The Restorative Justice vs. The Retributive Model
The Restorative Justice vs. The Retributive Model
The restorative justice model aims at returning the victims to their original position before they were involved in the criminal attack. The model is complex and faces various risks. However, it also some benefits for the offenders because it is community-based and encourages proactive engagement. The restorative justice model is beneficial and helps in preventing the criminals from the re-engaging in crimes. The objective of preventing the criminals from taking part in crimes is an important aspect. This could occur through the identification of the influences that pushes pressure on the criminals to engage in crime and the removal of the influences. The restorative justice approach focuses on the implementation of restorative justice rather than obtaining punishment (Armstrong, 2014). It emphasizes on the acceptance of responsibility of the offenders and pushing for the reintegration in the overall community. Unlike other justice model, the restorative justice approach is keen on motivating the offenders to accept responsibility for their actions and crimes. In the past, the criminal justice approach pushed the offenders to avoid taking responsibility and even denying they engaged in the crimes.
The restorative process obtains proactive and consistent support from the family members who promotes and support them. During the restorative process, the parents and family members have given an opportunity to engage the offenders and encourage them to change their behavior. For example, in dealing with school violence, the teachers provide support to the violent students (Sherman et al., 2015). The offending students are expected to take responsibility and overcome the impacts of engaging in delinquent behavior. Also, restorative justice has a feature of allowing the offenders to be listened. Listening to the stories of the offenders and the victims through the process helps to influence correction.
In addition, restorative justice promotes the social and moral growth of the offenders. Morality is a socially acceptable approach of behaving as it differentiates between good and bad. It also plays an important function in enhancing social harmony and cooperation. Largely, restorative justice is an effective way for the offenders to learn from their past mistakes and the young offenders to be informed by their experience. Restorative justice approach promotes moral and factual evaluation of the criminal behavior and consequences among offenders. Young offenders will be able to learn from their past crimes by understanding how their crimes impacts the people around them. According to Daly (2013), restorative justice approach helps to lower the rates of recidivism. The research findings indicated that restorative justice has a significant effect on lowering the rate of recidivism as compared to conservative criminal justice. The possibility of engaging in a crime is lower for persons who take part in the restorative process. The reason for the reduction in the reoffending rates is that dealing with the impacts of their crime bring out empathy and genuine regret among the offenders. For instance, in England, Willis (2016) noted that lower rates of recidivism were recorded among offenders who took part in mediation. Restorative justice is useful in engaging with the offenders in discussion and forums that promotes change in criminal behavior and thus, lowering the rates of reoffending.
The restorative justice model benefits the offenders in several ways. For instance, the offenders have the chance to make things right. They can apologize to the offended and express their felling of remorse to benefit them with psychological case law assignment paper relieve after apology. It is through restorative justice that the offenders get the opportunity to move on after applying the most appropriate amendment technique. The offenders can return to the society with full acceptance to relate with others (Riley, & Hayes, 2018). The offender can live normally with the understanding that everything about the case is settled (Wenzel, Okimoto, Feather, & Platow, 2008). In addition, the offenders are given adequate time to make meaningful amendment in their lives. This is done through comparison of restorative justice model with the criminal justice system which tries to correct and discourage the criminal behavior. The justice system helps to ensure that the offenders understand the various laws and adhere to them effectively. There is success when a criminal activity is dealt with through restorative justice. The offender is involved in finding a resolution which is voluntary (Daly, 2017). The offender gets a chance to experience the fully effect of the criminal behavior. This results to a transformative intuitive feeling. The offender transforms complete through understanding the full effect of the actions.
The restorative justice model can best help the offenders when some measures are included. The offenders should suggest the best ways to help offenders like them in different situations. The victim and the offender should be reconciled and to uphold a good relationship in the community. The restorative justice should consider the future of the offender of the community and the necessity of the offender. The model could reduce the factors that lead the offender to be offensive (Daly, 2016). Studies conducted have shown that offender that participated in restorative justice changed and reduced their offense rates. The assessment of the restorative justice helps to encourage the offenders to rethink their choices and become better in the community (Sherman, & Strang, 2015). As such, the restorative justice process helps in improving reconciliation of the offenders with the community as well as expanding positive relationships.
Under restorative justice process, the offenders have numerous opportunities to take control of their life and actions effectively. The offenders are able to take accountability for their offence. The process makes it possible to meet with the victims and the community as well as a way of repairing the harm that might have occurred. Accountability is important for the offenders as it helps them to understand the harm they have caused to their victims. This lowers the desire and motivation for the offenders to engage in crimes because they understand the pain suffered by their victims (Clark, 2008). As such, they accept the responsibility and become proactive in improving their future behavior. Reintegration of the offenders is possible through the restorative model. It is because the offers taking responsibility, making adjustments, and addressing the causal factors helps the offenders to influence the community positively. Sherman, et al. (2015) explains that the push towards a community-based system of justice is a new approach unlike the historically adopted approach used in dealing with crime and conflict. As a result, there is a need for the correctional facilities to implement the restorative justice process rather than the retributive model to reduce the recidivism rates.
In summary, unlike retributive model, the restorative justice approach helps the offenders in avoiding longer criminal justice interventions. For example, it encourages for lower periods of imprisonment in the jails. It would lead to the reduction in the jail terms for the offenders to help in increasing the processing of them for reintegration into the community. It also allows the offenders to contribute to the outcome program and plan. The involvement of the offenders in a justice process is an effective way of making them feel recognized and important within the community. Other justice models do not consider the remorse and input of the offenders making them insensitive to their feelings and ability to change their behavior. In spite of all, the restorative justice model is risky and complex and thus, the correctional and probation officers should be well trained and experienced to make it successful.
Armstrong, J. (2014). Rethinking the restorative–retributive dichotomy: is reconciliation possible?. Contemporary Justice Review, 17(3), 362-374.
Clark, J. N. (2008). The three Rs: retributive justice, restorative justice, and reconciliation. Contemporary Justice Review, 11(4), 331-350.
Daly, K. (2013). The punishment debate in restorative justice. The sage handbook of punishment and society, 356-374.
Daly, K. (2016). What is restorative justice? Fresh answers to a vexed question. Victims & Offenders, 11(1), 9-29.
Daly, K. (2017). Restorative justice: The real story. In Restorative Justice (pp. 85-109). London, UK: Routledge.
Riley, M., & Hayes, H. (2018). Youth restorative justice conferencing: facilitator’s language–help or hindrance?. Contemporary Justice Review, 21(1), 99-113.
Sherman, L. W., & Strang, H. (2015). 25 Restorative Justice as Psychological Treatment: Healing Victims, Reintegrating Offenders1. Forensic psychology, 385.
Sherman, L. W., Strang, H., Mayo-Wilson, E., Woods, D. J., & Ariel, B. (2015). Are restorative justice conferences effective in reducing repeat offending? Findings from a Campbell systematic review. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31(1), 1-24.
Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T. G., Feather, N. T., & Platow, M. J. (2008). Retributive and restorative justice. Law and human behavior, 32(5), 375-389.
Willis, R. (2016). Three approaches to community in restorative justice, explored through a young person’s experiences of a youth offender team in England. Restorative Justice, 4(2), 168-194.
The post The Restorative Justice vs. The Retributive Model appeared first on mynursinghomeworks.