Forensics - Restorative Justice Flashcards
What is restorative justice?
Restorative justice is a system for dealing with criminal behaviour which focuses on the rehabilitation of offenders through reconciliation with victims. This enables the offender to see the impact of their crime and serves to empower victims by giving them a ‘voice.’
What are the key features of the restorative justice process?
Focus on acceptance of responsibility and positive change for people who harm others.
Not restricted to courtrooms: Can take place face-to-face in a non-courtroom setting.
Active involvement from both offender and victim wherever possible.
Focus on positive outcomes for survivors and those harmed.
What are some variations of the restorative justice process?
Restorative justice programmes can include face-to-face encounters between offender and victim or involve other arrangements, such as financial reparation. Occasionally, the offender may repair damage done to property or provide a service to the community. The process may also involve community members as mediators. Variations ensure flexibility, allowing the approach to adapt to the needs of individual cases.
What is the role of the Restorative Justice Council (RJC)?
The RJC is an independent body whose role is to establish clear standards for the use of restorative justice and to support victims and specialists in the field. It advocates for its use across various settings, including schools, workplaces, hospitals, and communities, as well as in prison.
What is a strength of restorative justice in terms of diversity?
A major strength of restorative justice is its flexibility. Unlike custodial sentencing, which often takes a ‘one size fits all’ approach, restorative justice can adapt to the specific needs of individual cases. For instance, it offers a range of possible applications, including face-to-face meetings or alternative processes such as financial reparation. This adaptability allows restorative justice to be tailored to both the offender and the victim, ensuring that the most effective approach is used for rehabilitation. This flexibility is particularly valuable in cases where rigid sentencing may not address underlying causes of offending, making restorative justice a more person-centred alternative.
What is a limitation of restorative justice regarding reliance on offender remorse?
Restorative justice depends heavily on the offender genuinely showing remorse for their actions. If offenders only participate to avoid a custodial sentence or to manipulate the system, the programme’s effectiveness may be severely undermined. Furthermore, victims may feel that the process is insincere or ineffective if offenders do not engage honestly. This limitation highlights the challenges in ensuring that the emotional and behavioural changes needed for rehabilitation are achieved. Consequently, restorative justice may not always be suitable for all offenders, particularly those unwilling to reflect on their actions.
What are the financial implications of restorative justice?
Although restorative justice programmes have the potential to save money for the criminal justice system, they are initially expensive to set up and run. Research by Joanna Shapland et al. (2007) revealed that every £1 spent on restorative justice would save the system £8 through reduced reoffending. However, these savings may not always justify the high initial costs, which include specialist professionals acting as mediators. Additionally, if the process fails or participation is not genuine, the financial investment may not yield the desired outcomes. This raises questions about the cost-effectiveness of restorative justice as a universal solution.
What ethical issues are raised by restorative justice?
Ethical concerns arise when restorative justice places undue pressure on victims to participate or forgive offenders. Some victims may feel coerced into meeting their offender, especially if they fear retribution or emotional distress. Furthermore, involving the offender in the decision-making process, such as agreeing on reparation terms, could give them too much control, potentially leading to imbalanced outcomes. These ethical dilemmas emphasise the need for sensitive handling to ensure that the process respects the needs and autonomy of victims, particularly in cases involving trauma.
