Abstract
The criminal justice system has the role of ensuring society’s safety by controlling and managing crimes. In order to ensure this safety, it employs a number of varying strategies, with one of them being restorative justice. This approach specifically entails a focus on repairing the harm resulting from crime rather than punishing offenders through strategies like retribution. Howard Zehr pioneered the origin of restorative justice and argued that wrongdoing was majorly seen as an interpersonal aspect rather than a legal issue before nation-states were introduced. Today, it is utilized in schools, court systems, communities, and police departments to ensure both victim’s and offender’s needs are addressed. Some of the benefits associated with it include an avenue for communication between offenders and victims, an opportunity to repair damages inflicted on the victim, and increased chances of community support. However, victims risk developing mental issues from interaction with rogue offenders. The offenders also risk facing retaliation from victims and the possibility of the approach not fully preventing re-offending behaviour.
Introduction
In the criminal justice system, the major purpose is to deter crime and ensure the community is safe. For the longest time, the system has employed a conventional approach, which relies majorly on using the law, examining guilt, and providing the appropriate punishment (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2020). Many committed crimes are evaluated on society rather than individual level; hence, the criminal justice system’s response has been to address society’s needs as a whole rather than considering the wrongdoing to be private. Majorly used responses include denunciation, punishment, retribution, and deterrence, all dependent on the court system’s activity (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2020). Over the years, child offenders, among many other participants, have been increasing in the criminal justice system, hence the desire to adopt a more conservative approach to crime, which is restorative justice.
The Concept of Restorative Justice
Restorative justice rationale is based on the idea that rather than the criminal justice system using a lockdown mentality to handle problems related to criminal activities, they should instead embrace a justice policy focused on repairing the harm resulting from crime (Siegel, 2011). It includes taking into consideration all the individuals connected to the events of the crime, such as the community, offender, and victim. Achieving such a goal includes the criminal justice system convincing the perpetrators of crime to accept the responsibility inflicted by their behavior on the victims by being accountable for their actions (Siegel, 2011). By doing so, they are afterward restored as productive community members. This also indicates the desire of the criminal justice system to turn from being an entity entrenched in revenge and retribution to being at the frontline of a healing process for the involved individuals (Siegel, 2011).
The baseline of restorative justice relies on the idea that, in some instances, individuals, both the victims and perpetrators of crime, actually know each other or rather have a connection between them before the act of crime occurs (Siegel, 2011). For this reason, more focus opts to resolve the source of conflict relating to the occurrence rather than taking one party as a criminal who deserves punishment while the other as a victim who should be shown sympathy. The effectiveness of this whole approach is also dependent on the involved individual’s stake in a particular social group of society or in the community (Siegel, 2011). For instance, in an instance where an individual does not value their identity with a certain group in society, they have increased chances of refraining from taking responsibility, repairing the injuries, or showing remorse relative to their actions. Conversely, people who closely associate with particular groups are more likely to accept accountability and responsibility for their actions and the harm that they caused. This occurrence makes them not want to re-offend again in the future (Siegel, 2011).
The workability of restorative justice is dependent on key principles to ensure that all the involved stakeholders meet the objectives related to the occurrence and control of crime (Siegel, 2011). the first principle is that the community and the victims are central to justice processes, hence the need for their involvement. Secondly, restorative justice experience increases the opportunity for offenders to develop improved understanding and competence. Thirdly, all the involved stakeholders have a common responsibility for restorative justice through action-related partnerships (Siegel, 2011). Fourthly, the criminal justice system is prioritized to restore the community to the highest functionality possible and to assist the victims of crimes. Lastly, restorative justice takes crime to be a predicament in human relationships, hence the desire to effectively manage it.
The origin and development of restorative justice and its dynamics have been in existence for a longer time, as witnessed in several indigenous cultures (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2020). A leader of the restorative justice movement, Howard Zehr, argues that before nation-states were introduced, wrongdoing was majorly seen as an interpersonal aspect rather than a legal issue (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2020). Indigenous communities responded to this interpersonal issue as a collective responsibility to cushion the harm since the involved participants shared a web of relationships in the community.
Further advancements in the indigenous community’s view of restorative justice occurred in the 1970s in Northern America (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2020). This time was manifested with the first restorative justice program when two probation workers in Canada linked the offender to the victim to discuss the vandalism act and devise means to cover for the inflicted harm. The happening motivated the development of the Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program (VORP) by the Christian Mennonite Committee, which later inspired further innovations in North America and other regions of the world (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2020). Further developments in the approach over decades resulted in a unique paradigm for explaining and reacting toward crime activities, which is currently considered restorative justice.
Since the establishment and adoption of the approach, many communities, including North American, Asian, and European individuals, have exploited its rationale of mediation, peacemaking, negotiation, and consensus building in most of their adjudication processes (Siegel, 2011). Its first application has been witnessed in the criminal justice system, particularly the activities of the police. In the United States, most police departments have greatly embraced the idea of community policing in most of their approaches to crime. This policing model views the police as community counselors and mediators, which has played a key role in incorporating restorative justice concepts into law enforcement (Siegel, 2011). Also, countries like New Zealand have increased the employment of law enforcement officers known as youth aid officers, who have the mandate of restoring community balance, which might have been upset by the delinquency of juvenile perpetrators. Such happenings denote restorative justice (Siegel, 2011).
Secondly, the courts have also embraced restorative justice, which evident in the concept of diverting the formal court process. Most courts are encouraging the act of meeting and amending the conflicts existing between victims and offenders through approaches like sentencing circles, mediation programs, and victim advocacy (Siegel, 2011). These programs bring together victim and offender families to establish an appropriate sanction that effectively addresses the needs and interests of all the involved parties. The core purpose is to allow victims to tell their stories and put appropriate mechanisms in place on how offenders can compensate them by fixing the damaged property or sorting it out financially (Siegel, 2011). This allows offenders to be accountable for their actions and take responsibility, which enhances their reintegration back into society.
Thirdly, restorative justice is also being embraced in schools, including school management utilizing it to handle delinquent students involved in alcohol and drug abuse (Siegel, 2011). The approach is taken to prevent such students from facing a stricter decision, like being expelled from school. This is evident in the United States, particularly schools in Colorado and Minnesota, which have enrolled their students in relational rehabilitation programs. The programs have the objective of helping the students improve their relationships with individuals back in society who may have been a victim of such student’s actions (Siegel, 2011). Lastly, restorative justice is also evident across communities whereby such entities have implemented mechanisms to encourage problem identification and formulated strategies for handling them by relying on the principles and practices of restorative justice. This has helped control the incidences of violent crimes among members, hence a good approach to upholding community relationships (Siegel, 2011).
A Hypothetical Crime and How Restorative Justice Can Be Used to Rehabilitate the Offender
Case scenario: Wisa, a 15-year-old male, was involved in multiple property and stealing offenses in his neighborhood. Wisa committed the offenses alongside his peers, which occurred in more than two episodes. The first crime occurred during early summer at 6 p.m. when two young peers entered a local food store. The two peers had covered their heads with hoodies and were also wearing face masks to conceal their identities. They walked out with three bags full of grocery items, and Wisa was carrying two of them. The staff responded by running after Wisa, who threw the two bags he was carrying in their way to ensure that he was not caught and held accountable for his actions. The second offense was recorded at 5 a.m. on one autumn morning when Wisa, with other unidentified youths, entered local resident’s compounds. Wisa and the youths walked away with property, including money, sound accessories, and other valuable items that they took from the local resident’s unlocked cars. One year prior to these offenses, Wisa had been sanctioned in court three times over his misconduct and ordered to do unsupervised youth justice orders within his community. His behavior seemed salient, and he seemed not to change any time soon.
In such a case scenario, a restorative justice process can be used to rehabilitate Wisa by first organizing a lengthy pre-conference interview with Wisa’s parents, the victims of the crime, and a convener, such as a police officer. Both parties can be left to express their concerns about the meaning of the friendship that was between them before such crimes occurred. If all the parties agree to the restoration of a meaningful friendship that once occurred among them, appropriate dates can be set for a real conference to resolve the issue.
All the victims of the crimes can attend the conference, Wisa and his family, and the convener. All the victims must be allowed to voice their stories, including their desire to know why their properties were targeted and damaged. Wisa can also be left to speak openly and honestly about his involvement in the misdemeanors. He must show remorse for targeting other people’s property without consent, including how they might have felt when they found the damages. Wisa should complete his engagement by offering a verbal apology to the victims of his crime. He must also consent to take part in several activities to aid in repairing the harm he caused and also as a way to restore positive community relations. The activities may include volunteering to accomplish hourly tasks in the community and school as well as preparing statements of intent to all the victims of his actions. He can also consent to be a role model in influencing his peers not to get involved in similar future crimes.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Restorative Justice to Victims and Offenders
Based on the victims of crimes, restorative justice is advantageous since it provides answers and information to their questions (Hassan & Lett, 2023). It provides an opportunity to be heard and understood, increased satisfaction with the criminal justice system, and community support to the victim. Victims also receive direct accountability from people who inflicted harm, which can be good for recovery and also provides a means for the victims to voice out the strategies in which they see best fit for the harms to be addressed (Hassan & Lett, 2023). In reference to the offenders, restorative justice is significant since it provides them with an avenue to put things into order and be accountable for them and an opportunity for community support and reintegration. There is also an opportunity to get involved in meaningful indirect and direct communication with the individuals to whom they inflicted harm, hence an increased chance for acceptance and restoration of positive relationships (Hassan & Lett, 2023). Lastly, the approach provides an avenue for transformation, and an individual receives support in addressing predisposing factors to recidivism on a personal level.
Some of the key disadvantages associated with restorative justice on offenders include the reduced ability to prevent them from re-offending (Hassan & Lett, 2023). It relates to the idea that many individuals consider restorative justice to be soft on crime; hence, this lack of punishment or retribution can make the perpetrators re-offend. The offender is also at increased risk of facing costly restoration rules, which may interfere with their ability to restore harm they caused to the victim (Hassan & Lett, 2023). The victims may decide as well to retaliate against the offender, which is not the main objective of the approach. On the other hand, the victim risks developing psychological harm in scenarios where the offender shows no concern or empathy over the pain or harm they inflicted on them (Hassan & Lett, 2023). This may as well make them develop lower self-esteem. Lastly, the victims might not be satisfied with the agreed restorative process, resulting in long-term suffering over the effects of the inflicted harm (Hassan & Lett, 2023).
References
Hassan, S. & Lett, D. (2023). Introduction to Criminology. Pressbooks.
Siegel, L. J. (2011). Criminology. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2020). Crime Prevention & Criminal Justice Module 8 key issues: 1. concept, values, and origin of restorative justice. UNODC. https://www.unodc.org/e4j/zh/crime-prevention-criminal-justice/module-8/key-issues/1–concept–values-and-origin-of-restorative-justice.html
write