Routine Activities Theory Essay

Restorative Justice will not make the basic prejudices on our society worse than what they are, however restorative justice should restore synchronization within the community or society as a whole through based on discussion of the offender’s underlying problems and not to reoffend against the victim in particular nor any member of society, and what charges the offender may face if he re-offends “Restorative justice is deliberative justice; it is about people deliberating over the consequences of crimes, and how to deal with them and prevent their recurrence” (Braithwaite, 1998, p. 438).

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)

Routine activity theory states that for a crime to be committed, three important factors need to be present including: a motivated offender, an accessible target, and the absence of a capable guardian against a violation. Marcus Felson and Lawrence E. Cohen introduced the routine activity theory in 1979, where they believed that an individual who has these three characteristics gives them a greater possibility of committing a crime. Moreover, situational crime prevention is known as strategies of ways for preventing or reducing the opportunities for criminals to commit crimes that derive from the routines of an individual’s everyday life. Ronald V. Clarke introduced situational crime prevention theory in 1983, where he believed that removing the situation instead of removing the criminal could prevent crime. In this paper, I will be discussing what routine activity/situational crime prevention theory is, and apply two peer-reviewed articles from Google Scholar that test the routine activity/situational crime prevention theory by discussing what the authors are trying to figure out and discuss their findings, and lastly, tie the routine activity/situational crime prevention theory articles to our textbook in hopes to fully understand in depth what the theory encompasses.

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.

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

There are a vast number of issues concerning child exploitation from the actions of the offender and the victim. Child exploitation is a complex issue that does not have one simple solution; this crime is nothing new, but technology is allowing it to evolve. Child exploitation is moving from sending child pornography through the postal service and targeting only children an offender has close proximity to. Technology and the Internet have widened the opportunities for offenders and have allowed for potentially ay juvenile to become victimized. The recommendations will focus on targeting key issues presented in the Routine Activities Theory; limiting a motivated offender, making targets unsuitable, and creating capable guardians online.

To address the increasing recidivism rate among offenders in the juvenile and adult criminal justice system, comprehensive restorative justice programs should expand to a much wider faction of the United States criminal justice system. Programs should be implemented on federal, state, and local levels to effectively and efficiently achieve this goal. The goals that should be strived for must be kept in mind so that adequate progress can be made and so that benchmarks will be met when required. Administrators must not let their restorative justice system fall behind to the point of no return, as many would argue that the current system of criminal justice has. This paper will focus on the requirements for proper management and administration of the proposed solution. The requirements include the skills needed for effective management of the proposal, identifying poor managerial skills and the ways to improve those skills, the necessity of benchmarks and milestones, and reasons that may delay proper implementation.

Restorative justice also looks into why the offender committed the crime like they did. This knowledge can help everyone understand what the perpetrator needs to improve so they don’t commit another crime. For example, if anger contributed to their last crime what is stopping their anger from contributing to their next crime (Tsui, 2014)? This is an example of one way restorative prisons go beyond traditional

Restoration is, “Punishment designed to repair the damage done to the victim and community by an offender’s criminal act” (Clear, Reisig, Petrosino, and Cole, (2015) according to three University Professors. When someone commits a crime, the community gets a sense of lost trust that they once had with the community because that crime occurred on the police’s watch. Different sanctions can provide ways for the offenders to repair the harm that they have committed. The community plays a huge part into the restoration process of criminals. They emphasize to the offender what is acceptable behavior, offers the offender to perform the reparative tasks, and provides the help needed for the offender to live a normal life back in the community. For much of correctional history, the criminal justice community has relied heavily upon different programs that are designed to serve as alternatives to incarceration. The three sanctions that will be discussed in this paper are probation, substance abuse treatment, and boot camp. I will also give my opinion about which form of restoration I believe is most effective out of the three that were discussed.

The experience of stakeholder groups across the globe is that restorative justice programs hold considerable potential to more effectively address, and repair, the harm done by criminal offending. At the same time, restorative justice programs can provide crime victims with a more powerful voice, criminal offenders with the opportunity to acknowledge responsibility for their behavior and receive the assistance they require to address their particular needs, and communities with a more effective strategy to not only respond to crime but to develop and strengthen their conflict prevention and resolution capacity. Restorative justice is not a “one size fits all” approach to crime. As such, it continues to evolve and assume new forms as governments and communities implement restorative justice principles in a manner that most effectively meet the needs of crime victims, offenders and community residents. A measure of the success of the restorative approach is that it has spawned many different types of programs and processes.

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 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

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).

Crime has existed in societies across the world for centuries, and is defined as any offense harmful against the public. However, the true nature of crime is more complex as there are many different motives and causes behind a criminal act, which cannot be contributed to a single factor (Barlow & Decker, 2010). Within the field of criminology, a number of theories exist that attempt to explain why some individuals commit crime, while others abstain from it. Some theories attribute crime to the specific environment; they believe that an individual commits crime when certain ecological conditions are met (Felson, 2001). Others argue that crime is caused by the individual themselves; that criminals are the result of unrestrained thoughts and low self-control (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 2001). This paper will analyze aspects of a real world scenario using both routine activity theory and low self-control theory, for the purpose of better understanding and evaluating certain criminal behavior.