Summary Of Restorative Justice Case

2. Kupchik suggests that there are three ways in which a child’s introduction to the system can take place. The first being, it is the first setting in which a “child’s deficits become apparent,” which increase their risk of school failure and incarceration (94). Secondly, he insists that students who underperform, academically, are more likely not to graduate. Thus, without a basic education, these underperforming students are likely to pursue illegitimate activity/careers that lead to incarceration (94). Finally, Kupchik explains that the way a school reacts to a child’s bad behavior is important. He argues that a school’s disciplinary process does not curb a student’s future involvement with the criminal justice system, but can potentially catalyze their involvement with the criminal justice system (94).

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.

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

Kupchik suggests that there are three ways in which a child’s introduction to the system can take place. The first being, it is the first setting in which a “child’s deficits become apparent,” which increase their risk of school failure and incarceration (94). Secondly, he insists that students who underperform, academically, are more likely not to graduate. Thus without a basic education these underperforming students are likely to pursue illegitimate activity/careers that lead to incarceration(94). Finally, Kupchik explains that the way a school reacts to a child’s bad behavior is important. He argues that a school’s disciplinary process does not curb a student’s future involvement with the criminal justice system, but can potentially catalyze their involvement with the criminal justice system (94).

While The Little Book of Restorative Justice for Colleges and Universities has many merits it also posses some off-putting weaknesses. Karp opens his work up for criticism and makes it less likely to be accepted or seen as a serious alternative to the traditional disciplinary systems with the inclusion of frivolous illustrations and talks of the spiritual. The Little Book also lacks much evidence outside of personal testimony or the authors own reasoning —while that can be strong evidence, empirical evidence have a place in this discussion.

Julie Hilt is the executive director of the Solano County Bar Association. Julie realized that Solano County didn’t have a restorative justice program. Julie realizes this program is new to Solano County and hope the program is supported in the community. Julie states the purpose of the restorative justice program in Solano County focus is to restore the community and promote healing after a crime; the process has additional benefits, such as increased restitution for victims, greater satisfaction with the system and potentially lower recidivism. Julie believes the restorative justice program is designed to teach the offender to be accountable for their wrong doings. Julie says the practices of the program are allowing the victim(s) who is willing the opportunity to come forward and participate in a face to face meeting with offenders.

If I was asked to provide input to the legislators of my state regarding penalties that should be added to the current sentences I would provide examples that are more on the restorative justice side. I would say penalties that are more restorative after reading Restorative Justice and The Little Book of Restorative Justice because they seem to work and make logical sense after talking about them in class. Before reading these two books and talking about them in class I never realized what exactly restorative justice was and how it was used it. In my opinion the punishments for hate crimes should be mainly all restorative justice ways. I think this because usually hate crimes are against someone particular or a particular group of people.

I strongly believe that restorative justice is an extremely beneficial and efficient approach to the rehabilitation of the offenders and victims. The current criminal justice system seen in Canada and the United States have time and time again proved the inefficiency and inadequacy of retributive justice. The goal of restorative is to repair the harm caused by a crime, while simultaneously attempting to facilitate the healing of the victim, offender and community. Restorative justice programs address the needs of the individuals involved through the use of an all inclusive and humanistic approach in hopes to achieve justice. It ultimately rejects the idea that the offender should be punished equally according to their offense, rather it acknowledges the reality of social inequity.

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.

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.

With the rise of Civil Rights Movement in western countries, the circumstances of the criminal victims are getting more attention gradually. Due to this emphasis, it directly led to a first revolution in the criminal justice, the revival Restorative justice. For a criminal justice system, victim support and healing is a priority which might seem an obvious aim. "Restorative Justice" was first introduced by an American professor, Randy Barnett in 1977. Nowadays, restorative justice systems have been applied to criminal justice system in many countries (Tai Wan, Australia, the US and the UK etc). In spite of many researches of restorative justice composed by western scholars, however it has not yet been defined properly and cover over the cons of this system. Restorative Justice repairs the harm that caused by crime and reducing the future harm on victims, there are advantages yet there are also bad. In this essay, I will use the application of the principles of sociology, literature, ethics knowledge to demonstrate argumentation to restorative justice and to reflect the pros and cons. (160words)

Restorative justice has some key restorative values that are vital in the restorative justice conference to make the experience ‘restorative’. Concerning addressing victim needs and concerns means for listening, respecting, being non-judgmental, not blaming the victim and apologizing. The RJ system was bought as an alternative to the criminal justice system to give greater emphasis on victim rights and needs, offender accountability and community involvement. Throughout the essay, there will be an insight into how Restorative Justice addresses needs of victims in terms of the different proponents such as Information provided to victim, restitution/compensation, emotional and practical needs met, participation and involvement of victim and protection of victim, which (Wemmers and Marisa, 2002) as essentials to victims participating in the practice. The two countries that will be addressed will have had restorative justice built out of injustices and over-representation of the current criminal justice system to the indigenous peoples of those countries.

When considering studies in corrections on a global scale it is important to understand how to utilize the most applicable method to gather knowledge. Comparative studies are often used to explore methods for explicating or developing knowledge and attitudes. Comparative research examines cases with the intention to reveal the structure and invariance or unchanging relationship for an entire group or population. In this case, and for the purpose of this paper, the comparative research is suggested to be used in corrections on a global scale. Several problems arise when using comparative research studies on a global scale. Some of these issues are cross-cultural research between countries, selecting a compatible research design whether

As stated by Bartol and Bartol “Juvenile delinquency is an imprecise, nebulous, social, clinical, and legal label for a wide variety of law- and norm-violating behavior” (2011, Pg 139). The juvenile delinquency term has come to imply disgrace in today's correctional institution. Our government is up hold to procedures and expected to come with a solution to solving the delinquent problem. An underage offender can be labeled a delinquent for breaking any number of laws, ranging from robbery to running away from home, and especially being involved in school violence. The following situations faced by correction officials when dealing with juvenile delinquents will be examined. Three main areas (child development, punishments, and deterrence