed that that punishment is unjust and will be unfair to both the criminal and the community members. I believe that a retributivist style of punishment only focuses on the treatment of the singular rather than that of the masses. It is for this reason that I will argue why a consequentialist or utilitarian theory best allows us to understand the justification of punishment.

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?

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

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