‘Restorative justice empowers victims and challenges offenders.’ To what extent do you agree?

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.

Retributive justice has long been the established form of addressing injustices in society. This method refers to controls

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

James Dignan’s concepts related to offenders, but mostly, related to victims. In his work “The victim in restorative justice” (2007), he argues that restorative justice “has a tendency to focus primarily on offenders and reconviction rates rather than on victim-related concerns” (p.309). Dignan goes on explaining that only after Braithwaite’s theory became more developed in Australia and New Zealand, the role of victims became clearer (Dignan, 2007). He says that there are beneficial distinctions between reciprocal benefits and one-sided benefits, depending on the interaction of the

‘A Peacemaking Approach to Criminology’ was written by Louis J. Gesualdi, and published in 2013. It contains a review of different writings, which relate to criminology. The main argument of Gesualdi lies in promoting a humane way of handling crime and deviants. The book proposes a peaceable way of dealing with offenders in a manner that accords respect to human rights. Further, Gesualdi notes that the criminal justice system is concentrated on inflicting harm on the offenders by punishing them. He argues that the system is fixated on the notion of reacting to crime rather than prevention. Hence, the book proposes an approach where restorative justice and prevention of crime can be accommodated in the criminal justice system. The main

Retributivism is used in contrast with utilitarianism in such that it is used in theory about a legitimate end served by the penal institutions. Chapter 3 of our book (Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice) spoke of retributive justice. The most widely embraced mixed theory holds that punishment must achieve both the utilitarian goal of crime prevention and the retributive

For most people, our first thought when we have been hurt by someone is to either get revenge or receive the worst punishment they can get for their offense. Instead of our first thought is to get back at the person what if we learn why they caused the harm they did, learn to forgive them, help them to not cause the harm to someone else. The United States criminal justice system focuses on just punishing the offender which does not help the victim or the offender, also known as retributive justice. Sometime during the 1970's a new system started to evolve called restorative justice. Restorative Justice is a criminal justice system focus attention on the rehabilitation of offenders through reuniting with victims and the community.

The purpose of the restorative justice involves three basic goals: reestablishing the victims, reuniting offenders to the community, and helping to heal the community (Goodstein, and Butterfield, 2010). After being charged with an offense, the offender will always have that label on them and how everyone acts towards the offender will change. Restorative justice practices gives the offender a chance to change their outlook on life after being charged. These type of practices involve repairing and restoring relationships. Victims have the chance to come face-to-face with their offenders which could possibly lead to closure.

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.

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.

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.

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

It is through this that philosophers, government and prison officials have arrived at the five traditional goals of punishment which replicates elements of criminal punishment. They are retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, restoration and incapacitation. Retribution, rehabilitation and deterrence are however the three most frequently used in today’s modern society, as they are the main justifications for 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?

To begin with, it is necessary to say that punishment is an integral part of modern countries’ legal systems, because countries have a duty to protect society from wrongdoers and authorities could reach success in it by punishing offenders. Oxford English Dictionary defines punishment as the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offence. There are four main purposes of punishment – incapacitation, deterrence, retribution and rehabilitation – and the aim of this paper is to