Victim Restoration Research Paper

Restorative justice has shown some positive results, with the victims being able to forgive the offender for the offense committed against them bringing a sense of closure. There were little feelings of revenge that typically lingers and leave the victim confused about the decision of restorative justice

While many conservatives oppose the rehabilitative measures restorative justice offers offenders and demand more prisons and penalties, advocates for restorative justice counter this demand with research. Restorative justice advocates call for restitution rather than retribution. According to promoters for restorative justice, imposing harsh penalties on offenders and lengthening prison sentences is futile. “Critical theorists argue that the ‘old methods’ of punishment are a failure and that upwards of two-thirds of all prison inmates recidivate soon after their release” (Siegel, 2008, p. 188). While conservatives want to build more prisons and lock away more offenders for longer terms, supporters of restorative justice believe that a more rehabilitative approach is beneficial for not only the offender, but also the community. “The offender is asked to recognize that he or she caused injury to personal and social relations along with a determination and acceptance of responsibility. Only then can the offender be restored as a productive member of society” (Siegel, 2008, p. 190). Placing an offender in prison for any amount of time is shown to be harmful to the offender, their victim, and society. “Rather than reduce recidivism, harsher punishments may increase the likelihood of reoffending” (Siegel, 2008, p. 86). A conservative asking for more prisons would likely be met with a barrage of evidence explaining why restorative justice will and

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

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

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.

Restorative justice ways are a very controversial topic. Many people have different opinions about whether restorative justice is a good idea or not. Restorative prisons are a part of restorative justice and they can positively impact many people who were involved in some way of the crime or not. One way of restorative prisons are very effective and beneficial is because it gives the perpetrator more of an option on rebuilding their life after. It also helps the perpetrator see the good in themselves as well as others see the good in this perpetrator. Restorative prisons don’t just give the perpetrator freedom right away they have to go through a process to prove that they want to be a better person so they are not just receiving freedom

According to Restorative Justice Benefits Victims and Offenders by Jeff Anderson says, "Restorative justice is a successful alternative to sending offenders to prison. Imprisonment often does little to rehabilitate the criminal or repair the

Restorative justice helps offenders realize how the crime impacts everyone not just themselves. The programs and exercises help offenders develop empathy through experiences. Another important effect that is learned is that how childhood trauma and abuse can explain how those experiences may have impacted their personal psychology, and they can develop skills like emotional regulation and anger/stress

Restorative justice ways are a very controversial topic with some people thinking it is the best way for crime to be handled and others not being a fan of it. Some people don’t believe in restorative justice because it is giving offenders a second chance. Restorative prisons are a part of restorative justice that can positively impact many people including any individual who was involved in the crime in some way. Restorative prisons are more useful for the community as well as the offender because they have that opportunity to help many people. Restorative prisons are a perfect example that could have saved a 19 year old kid who was sentenced to 47 years in prison.

Restorative justice (RJ) is the practice of trying to restore the victims of harm or trauma back to a state of peace and contentment. It is used to benefit the victims so they can in a way reclaim a part of themselves. Restorative justice has three main models/practices; Victim Offender Conferencing (VOC), Circle Processes, and Family Group Conferences. Victim offender conferencing is the most common application of restorative justice in North America. In, The Little Book of Victim Offender Conferencing, Lorraine Stutzman Amstutz explains, “the victim offender conferencing process brings victims and offenders of crime together in a face-to-face meeting prepared and led by a trained facilitator, often a community volunteer, to talk about the impact of the consequences of the crime.”

Restorative Justice and Prison Restorative justice practices in the prison setting focus on various factors, including the offending behavior, victims, community service work, victim-offender mediation, and the restorative justice philosophy(Dhami et al, 2009). With these various contributing factors, mutually agreeable and best possible solution can be achieved to repair the serious harm caused by the criminal behaviors through the consistent communication within every individual members. In addition, these processes can provide the valuable effects of reconciliation, victim healing, offender rehabilitation, and as well as the reintegration of the offenders into the society(Dhami et al, 2009). Both restorative justice and imprisonment aim

I agree with you post in its entirety. However, I believe the down side to restorative justice would mean momentous caseloads for probation officers (burnout), offenders who can’t obtain adequate employment because they have prior conviction’s will be unable to pay restitution to their victims. Further, Restorative Justice in my opinion only works for misdemeanors o felonies that don’t include murder or sex abuse. I believe as criminal justice professionals we must concern and conform ourselves to the issues of the world in order to repair, reconcile differences and reassure change is possible. To illustrate, "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world

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 victim is the person affected physically, emotionally and/or financially. For a victim to be restored, it involves the Criminal Justice System (Police, Court, Correctional) to perform some procedures for the victim to feel restored from the offender. Victims have rights and these are implemented by the State and Federal Government as well as some of them are in the Constitution. The right of the victims supports and imply restoration, and work to make them feel “whole again’’. In some cases something from the victim have been taken away and cannot be restored at all, so instead is compensated, which is something that will “help” the victim “restore” (Hume). However, the compensation is a right the victim has but they have to submit an

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