Victim Offender Conferencing Analysis

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

Fagliano, S. (2008, May 19). How Victim-Offender Mediation Impacts Juvenile Offenders. Retrieved from Stanford.edu: http://web.stanford.edu/dept/URBS/programs/documents/faglianothesis.pdf

Victimology draws together academics, activists, and policymakers from a variety of backgrounds and identifies three main victimological perspectives. Positivist victimology dates back to the emergence of victimology as a discipline in the 1940s. It looks to understand the process of victimisation and why people become victims of crime by examining the relationship between the victim and offender through an agency lens. Newburn (2013) identifies positivists such as Miers (1989) who see victimisation as being causal in nature and identify three key features:

Conferencing also benefit the victim by giving them the opportunity to negotiate an agreement to repair the harm as well as allowing them to tell the offender directly the effects the crime had on them.

Previous research on victim impact statements has indicated that higher emotionality of the victim impact statements will lead to harsher punishments of the defendant (Myers et al., 1999; Myers et al., 2002), as well as favorability towards the victim (Myers & Greene 2004). Contradictory to earlier findings, participants who were not perspective taking with the

The attendees include probation officers, police officer, principals, teachers and counselors. Each facilitator will attend the restorative justice conference. According to Julie at the conference for restorative justice attendees saw connections and the ability to support one another with conferencing. The volunteers said, ‘I would come to your school and run a conference if you wanted someone absolutely outside the direct community of the school to do that.

Throughout every state and county across the United States there are various means for offering assistance to victims of crime. Each municipality has its own victim advocacy program. For smaller areas such as rural counties they use the next organizational level up as their victim advocates. For the purpose of this paper I sat down with Ms. Mari Dennis of the Colorado Springs Police Department (CSPD). Ms. Dennis is employed as the Victim Advocacy Unit Coordinator and is embedded within the Investigations division of the department. CSPD employs four staff victim advocates and around 35 volunteer advocates.

Before the victims movement, victims were ignored in most court systems by the professionals who process criminal cases. Victims were often seen as inconvenient. The victims rights movement has changed this unfair treatment. As time passed prosecutors’ offices in the most jurisdictions spend greater time than they did in the past giving notice to victims and consulting with them about decisions made in their case. The staff of the prosecutors offices and court systems have a responsibility of shepherding victims through the intricacies of the criminal justice system. For example, they send a notice providing information about the systems operation, and to help them secure protection of threatened victims who have suffered harm. Laws have changed to allow victims to be present throughout trials in a number of jurisdictions. Victims information or their voices are heard in court, mainly at sentencing, and at the time guilty pleas are received. All of this has had changed by giving the victim the respect and dignity they need, honoring their participation and

They discuss the crime and what impact it has had on both the victim and the offender. Restorative process consists of individuals who give support to the offender and the victim during their conversation. There are mediators which help the victim and the offender in the discussion of the impact of the crime and try to help resolve any issues. This process is generally separated into three different portions; these are the preparation for the pre-conference, the conference, and the follow up conference.

Victim offender mediation works to bring conflicting parties together to engage in speaking and hopefully negotiating a mutually agreeable solution (Dhami, 2016). Research shows that the most common outcome of victim offender mediation is an apology and is often expected by the parties (Dhami, 2016). Victims may decide on the mediation process to teach the offender a lesson in accountability. During the process, typically the offender is required to admit responsibility, acknowledge harm, express remorse, promise they will not do the offense again, and offer some form of restitution (Dhami, 2016).

Restorative justice refers to the idea that the simple punishment through incarceration of a criminal may not necessarily end or satisfy the harm, injury or pain of the victim. Moreover, restorative justice argues that punishment by itself is unlikely to change the behavior of the offender in a way that guarantees he will not commit the same act(s) again and that he will feel remorse for the act(s) that he did commit. Accordingly, the aims of restorative justice are threefold. First, it aims to bring closure to the victim, whether it is through allowing them to fully participate in the criminal justice process, directly let their feelings known to the offender or understanding why the crime happened. Second, it aims to force the offender to

When considering all the different types of victims out there, it is important to keep in mind the hardships they experienced to be labeled a victim. Although victims may come out the situation stronger, so victims still prefer to keep the crime to themselves. We like to think to ourselves, “Why would someone keep a crime amongst themselves?” A victim may have had a horrific past experience with law enforcement and feel they would be unsuccessful or not take the situation seriously. The victim may think the crime could be better handle personally, or that the crime is a personal matter. There is also the possibility of the victim feeling they

This “coming together” may be one single event or may occur through a series of meetings, depending on the case. The mediator is trained with skills to prepare people for the process, and is there to ensure it progresses in a safe and civilized manner. The goals of the meetings are ensuring the satisfaction and well-being of the victim, with attention to his/her emotional needs, resolution of any lingering conflict between the victim and offender, and giving the offender a chance to absolve their feelings of guilt through apology and reparation. Looking toward the future, other steps taken at the proceeding are taking on offenders reasons for the crime, making a rehab plan, and the families agreement on a system of support to ensure the offender will adhere to the plan.

A person who experiences a traumatic event may be expected to experience a range of psychological effects, and, for many years, it was assumed that these psychological effects would be the same regardless of the cause of the injury. However, a growing body of knowledge is demonstrating that the impact of criminal victimization is different than the impact of other types of injuries because the intent element makes a difference in how the victim perceives the harm. In addition, victims of different crimes may respond differently to victimization. The psychological effects of victimization are important because they can help guide the criminal justice system for how to interact with victims and how to make the process more victim-appropriate. For example, victims of violent crimes, like sexual assaults, may benefit more from a victim-centered criminal justice approach than victims of other types of crimes (Resick, 1987). However, one of the problems with the traditional approach to victimology is that it has distinguished between different groups of victims. Emerging research suggest that victim needs are similar across the entire spectrum of crime, particularly the victims' needs for information about the crime and the needs for financial restitution to make them whole (ten Boom & Kuijpers, 2012).

During this type of healing circle, the offence will be discussed as well as how it affected the victim and the community and the relationship between them and the offender (Justice Education Society, 2016). Not only does the circle attempt to heal community ties, the circle also focuses on the offender and the fundamental causes of their offence (Justice Education Society, 2016). Following a healing circle that is directed towards offenders and victims, a consensus is taken to decide the subsequent steps that should be taken by the offender to correct the harms caused by their actions (Justice Education Society, 2016). These steps could include specialized counseling or treatment programs, community work service, potlatch or other traditional remedies, direct restitution to the victim or community and in some cases, unique and creative solutions emerge (Justice Education Society, 2016).