RESTORATIVE JUSTICE

Restorative Justice

Introduction

Restorative justice refers to a criminal justice system which lay emphasis on the rehabilitation of the offenders through ensuring that they can reconcile with the victims and the community as a whole. The needs of the offenders, the victims and of the larger community are considered in this justice system. It views crime as more than just law breaking but also how it causes harm to people and their relationships. Therefore, Restorative Justice seeks to bring the affected individuals to discuss and provide solutions to the damages caused. Suffice to say, restorative justice repairs the harm, encounters solution and transforms relationships.

Discussion

Restorative Justice” Van Ness ch3 from Restoring Justice

Van Ness, in his Book, reflects the richness of the subject restorative justice through involving a clinical relevance in the analysis. In a sociological context, Ness argues for the theoretical thinking, social significance, and social ethical and principled explorations on the juridical options to restorative justice.

Ness advances his options and visions to deliver a crucial contribution to the understanding of the restorative justice through highlighting its principles and better ways of implementation. As such, he says, restorative justice comes as a result of intensive commitment towards the values of the values of restorative justice and a critically constructive mind to counter the possible problematic implementations. Similarly, some openness to the unresolved difficulties as well as unanswered questions comes into play to ensure transformation, repair and encounter.

The effectiveness of restorative justice practices by Latimer

Latimer recognizes the three categories of restorative justice as circles, conferences, and victim-offender mediations. He argues that, although they are somewhat dissimilar in their practices, the principles used in each model remain the same.

Based on his findings from the meta-analysis; we can deduce that restorative justice programs increases offender compliance with restitution, improves victim and offender satisfaction, and decreases recidivism among offenders.

Therefore, Latimer does a study which confirms the effectiveness of restorative justice and its advantages over criminal justice.

“Reconsidering Restorative Justice” Levant

Levant does not believe in restorative justice as a better option for criminal justice. He considers restorative justice an informal approach to the criminal justice. However, he recognizes the fact that restorative justice attempts to repair the community bonds, reintegrate victims into the society and hold them accountable.

Moreover, Levrant doubts the effectiveness of restorative justice in providing progressive reform. He argues that the system will be corrupted to serve other non-progressive goals thereby producing more harm than good. He also adds that restorative justice cannot have a meaningful effect on recidivism. As such, Levant advocates bringing together the rehabilitation approach to integrating with restorative justice so as to improve the outcome. It is because the rehabilitation process is the only way that offenders can be held accountable and tried to restore the victims.

Levrant perceives restorative justice as corruption benevolence. For this two reason: restorative justice will serve unprogressive goals through corruption, and that it will also have very minimal effect on recidivism among offenders.

Building restorative prisons by Newel

Newel considers establishing restorative justice within prisons. He argues that the move will enable the prisoners to understand the impact of their committed crimes upon their victims. He outlines four approaches which include the following:

Firstly, victim awareness and responsibility acceptance program which enables the offenders to take responsibilities for their actions. This is to happen within prisons and involves training course, Secondly, victim-offender mediation in prisons where mediation conferences will be held for that purpose. The third approach is restorative imprisonment. An entirely restorative prison with victim empathy courses to allow for full restoration incorporating the first and second approach outlined above. Fourthly, use the restorative procedures other than those of approach one to three to provide moral repair in prisons.

 

Position

From my assessment of the four perspectives, I find Building restorative prisons by Newel a better option in implementing restorative justice. It is because it takes into consideration all the principles of restorative justice and integrate with criminal justice and implements them within a prison unit. The move ensures that as an offender goes through the rehabilitation process in the prisons, the restorative justice repairs the harm; encounters solution and transforms relationships with their communities.

The other three perspectives address single areas: “Restorative Justice” Van Ness ch3 from Restoring Justice only focuses on restorative justice and neglects the role that criminal justice plays. The effectiveness of restorative justice practices by Latimer also recognizes the three categories of restorative justice as circles, conferences, and victim-offender mediations but neglects the role of criminal justice. On the other end, Reconsidering Restorative Justice” by Levrant disputes the effectiveness of restorative justice. He considers restorative justice an informal approach to the criminal justice which will serve unprogressive goals through corruption, and that it will also have very minimal effect on recidivism among offenders.

Conclusion

Newel, therefore, provides an integrative approach that is all rounded and maximizes the outcome of restorative justice while protecting the most inert of criminal justice.

 

Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100
Use the following coupon code :
SKYSAVE