lecture 7.1 restorative justice Flashcards
definition of restorative justice
a process whereby parties with a stake in a specific offence collectively resolve how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future
core values of restorative justice
- healing relationships between all parties involved
- community deliberation over the problem rather than placing the cjs at centre of decision making
- non-domination to allow all voices to be heard with respect
5 processes of restorative justice
-vicitm-offender mediation
-family group conferences
-restorative cautioning
-sentencing circles
-other settings
what is victim-offender mediation
- fundamental process in restorative justice
- contrasts CJ
- offenders have direct contract with victims
- face consequences of their actions
-required to express remorse and apologise to victims - victims more prominent role
- victim express feelings and concerns directly
- reflection and rehumanisation of victims
- tough option for offenders
- address criminogenic needs of offenders
- encourages behaviour changes
- more successful in reducing reoffendnig compared to cj
what is the concept of family group conferences
- FGCs found in indigenous dispute resolution
- addition to basic pricniple of victim offender mediation
- inclusion of key stakeholders - such as near family members of o + v, and wider community where offence took place
- recognises dispute affects entire community, not just parties involved
- crucial role of stakeholders in resolving conflicts and reintegrating offenders
- emphasises community focused approach - address disputes as problems that impact entire community - sense of collective responsibility for conflict resolution
- reparation and satisfaction for victims
-reintegrative shaming rather than stigmatisation
what is reintegrative shaming
- offenders held accountable, but focus is on reintegrating them back into civil society after they made amends and satisfied the victims
- involves multiple stakeholders and emphasizes community participation - aims to avoid stigmatisation
restorative cautioning and sentencing circles
restorative cautioning refers to use of restorative practices by CJ actors (police) as means to divert offenders from further involvement in cjs
- instead of formal charges and traditional legal proceedings the police opt for cautioning - engages offenders in restorative process
- involve offenders, victims, families and representatives from wider community at other stages in cj such as sentencing
post conflict truth and reconciliation
- rj processes in post conflict scenarios
- acknowledgement of actions and truth
- when process of acknowledgement and truth breaks down there is a risk of reverting to traditioanl cj processes
- end of apartheid in south africa
- ongoing peace process in NI
key components for retribution
-a negative and hostile relationship between o + v
- a desire for vengeance
- punishment for specific offences that is state-centred and dominated by legal professionals
key components of reparation
- promotion of healing and reconciliation between o+v
- reconciling a respect for victims, desire hold offenders account and possibility of greater community input into punishment process
- addresses emotional need to bring closure to harms caused by crime
- effective reintegration of offenders
key components of stigmatic shaming
- shaming which creates outcasts
- criminal becomes a master status driving out all other identities
- where bonds of respect with offenders are not sustained
key components of reintegrative shaming
- disapproval dispensed within an ongoing relationship with offender based on respect
- focus on evil of deed rather than on the offender as an irredeemably evil person
- where degradation ceremonies are followed by ceremonies to decertify deviance
- where forgiveness, apology and repentance are culturally important
key claims for restorative justice
- victims tend to be more satisfied with conference outcome than those going through cjs
- most o+v find conference process fair
- half of all conferences are successful in repairing the harm caused by victim
- recidivism rates lower among offenders after conference
- offenders with more serious previous convictions more likely to benefit from rj conferences than first time offenders
criticisms of restorative justice procedures
- outcome highly dependent on and vary across context of the heterogeneity problem
- can result in loss of due process
- can result in loss of other rights of participants
- can amplify stigmatic as well as reintegrative shaming
criticisms of restorative justice values
-naive dichotomy between retribution and reparation
- limited appreciation of power relations in rj processes that can disadvantage marginalised groups
- unrealistic expectation that restorative processes can stimulate transformative changes in behaviour
