Criminal Behaviours - Methods Of Modifying Behaviours: Restorative Justice Flashcards
What’s the main idea behind RJ
- It came about based on the idea that punishment doesn’t seem to always work for criminals, so restorative justice is used as an alternative rather than a prison sentence.
- The idea is that it’s called restorative because it is trying to restore the criminal/victim/whole situation back to the time before the crime was committed.
What are the 4 main components to describe
- what’s involved
- aim of RJ
- victim’s perspective
- theory of RJ
Describe: what’s involved
- It’s a form of communication from the criminal to the victim. There’s 3 options for the offender to do…
1) Give payment to repair relationships: Offenders may offer concrete compensation for the crime (money or doing community service).
2) Write a letter to the victim: explaining why they behaved the way they did
3) Meet with the offender: Getting the offender and victim to have an interaction, e.g. video conferencing or face-to-face where there is an impartial facilitator (a mediator between the two). - Restorative justice is an alternative to prison, stopping them from entering the prison system.
Describe: aims of RJ
- They’re trying to get rid of custodial sentencing by doing 2 things
- The first is the rehabilitation of offenders so they do not reoffend
- The second is to provide atonement for wrongdoing and make amends for what they did
1) Rehabilitation of offenders:
- The victim has an opportunity to explain the real impact of the crime and this enables the offender to understand the effects on the victim. - Offenders may learn to take the perspective of others, which reduces the likelihood of reoffending. In particular, the offender is encouraged to take responsibility for the crime and this is hoped to have an effect on their future behaviour.
- Being punished is a passive process but rehabilitative justice requires the criminals active participation which may therefore change their attitudes towards crime and their behaviour.
2) Atonement for wrongdoing:
- Offenders may offer concrete compensation for the crime (money or doing unpaid community work).
- Most importantly the ‘atonement’ is psychological by simply showing their feelings of guilt. The offender can also show an understanding of the effects of their action.
The victim has the opportunity to express their distress and this provides the offender with a chance to develop empathy by taking the perspective of the victim.
Describe: victims perspective
- From the victim’s perspective restorative justice can reduce their sense of victimisation because they are no longer powerless and have a voice.
- Furthermore a victim may develop a greater understanding of the offender by listening to their account which, in turn, reduces the victim’s sense of being harmed.
Describe: the theory of restorative justice
- Wachtel and McCold (2003) propose a theoretical framework. Their starting point is that focus should be on relationships rather than punishment. Crime harms people and their relationships, and justice requires that harm be healed as much as possible.
- Early models of restorative justice focused on the offender and victim only but more recent ideas recognise the effect on the wider community.
- There are 3 stakeholders: the victim (seeking reparation), the offender (taking responsibility), and the community (aims to achieve reconciliation to maintain healthy society)
- If only one stakeholder is involved the process is only partly restorative, e.g. the government pays financial compensation. If two stakeholders are involved then it is mostly restorative, e.g. if the offender receives therapy.
- Full restoration involves all three stakeholders.
When evaluating, what do you talk about
- effectiveness
- ethical implications
- social implications
Evaluate the effectiveness of RJ, what do you talk about
- victim’s perspective
- reducing offending (criminal’s perspective)
- issue with who’s used
Evaluate the effectiveness of RJ, victim’s perspective
P: Restorative justice is effective from the victim’s perspective because it offers a more personal and healing approach compared to conventional court processes.
E: For instance, the UK Restorative Justice Council (2015) found that 85% of victims felt satisfied after face-to-face meetings with offenders, and Avon and Somerset police reported a 92.5% satisfaction rate among victims of violent crimes (BBC News, 2013).
T: This high level of satisfaction suggests that restorative justice provides victims with a sense of closure and empowerment, as it directly addresses their needs and enables them to be actively involved in the resolution process.
COUNTER: However, while these figures indicate strong victim approval, the benefits may not be uniformly experienced across all cases; the effectiveness of restorative justice can be influenced by the nature of the crime and the readiness of both parties to engage constructively, which could limit its universal applicability.
Evaluate the effectiveness of RJ, reducing offending (criminal’s perspective)
P: Restorative justice is an effective method of modifying criminal behavior because it has been shown to significantly reduce reoffending rates.
E: Sherman and Strang (2007) conducted a meta-analysis of 20 studies across the US, UK, and Australia, which examined the impact of face-to-face restorative justice meetings. Their findings revealed that offenders who participated in restorative justice had a reoffending rate of only 11% after two years, compared to 37% of those who served a prison sentence.
T: This suggests that restorative justice encourages genuine accountability and rehabilitation, making it a more effective long-term solution than traditional punitive measures.
COUNTER: However, the success of restorative justice depends on factors such as the offender’s willingness to engage and the quality of facilitation. If the offender does not sincerely take responsibility or the process is not well-managed, its effectiveness may be diminished
Evaluate the effectiveness of RJ, issue with who’s used
P: Despite its benefits, restorative justice is not always an appropriate method for modifying criminal behavior, as it requires both the victim and the offender to voluntarily participate. A major limitation is that it relies on offenders admitting guilt, meaning it cannot be used in cases where they deny responsibility or where guilt has not been established. Additionally, victims may choose not to take part due to emotional distress or fear of facing their offender, making the process unfeasible in many cases.
E: Research by Latimer, Dowden, and Muise (2005) supports this, as their meta-analysis of 35 restorative justice programs found that while the approach had generally positive outcomes, low participation rates limited its effectiveness, with many victims and offenders unwilling to engage.
T:This suggests that restorative justice cannot be applied universally, particularly in cases of serious crime where victims feel too vulnerable or offenders refuse to take responsibility.
When evaluating the ethical implications, what should you talk about?
- ethical issues from victim’s perspective
- ethical issues from offenders perspective
- positive because it empowers victims
Evaluate the ethical implications of RJ, ethical issues from victim’s perspective
P: One ethical weakness of restorative justice is the potential psychological harm to the victim. While the process aims to offer closure and healing, victims may instead experience distress, particularly if the offender shows no genuine remorse.
E: Research by Shapland et al. (2007) found that although most of the victims were satisfied with the process, some reported feeling worse afterward due to the offender’s lack of empathy or the discomfort of revisiting the crime.
T: This suggests that restorative justice may inadvertently lead to re-victimization, lowering self-esteem and causing further psychological harm. Additionally, some victims may feel that the offender has manipulated the process to receive a lesser punishment, further exacerbating feelings of injustice.
Counter: However, this risk can be mitigated by ensuring that restorative justice is voluntary, carefully monitored, and facilitated by trained professionals who can support the victim’s emotional well-being throughout the process.
Evaluate the ethical implications of RJ, ethical issues from offenders perspective
P: Another ethical issue concerns the potential for harm to the offender, as restorative justice can lead to power imbalances where victims misuse the process. Particularly when the offender is young or vulnerable, there is a risk that they may be subjected to excessive shaming or emotional pressure from the victim.
E: For example, Morris et al. (1999) highlighted cases where victims used restorative justice sessions to berate or humiliate offenders rather than seeking mutual understanding.
T: This contradicts the intended purpose of restorative justice, which is to provide a balanced and constructive dialogue. If the process becomes overly punitive, it can lead to negative psychological effects on the offender, reducing its rehabilitative potential.
Counter: Nevertheless, strict procedural safeguards—such as ensuring trained facilitators oversee discussions and prevent emotional abuse—can help maintain fairness and uphold ethical standards.
Evaluate the ethical implications of RJ, positive because it empowers victims
P: Despite these concerns, restorative justice can be considered an ethical method of modifying criminal behavior because it empowers both the victim and offender, leading to positive psychological outcomes.
E: Research by Sherman and Strang (2007) found that victims who participated in restorative justice reported significantly lower levels of post-traumatic stress symptoms compared to those who went through the traditional justice system. Additionally, offenders who engaged in restorative justice were more likely to take responsibility for their actions and demonstrate lower recidivism rates.
T: These findings suggest that, when implemented correctly, restorative justice can provide emotional closure for victims while also facilitating genuine rehabilitation for offenders. While the process must be carefully managed to avoid ethical pitfalls, its potential for fostering accountability and healing makes it a valuable and ethical alternative to punitive measures.
When evaluating the social implications of RJ, what do you talk about
