Summary
Restorative justice and its implications for the philosophy of crime are popular topics of criminal justice research. In his article, Kent Roach sheds some light on the relevance, complexities, and implications of the restorative justice for the criminal justice system in Canada. Roach asserts that restorative justice is on the rise. The restorative justice theory is equally coherent and comprehensive, and can produce a profound paradigm shift in criminal justice.
Restorative justice exemplifies a circle model of justice, since it brings together all participants of the crime situation in a more informal setting. Restorative justice is a commanding theory and can be applied in a variety of justice contexts. Roach suggests that restorative justice is a partial theory, because it can be successfully reconciled with other, retributive theories of justice.
Roach delineates three different directions in the development of restorative justice, which include retributive accountability, rehabilitative healing, and crime deterrence. These multiple faces of the restorative justice philosophy make it appealing to criminal justice professionals for many reasons. First, restorative justice empowers crime victims to participate in the criminal justice process. Second, restorative justice reflects governments’ striving to contract out most of their traditional functions. Third, restorative justice gives voice to feminists, who emphasize the importance of care, ethics, and relationships in criminal justice.
The similarities between restorative justice and aboriginal justice philosophies are difficult to ignore. Unfortunately, like any other philosophy, restorative justice is not without controversy. However, Roach’s article raises more questions than it can reasonably answer.
Critique
Roach’s article raises a number of concerns with respect to restorative justice. First, there is an emerging consensus that, in its current form, the system of criminal justice can hardly meet the demands of restorative justice and satisfy its robust ambitions (Roach). Whether or not restorative justice can empower crime victims and respond to their concerns is difficult to define (Roach). Crime victims may be reluctant or refuse to participate in the restorative justice process (Roach). Moreover, crime victims may not be satisfied with the restorative justice results (Roach). Given the growing popularity of restorative justice, it is imperative that criminal justice professionals develop mechanisms and strategies needed to involve crime victims in all aspects of the justice process.
Second, the boundary between shame and public humiliation in restorative justice remains increasingly blurred. Roach is confident that shame can promote public accountability and serve a tough measure of justice. In the meantime, the benefits and consequences of shame and public humiliation have to be treated with caution. Shame that is not supported by re-integration immediately turns into the instrument of stigmatization, which merely aggravates the seriousness of the offense (Roach). Apparently, restorative justice cannot solve all criminal justice problems. It can hardly become a universal response to all criminal justice controversies in Canada.
Concerns are being expressed that restorative proceedings will be dominated by police workers (Roach). Also, feminists may not support the relevance of restorative justice, because it encourages relationships and harmony and, consequentially, disadvantages women (Roach). As a result, restorative justice is the source of considerable dangers for the Canadian society. Before restorative justice becomes a widely spread instrument of dealing with crime situations, its hidden dangers and inconsistencies need to be clearly defined. Unfortunately, Roach poses many questions but provides few answers. The future research must focus on the development of effective restorative justice frameworks, which will involve crime victims and meet the needs of justice and rehabilitation in the Canadian society.
Works Cited
Roach, Kent. “Changing Punishment at the Turn of the Century: Restorative Justice on the Rise.” Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42.3 (2000), 249. Print.