Abstract
Restorative justice is a new approach used to manage crimes. It brings together the offender, the victim, and the community. In this position paper, the author showed the benefits of this approach. The reintegrative shaming theory was used to analyze this strategy.
Introduction
The current criminal justice system has a number of weaknesses. For example, it is associated with high levels of recidivism and disregard for the victim and the community (Siegel, 2008). Another weakness is the fact that the framework is costly. Consequently, people are disgruntled with the current justice system.
To address the shortcomings of the system, stakeholders in this sector have embraced new approaches to justice. One of these alternatives is restorative justice. It brings together the accused and the complainant within the communal framework. It is my position that restorative justice is what is needed to address the weaknesses of the current judicial system.
In this position paper, the author analyzes some of the reasons why restorative justice is the new frontier in the management of offenders and crime. The theory of reintegrative shaming will be used to show how the community, the victim, and the offender should be brought together to fight crime in society.
Problem Statement
Reaction Statement
The following is the reaction statement for this position paper:
Restorative justice is more beneficial than the traditional justice system.
It is my position that restorative justice is the best alternative to the current system.
Why I Selected this Topic
One of the reasons why I selected this topic is that studies conducted in this field show that the contemporary justice system has various limitations. As such, an alternative is needed. Secondly, restorative justice is an emerging approach in the criminal justice system. The fact that it is a recent phenomenon makes it interesting. Finally, my interactions with officers in the judicial system show that the approach has a number of strengths. Consequently, I resolved to analyze why this is so.
An Overview
The current justice system treats crime as an act against the state (Coates, Umbreit & Vos, 2006). It operates on a principle that largely disregards the complainant and the society. The two stakeholders are the most affected by the commission of a crime (Restorative justice: Mural Arts Guild Program, 2016). The system focuses more on punishing the offenders. One of the limitations of this approach is that the person who has committed the offense is denied the chance to face the impacts of their crimes on the victim and the society at large (What is restorative practices? 2012). A study conducted on the benefits of restorative justice by Latimer, Dowden, and Muise (as cited in Coates et al., 2006) found that the approach is associated with a significant drop in recidivism.
Defining Restorative Justice: Major Issues
According to Siegel (2008), this is an alternative approach to justice. It addresses the damage caused by crime on the community, the victim, and other stakeholders. It is best achieved by bringing together all the parties involved. It is more beneficial compared to the practice of alienating the offender from the consequences of their crime (Organizational change, 2007).
According to Siegel (2008), restorative justice views crime as more than just the act of breaking the law. To effectively address the crime, it is important to focus on the harms caused and the act itself. The best way to achieve this objective is to bring the stakeholders together (What is restorative justice?: Reintegration, 2016). The parties discuss the harmful effects of the crime and the best way to resolve them. However, in some instances, the offender, the victim, and the community are unwilling to come together. For instance, the victim may be so traumatized by the idea of facing their aggressor (Siegel, 2008). In such instances, other approaches can be adopted. Whichever the case, a critical analysis of the approach notes that it is more beneficial compared to the traditional criminal justice system. All the parties stand to benefit from the reconciliatory process. A case in point is where the offender is made to compensate the victim and the community. Consequently, there are measurable transformational changes in the lives of the stakeholders (What is restorative justice?: Reintegration, 2016).
An Analysis and Defense of My Position: Why Restorative Justice is better than Conventional Approaches to Crime
A Paradigm Shift
According to Coates et al. (2006), restorative justice represents a paradigm shift in the way people think and respond to crime. It is both an idea and a movement. It is an idea because it represents a new way of thinking and addressing crime. As opposed to the contemporary criminal justice system where the offender and the offense form the center of the process, restorative justice brings on board the victim and the community (Siegel, 2008). It is a movement considering the fact that it brings together people who are dissatisfied with the current system. The adherents of this new movement believe that all the stakeholders stand to benefit from an alternative course of the justice system.
Restorative justice focuses on addressing the harm caused by crime and reducing recidivism. To this end, it requires the offenders to take responsibility for their actions and their consequences on the victim and the community (Restorative justice: Mural Arts Guild Program, 2016). The overarching goal is to reintegrate and rehabilitate both parties within the community. The figure below illustrates how the process brings the stakeholders together:
In the illustration above, the major parties in the restoration of justice are represented by the intersecting circles. From the illustration, it is apparent that for justice to be achieved, the victim, the offender, and the community need to come together. Their interaction is aimed at restoring the social balance and cohesion within the larger society (Coates et al., 2006). The government may come in to support the restorative process.
Reintegrative Shaming Theory and Restorative Justice
There are a number of theories used to conceptualize the idea of restorative justice as an alternative to the contemporary judicial system. They include, among others, the reversal of moral disengagement theory, social and moral development framework, and the emotional and moral psychological healing model (Siegel, 2008). For the purposes of this position paper, the author will use the reintegrative shaming theory by Braithwaite (as cited in Coates et al., 2006) to show why restorative justice is superior to the traditional system.
According to Braithwaite, there are several strategies that can be used to manage crime (Coates et al., 2006). One of them entails bringing together all members of the community. Society puts crime in check by shaming offenders and bringing them back into the fold of the larger social framework. In other words, rather than rely on judicial officers and the government, the community actively handles the crime and all its complex facets (Restorative justice, 2016).
To shame the offenders, meetings are held between them, the victims, and their significant others. The conferences bring on board people that are regarded highly and respected by the offender (Siegel, 2008). Such individuals include their family members and friends. The aim is to make sure that the offender understands the disapproval that these people have towards their criminal behavior. For this form of restorative justice to work, the person who has committed the offense must be treated with respect and dignity. As a result, they feel guilty and ashamed of their actions.
The Benefits of Restorative Justice
As already indicated, restorative justice is an alternative strategy aimed at addressing the limitations of the traditional justice system. It has a number of benefits compared to the conventional system of addressing crime and offenders. To assess these benefits, it is important to determine the good that can come from restorative justice principles and practices. To this end, a benefit assessment takes into account marketing messages for various stakeholders (Organizational change, 2016).
Restorative justice is more cost-effective compared to other strategies of handling crime. For example, the government does not need to pay magistrates and prison warders to rehabilitate the offender (Siegel, 2008). In addition, the accused person can perform community service that is beneficial to society. According to the opinion of Probation Officers, the victim also feels that they have been compensated in some way by the offender (Siegel, 2008). In addition, recidivism is likely to reduce. For instance, when the reintegrative shaming theory is applied, the offender is likely to avoid repeating the offense to avert the shame associated with their acts.
Limitations and Barriers Associated with Restorative Justice
In spite of the wide range of benefits associated with the restorative justice approach, the strategy has a number of limitations and weaknesses. The shortcomings act as barriers to the effective implementation and adoption of this approach. One of the major limitations is that restorative justice is seen as a lenient way of treating offenders (Restorative justice, 2016). For example, prompting the offender to perform community service may be a lenient way of dealing with such crimes as robbery with violence.
Another limitation is that some offenses cannot be effectively dealt with outside the formal and government-sanctioned judicial system (Siegel, 2008). For instance, opponents of restorative justice argue that murder should be punished by removing the offender from the community. It is also noted that some crimes are traumatizing to the victim. As a result, they are unable to face the offender in restorative justice conferences (What is restorative justice?: Reintegration, 2016). For instance, it may be hard to convince a rape victim to accept payment from the offender as a form of compensation. However, a critical analysis of these weaknesses reveals that the benefits of restorative justice far outweigh the costs.
The Four Pillars of Restorative Justice
Restorative justice has 4 major pillars.
Inclusion
Inclusion brings together all the stakeholders involved in the crime. It is accomplished by inviting the stakeholders, addressing their interests, and flexibility to address emerging issues (Siegel, 2008). Critics of restorative justice argue that inclusion can also be achieved through the conventional justice system. For example, the courts inform the victim of the progress made in a given legal matter. In addition, the offended parties take part in the criminal proceedings through, for instance, acting as witnesses. There is also the aspect of victim impact assessment and analysis of their legal standing (Restorative justice, 2016). However, it is important to note that the major objective of this form of participation on the part of the victim is to punish the offender and establish the exact legal statutes they have breached. The aim is not to reconcile the two parties within the auspices of the community.
Restorative encounter
According to Siegel (2008), this pillar is made up of five interwoven elements. The first is a meeting between the accused, the complainant, and society. The meeting is followed by a narrative from all the stakeholders (What is restorative practices? 2016). Emotion, understanding, and agreement follow. Here, the emotional impacts of the crime on both the victim and the offender are explored in an understanding manner. At the end of the interaction, an agreement is reached. The agreement may involve retribution, apology, and compensation.
Amends
Amends is perhaps one of the most important goals of restorative justice. It has four major elements. The first is an apology from the offender (Siegel, 2008). The apology is informed by the fact that the victim and the community are the ones affected the most by the crime in question. For example, the offender may be required to apologize for abusing or attacking their victim. The second element entails a change in the behavior of both the offender and the victim. The offender changes their behavior to ensure that they do not re-offend, while the victim may change their behavioral patterns to avoid provoking the offender in the future (Coates et al., 2006). Restitution and generosity then follow. To this end, the offender may be required to pay for their crimes through compensation. On their part, the victim and the community may be required to show their generosity by forgiving the offender and accepting them back into the social fold.
Reintegration
The final pillar is reintegration. It takes place when the victim and the offender become active and productive parts of their community (Coates et al., 2006). To achieve this objective, the accused and the complainant must find a society that supports their reintegration and rehabilitation. In addition, society must show intolerance for deviant behavior (Coates et al., 2006). Such communities include support groups, circles of support, faith communities, and community service.
Conclusion and Recommendations
In this paper, it was found that restorative justice has more benefits compared to the traditional system of managing crime. It is not easy to convince justice system officials to embrace a new paradigm of managing offenders and crime in society. To achieve this, I recommend creative leadership and vision. The reason is that bringing on board all the parties involved and affected by a crime is the best way of dealing with deviance in society. Restorative justice is one of the strategies that can be used to achieve this objective. The approach is more beneficial than the traditional justice system. One of its major benefits is that it brings on board the victim and prompts the offender to face the consequences of their actions. The offender is also treated with respect, reducing the chances of recidivism. I also recommend that the government should be brought on board to improve the efficiency of restorative justice and address its various shortcomings. Studies show that proponents of restorative justice engage in reverse discrimination by leaving out the government. However, this should not be the case.
References
Coates, R., Umbreit, M., & Vos, B. (2006). Responding to hate crimes through restorative justice dialogue. Contemporary Justice Review, 9(1), 7-21.
Organizational change. (2007). Web.
Restorative justice. (2016). Web.
Restorative justice: Mural Arts Guild Program. (2016). Web.
Siegel, L. (2008). Essentials of criminal justice (6th ed.). New York: Wadsworth Publishing.
What is restorative justice?: Reintegration. (2016). Web.
What are restorative practices?. (2012). Web.