Restorative Justice Flashcards
rehab and atone
Aims of restorative justice
RJ had the potential to address 2 key aims of custodial sentencing:
- Rehabilitation of offenders- Victims can explain the crime’s impact, allowing offenders to understand and learn from others’ perspectives, possibly reducing recidivism. Rehabilitative justice encourages the offender to take responsibility and active participation. Also potentially changing the offender’s attitudes towards crime and behaviour.
- Atonement for wrongdoing- Offenders may offer compensation for their crime, such as money or community work, and through ‘atonement’, they express their guilt and understand the consequences of their actions. This also allows the victim to express their distress This allows the offender to develop empathy by considering the victim’s perspective.
What is restorative justice?
Usually involves communication with the victim. An offender may simply give payment as reparation but an offender may write a letter to a victim or there may be an interaction between offender and victim e.g. video conferencing or face-to-face meeting in the presence of a facilitator. Also, if the victim agrees, offenders are offered restorative justice instead of a prison sentence.
who does RJ affect
A theory of restorative justice
Wachtel and McCold (2003) proposed a theoretical framework that focuses 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 RJ focused on the offender and the victim only but more recent ideas recognised the effects on the wider community. Three ‘stakeholders’ are necessary for successful RJ- the victim seeks reparation, the offender takes responsibility and the community aims to achieve reconciliation to maintain a healthy society. If only one or two stakeholders are involved RJ will not be successful e.g. govt pays compensation.
Victim’s perceptive
RJ can reduce their sense of victimisation because they are no longer powerless and have a voice. The victim may also develop a greater understanding of the offender by listening to their account, this reduces the victim’s sense of being harmed.
satisfaction from victims
Effectiveness: From the victim’s perspective
Good evidence that victims who had been a part of RJ schemes felt it was beneficial. The UK RJ Council (2015) reported that 85% satisfaction from victims in face-to-face meetings with their offender(s). These reports covered a range of different crimes from theft to violent crime. Evidence from Dignan (2005) stated that victims also claim a greater sense of satisfaction than when cases go through the mainstream courts.
face to face meetings
Effectiveness: In terms of reduce offending
RJ can also reduce recidivism and thus reduce crime rates. Research that indicates this is, Sherman and Strang’s (2007) reviewed 20 studies of face-to-face meetings between offender and victim in the US, UK and Australia. All studies showed reduced recidivism and none were linked to higher recidivism. In one of the studies of 142 men convicted of violence and property offences, there were lower recidivism rates (11%) as compared to the matched control group who served a shorter prison sentence (37%).
there are steps
Effectiveness: Selecting the offenders
The system will never be able to apply all offenders to all victims. Firstly, the offender has to admit to the crime although Zehr (2002) claims that RJ can take place without the offender’s presence. Certain crimes may not be suitable but the process is used for every crime imaginable. Some victims may decline the offer, which means that RJ can’t be a global solution to dealing with offending behaviour.
psychological harm
Ethical implication: From victim’s perspective
The victim could feel worse afterwards. Psychological harm is a key issue and there may be many ways in which this is done. For example, the victim may feel that the criminal showed no empathy for the harm caused, and relive that moment again. This leads to a loss of self-esteem. The victim may feel taken advantage of if the criminal was offered RJ instead of custodial sentencing, especially when the criminal doesn’t appear to be taking the process seriously. Or the victim may feel embarrassed by the proceedings.
balance of power
Ethical implications: From the offender’s perspective
Making people face up to their wrongdoing can lead to abuses of power, for example, victims can gang up on their offender especially if they are a child. Victims may also try to shame the offender which isn’t the intention of the process. It is intended to provide mutual benefits which is important for the offender to feel understood. This is why RJ needs to be carefully balanced to ensure benefits and to avoid harm to both parties.
Uk restorative council
Social implications: Financial implications
The key aims of RJ is to reduce prison population by reducing recidivism. Furthermore, Zehr (2002) remind us that another reason for RJ is that the traditional penal systems didnt address the needs of the victims nor promote the offender’s accountability. The UK RJ Council claims that reduced recidivism means 8 pounds saved for every pound spend on the restorative process. Also, the cost of RJ is sometimes funded by fines paid by offenders, thereofre RJ may have susbstanial financial benefits for the community.
peace circles
Social implications: Wider approach in the community
‘Peace circles’ are an example of the kind of community programmes that has been created in communites where violence and crime levels are high. They aim t foster an environment of respect so the community offers suport to victims of crime and welcomes offenders into the circle to enable mutual understanding. A ‘talking piece’ is passed from one person to another so no one is interupted. There is also a ‘keeper’ that maintains an atmosphere of respect and articulate constructive solutions (Pranis et al, 2003).
