Restorative Punishment Analysis

I am going to write an essay on the retributivist approach and reductivist approach on punishment, comparing and contrasting both theories. To start off I will talk about the retributivism theory and the belief that an offender should be punished based upon the severity of the offense. I will them move onto just deserts which Is a modern retributivist theory which only focuses on crimes that have already committed making sure individuals get there just deserts for doing wrong. Next I will write about the reductivist theory which is all about trying to deter individuals from committing a crime or reoffending. Jeremy Bentham had a huge impact on reductivism believing if pain was to outweigh pleasure then it would deter individuals and overall nobody would have the desire to commit a crime as they are aware of the consequences they would have to face. Moving on to deterrence will talk about the two different types of deterrence; individual and general deterrence. Individual deterrence focuses on stopping individuals from reoffending whereas general deterrence is about deterring individuals who have never even committed an offence from turning to crime. Once writing about both retributivism and reductivism I will start to compare and contrast both theories, looking at the similarities and differences. Finally I will give my own opinion on the theories and which theory I believe is best, talking about how retributivist and reductivist punishments are different and the good and

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.

While incarcerated the individual may have the opportunity to receive rehabilitation. Does it mean that the individual will be rehabilitated? One can only imagine. This is a debatable issue. Is punishment or rehabilitation more effective in combating crime?

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.

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

For victims, its goal is to offer them a full of life role within the method. Restorative justice is based on an alternate theory to the standard ways of justice, which regularly specialize in retribution. However, restorative justice programs will complement ancient ways. Academic assessment of restorative justice is positive. Most studies recommend it makes offenders less probably to reoffend.

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

“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

This essay will critically analyse and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of retributivism. Throughout history the term “retributivism” has had a diverse though correlated meanings. The most significant meaning of retributivism is righting or rebalancing the scale of justice, through the use of mechanisms such as punishment e.g. punishing criminals in order to achieve justice for the offence they have committed. Retributivism also looks back at the offence, since the offender has committed a wrongful offence which needs to be punished. One of the core reasons why offenders should be punished is that they need to ‘pay back’ for the offence they have committed; the theory that is associated with retributivism is the just deserts theory. A theory is a concept that is based upon a hypothesis that can be supported with evidence. The just desert theory is used to justify retributivism punishment. Unlike other theories of punishment that mainly concentrates on preventing future crime, such as rehabilitation, deterrence and reductivism. The retributivist theory primarily concentrates on punishing past crimes. Although others would disagree with this for the reason that they think punishment should be used to ‘reduce’ and ‘prevent future crimes’ (Carlsmith et al., 2002 p284). The essay will take into account the views of various theories; theorist and philosophers so that the strengths and weaknesses of

They are ‘informal’ in the sense that they apply non-state methods of conflict resolution (Kariuki, 2015). These procedures typically aim at restoring social peace instead of enforcing abstract legislation and in many cases reflect prevailing community norms and values. While some may view the restorative approach as ‘soft’ on crime, in reality it promotes the possibility of a win-win outcome for the offender, the victim, and the society in general (Lab, 2015). It is important to realize that this approach does not necessarily reject punishment entirely. Instead, it views it as an addition to restorative measures, such as forgiveness; therefore relieving victims, offenders, and the community at large from the psychological effects of crimes committed (Van Wormer & Walker, 2013). Additionally, restorative justice is a progressive and preventive response that strives to understand crime in its social context. It challenges one to examine the root causes of violence and crime in order to break these cycles (Berlin, 2016). This requires the assumption that crimes or violations are committed against real individuals, rather than against the state. The goal of restorative justice is not just to punish the perpetrator, but to compensate the victim for their loss, to prevent the accused from committing the crime again, and to reintegrate both the victim and offender

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.

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.

How many inmates were isolated from their communities when they had committed a crime or when they got released from the prisons? And how many effective programs can be helpful for them?Many posts-release prisoners have experienced recidivism and social stigmas due to lack of programs. In fact, restorative justice for people in prison has played a big role in our correctional systems in many different ways.Restorative justice in prison shapes our prisoner 's morals and abilities by providing a suitable technique. Although punishment may play a part in restorative justice techniques, the central focus remains on relationships between the affected parties, and healing reached through a deliberative process guided by those affected parties.( Tsui,2014). For instance, many inmates have attended into reentry programs and educational orientations when they finished their time in prison. These programs cost less money for the government, and inmates can be reintegrated into societies easily. Many post-release prisoners have avoided recidivism after these effective programs taught them the value of lives. This study will examine the importance of restorative justice in prison, which is essential for our correctional facilities. Numerous studies have been done recently which focused on this restorative justice.For example, restorative justice answers the justice question in a different way.(Toews,p.5,2006).

The tension between rehabilitation and punishment has been increasing dramatically. This is because there have been sharp rises in the prison population and repeat offender rates. When one area is over emphasized in relation to the other, there is the possibility that imbalances will occur. Over the course of time, these issues can create challenges that will impact the criminal justice system and society at large. (Gadek, 2010) (Clear, 2011) (Gatotch, 2011)

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?