Restorative Justice

Restorative Justice

Restorative justice is a phrase that is known only in small, concentrated pockets of the United States and other parts of the world. It is well known in alternative dispute resolution circles and in juvenile courts. Restorative justice, versus punitive justice, aims to heal, restore and reconcile, while punitive justice seeks punishment and revenge. Examples of restorative justice are, healing circles, transformational justice, transformative mediation, some collaborative processes, and even “conscious capitalism.” Restorative justice is a process to involve, to the extent possible, those who have a stake in a specific offense and to collectively identify and address harms, needs, and obligations, in order to heal and put things as right as possible.

Meetings between victims, their offenders, and members of the affected community are important ways to address the relational dimension of crime and justice. It is accepted that the following three methods are hallmarks of restorative justice. Each requires that the offender admit responsibility for the offence. Each is limited to parties who volunteer to participate.

Victim offender mediation. This is a process that provides an interested victim the opportunity to meet his offender in a safe and structured setting, engaging in a discussion of the crime with the assistance of a trained mediator. The goals of victim offender mediation include: permitting victims to meet their offenders on a voluntary basis, encouraging the offender to learn about the crime 's impact and to take responsibility for the resulting harm, and providing victim and offender the opportunity to develop a plan that addresses the harm.

Research on such programs has found higher satisfaction among victims and offenders who participated in mediation, lower fear among victims, a greater likelihood that the offender will complete a restitution obligation, and fewer offenders committing new offences, than among those who went through the normal court process.

Family or Community Group Conferencing. This process brings together the victim, offender, and family, friends and key supporters of both in deciding how to address the aftermath of the crime. The goals of conferencing include: giving the victim an opportunity to be directly involved in responding to the crime, increasing the offender 's awareness of the impact of his or her behavior and providing an opportunity to take responsibility for it, engaging the offenders ' support system for making amends and shaping the offender 's future behavior, and allowing the offender and the victim to connect to key community support. (Unknown, p. 2)

Peacemaking or Sentencing Circles. This is a process designed to develop consensus among community members, victims, victim supporters, offenders, offender supporters, judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, police and court workers on an appropriate sentencing plan that addresses the concerns of all interested parties. The goals of circles include: promoting healing of all affected parties, giving the offender the opportunity to make amend, giving victims, offenders, family members and communities a voice and shared responsibility in finding constructive resolutions, addressing underlying causes of criminal behavior, and building a sense of community around shared community values.

Each of the hallmark restorative justice processes -- victim offender mediation, community or family group conferencing, and peacemaking or sentencing circles -- ends with an agreement on how the offender will make amends for the harm caused by the crime. Two traditional criminal justice sanctions are used in restorative responses to crime: restitution and community service.

Victims have the chance to see their offenders, to tell them what effect the offense has had on the victim’s well-being, to receive an apology for what has happened, and to exact some kind of reparation for the harm that they have suffered. In addition to victims, communities also benefit from restorative justice. It increases safety and helps members of the community (including family members of both the offender and the victim, friends, neighbors, and merely interested people within the community where the offense took place) feel as if they have control over their surroundings. Finally, the benefits are available to offenders as well. Restorative justice recognizes that offenders also have needs that are not adequately served by the criminal justice system. These are just a few of the benefits of restorative justice. (Ipka, p. 4)

Identify how the crime in the case study had effects that went beyond harm to the immediate victim.

In the scenario of Ed and Dave, the effects of their crime extended to their family, friends, community, and the victim’s family, friends and community relations. As the effects of the crime unfolded, and the restorative process began, more individuals were identified as having been harmed indirectly as a result of the crime. For example, Mildred’s daughter had to take in Mildred until she was comfortable returning home. The community was harmed by the worry that they too may be victimized. This fear was even reflected by the children of the members of the community.

Restorative justice is different from contemporary criminal justice in several ways. First, it views criminal acts more comprehensively -- rather than defining crime as simply law breaking, it recognizes that offenders harm victims, communities and even themselves. Second, it involves more parties in responding to crime -- rather than giving key roles only to government and the offender, it includes victims and communities as well. Finally, it measures success differently -- rather than measuring how much punishment is inflicted, it measures how much harm is repaired or prevented. (Unknown, p. 1)

Reflect on how the restorative justice process benefitted David, Mildred, and the community.

The restorative justice process helped David, Mildred, and the community to heal. In the healing process, all learned more about each other than they had known at the time of the crime. They were able to come to an agreement so that each party gained more than just the financial restitution, they gained emotional healing that would not have occurred in a contemporary setting.

References

Ikpa, T. (2007, September 26). Balancing restorative justice principles and due process rights in order to reform the criminal justice system. Retrieved from http://law.wustl.edu/journal/24/ikpa.pdf

Schmalleger, F., & Hall, D. E. (with Dolatowski, J. J.). (2010). Criminal law today (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Siegel, L. J., Schmalleger, F., & Worrall, J. L. (2011). Courts and criminal justice in America. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Unknown. (2005, May). What is restorative justice?. Retrieved from http://www.d.umn.edu/~jmaahs/Correctional Assessment/rj brief.pdf

Unknown. (2009, October). When ed and david broke into mildred’s house. Retrieved from http://www.rjcity.org/the-project/documents/Case Study 30-10-09.pdf

References: Ikpa, T. (2007, September 26). Balancing restorative justice principles and due process rights in order to reform the criminal justice system. Retrieved from http://law.wustl.edu/journal/24/ikpa.pdf Schmalleger, F., & Hall, D. E. (with Dolatowski, J. J.). (2010). Criminal law today (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Siegel, L. J., Schmalleger, F., & Worrall, J. L. (2011). Courts and criminal justice in America. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Unknown. (2005, May). What is restorative justice?. Retrieved from http://www.d.umn.edu/~jmaahs/Correctional Assessment/rj brief.pdf Unknown. (2009, October). When ed and david broke into mildred’s house. Retrieved from http://www.rjcity.org/the-project/documents/Case Study 30-10-09.pdf