The Effects Of Restorative Justice On Juvenile Recidivism

researchers had conducted and gaining a statistical analysis of the researches, a meta-analysis is often one of the best tools to ensure a positive impact on recidivism “meta-analysis is the principal source of information for "effective principles” (Gendreau, 1996, p. 120). Often times these intervention programs are intensive and behavioral based, which are vital to the program. Behavioral Programs, should target the criminogenic needs of the offender, which has better results when it is paired with the offender’s risk level.

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 is due to it being a complex argument, with many layers and many factors that need to be considered. Before determining whether restorative justice is harmful or beneficial for a victim, factors such as; the offence type, the offender, the victim, the seriousness of the offence and even the interaction between the offender and victim, all play an important role and must be carefully considered (Garkawe, 1999). It demonstrates that all cases will be different, and will offer a different outcome as to whether the restorative justice process will be proved to be a positive or negative experience. Furthermore, determining what a successful outcome of restorative justice is, of what is determined to be harmful or beneficial, will also alter depending on circumstances. In regards to harmful or negative impacts on victims whom participate in restorative justice, taking in to consideration the above mentioned factors, there are a few claims focusing on the participation of youth victims in restorative conferences that could be determined as harmful in certain cases. Between 1995 and 2000 Strang conducted a set of randomised experimental designs known as the Reintegrative Shaming Experiments Project (RISE) in the Australian Capital Territory to compare the effects on victims / offenders between court proceedings or innovative conferences (Strang, Sherman, Woods, & Barnes, 2011). Gal (2006) then

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).

Studies suggest that there is a divide between the government and public response to juvenile incarceration. Bullis & Yovas (2005) state that support is given to correctional facilities to house juvenile offenders as a form of punishment (as cited in Shannon, 2013, p. 17). Individuals who support this perspective are often more likely to support the construction of more prisons and stern penalties on crime based upon the presumptions that youthful offenders are aware of the consequences of their actions (Drakeford, 2002 as cited in Shannon, 2013, p. 17). On the other hand, opponents of this perspective believe that incarceration creates an opportunity to rehabilitate the offenders (Huffine, 2006 as cited in Shannon, 2013, p. 18). This perspective supports the purpose of juvenile detention centers as “preparatory in nature – that is, offering services focused on the development of skills needed to return successfully to mainstream

The United States of America is phrased by many, as being “the land of the free.” Yet, the Unites States currently has the highest per capita prison population than any other country. The United States makes up only 5% of the world’s population and of that 5%, 25% of our overall nation’s population is currently incarcerated. A few factors that attribute to our high rates of incarceration include, sentencing laws: such as mandatory- minimum sentencing, lack of initial deterrence from crime, the war on drugs and the presence of recidivism. With our ever growing incarceration rates and the cost of housing individual offenders averaging $22,000 a criminal justice agenda. Recidivism refers to a person 's relapse into criminal behavior resulting in rearrests, reconviction or return to prison with or without a new sentence during a three-year period following the prisoner 's release (National Institute of Justice.) Many programs have been implemented in our prison system to help reduce the recidivism rates. Programs such as educational/ vocational programming, reentry programs, substance abuse programs and subsidized employment are among many programs in which have been proven effective. Yet, due to costs deficits, the clock is ticking to find evidence based programs to invest in. So, the question currently being sought after is, which method is most effective in reducing recidivism rates?

Although Although theoretically conferencing may be seen as a viable alternative for adolescents to court proceedings, and indeed some evidence suggests it reduces recidivism, it will ultimately be concluded that the success of restorative justice programs depends on more than just its ability to reduce recidivism, and thus it will not always provide a useful alternative to more traditional criminal justice approaches.

While evaluating the drug court programs several types of dependencies were discovered. One dependency was created because of multiple measures of criminal behavior during the same time of the follow-ups. Each evaluation had to utilize a particular research sample so that statistical independence could be maintained. An odds-ratio effect size was used because this type of format is most appropriate effect size for the outcomes referring to recidivism. The coding of the effect size was done in such a way that positive effect sizes indicated the treatment group had more of a favorable outcome than the comparison group. The researchers coded an effect size that quantified each court's effects on recidivism. There was also the coding of drug court programs, research methodology, and samples (Mitchell et al., 2012). The results of the study showed that participants in the drug court programs have lower recidivism rate than nonparticipants. These rates show to be less following their removal from the drug court programs. These findings express the need for continuous funding, development, and operation of drug court programs as they prove a reduction in recidivism. However, when it comes to drug courts in the juvenile judicial system, the finding are considerably less than adult drug

Introduction: Recidivism or, habitual relapses into crime, has time and time again proven to be an issue among delinquents, which thereby increases the overall juvenile prison population. This issue has become more prevalent than what we realize. Unless a unit for measuring a juvenile’s risk of recidivism is enacted and used to determine a system to promote effective prevention, than the juvenile prison population will continue to increase. Our court system should not only focus on punishing the said juvenile but also enforce a program or policy that will allow for prevention of recidivism. So the question remains, how can recidivism in the juvenile prison population be prevented so that it is no longer the central cause for increased

Impact of Rehabilitation Programs and Incarceration for Juvenile Offenders Discussing the Importance of Rehabilitation Program

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.

Over many years there has been great debate about whether rehabilitation reduces the rate of recidivism in criminal offenders. There has been great controversy over whether anything works to reduce recidivism and great hope that rehabilitation would offer a reduction in those rates. In this paper I will introduce information and views on the reality of whether rehabilitation does indeed reduce recidivism. Proposed is a quasi-experiment, using a group of offenders that received rehabilitation services and an ex post facto group that did not? I intend to prove that rehabilitation services do

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 National Institute Justice states that juvenile crime rates have fallen over 55% than its peak in 1994, but it still a cause for public concern. Actual reasons for this decline are elusive, but there is debate over the facilitation of jail time, or long-term therapy sessions as punishment for the juveniles for their crimes. According to an executive summary by Alex Piquiero and Laurence Steinberg, “Rehabilitation Versus Incarceration of Juvenile Offenders: Public Preferences in Four Models for Change States”, the public has expressed more favor for rehabilitation efforts. Piquiero and Steinberg, who are professors in criminal justice and psychology, surveyed a random sample with questions that pertained to

Finally, literature on the juvenile justice system often focuses on program implementation and effectiveness at addressing rehabilitation, as well as diversion techniques within the system (Greenwood, 2008). This review audits these problems in detail and establishes them within the bigger struggle in the juvenile justice system to rehabilitate youth offenders.