dealing w offenders - restorative justice Flashcards
restorative justice
system of dealing with criminal behaviour which focuses on rehab of offenders through reconciliation within victims
offenders see impact of their crimes and it empowers victims by giving them a ‘voice’
changing the emphasis
- historical view - person convicted of a criminal offence due to committing a crime against the state.
- Current view – implementation of RJPs to emphasise the needs of the victim and their families rather than the needs of the state.
the process of RJPs
Managed collaboration between offender and victim
Based on healing and empowerment
Supervised meeting with a trained mediator to discuss the impact of the crime on the victim
Offender can see consequences of actions and distress caused as part of their rehabilitation.
aims of RJPs
An opportunity to explain the impact of the crime (impact statements)
An acknowledgement of the harm caused
A chance to ask questions
Acceptance of responsibility
Active rather than passive involvement of both parties
variations
Face to face encounters
Financial restitution to the victim for either psychological or physical damage to the person or property.
Offender repairing damage themselves
RJ can either be an alternative to prison, part of their community service or an incentive to rehabilitate whilst incarcerated which may lead to the reduction of a sentence.
results of RJ programmes
85% of victims felt it was a positive experience
78% would recommend to others
2/3s leaving prison are re-convicted within 2 years
RJ is proven to reduce reoffending by up to a half
strength of RJ - more flexible form of dealing w behaviour
E: unlike custodial sentencing, RJ has flexibility in how it runs the programme. It can be tailored specifically to the crime that has been committed and the offender/victims.
C: benefits both parties. Victims get closure and offenders are able to directly see the impact of their offences which reforms the offender. Tailored RJPs allow it to be more personal between victim and offender so it’s more effective.
strength of RJP - beneficial for victim’s well being
E: Smith report 2007 reported that RJPs reduce PTSD in victims and they’re therefore less likely to want violent revenge, and they’re both more satisfied with this approach.
C: allows victim to be healed from offence, they can continue with daily life without fear.
HOWEVER if victim seeks revenge towards offender it will worsen the situation. Victims could potentially get in trouble for violence.
limitation of RJP - incentives for offenders to take part in RJP
E: prisoners often get a reduced sentence if they take part in RJP.
C: offenders likely to undergo RJP for wrong reason - likely to get out of prison earlier. They’ll display social desirability to make it look like they’ve reformed when they haven’t which has implications for when released. Victims may want to attend RJPs to seek revenge which worsens situation.
limitation - may not be as cost effective as first thought
E: Shapland claimed that every £1 spent on RJP would save CJS £8 through reduced offending.
C: other costs not accounted for so statement may not be correct. Likely fails to consider training of mediators and travel costs to locations of RJPs, as well as attrition rates where people drop out.
