The aim of the restorative justice process is “to make things right” on the side of both the victim and the criminal instead of satisfying abstract legal principles or punishing the offender. The process is divided into two parts, when the suspect admits the crime, and when he/she denies it.
When the suspect admits the crime, a restorative meeting circle that is attended by the victim and criminal’s support teams as deemed by them is arranged where they can reach a reconciliatory state. The meeting is arranged after acceptance by both the victim and suspect after an interview on the same. Before the meeting, an investigating magistrate issues a report containing the recommended restitution to be paid by the criminal to the victim and the victim may comply, and the criminal sends an apology letter to the victim.
In the circle, the victim, criminal and their support teams such as parents, neighbors, investigating officers, and personal victim support coordinators discuss the issues surrounding the crime occurrence. The effect of the crime on others other than the immediate victim is also examined. The criminal apologizes to the victim and all the people who are affected by the criminal event. The criminal is also supposed to accept to pay restitution recommended by the investigating magistrate.
At any point when a suspect presented to the restorative justice process denies having committed a crime, the case is forwarded to adversarial court for trial at which the suspect can opt for the co-operational resolution of the matter. The suspect meets a lawyer who states the options available. The victim also has the right to appear with a lawyer concerning the charge, restitution and protection. The suspect is represented by the lawyer who presented the options available.
In the adversarial court, the suspect is notified of the presence of the restorative circles that are only available if the suspect admits responsibility. If the suspect is found guilty, a pre-sentence investigation is carried out on the background of the criminal that is lastly used to impose restitution and relevant sentence since the sentence has to consider two factors- affect on the immediate victim, and risk imposed on the community and the victim by the criminal(Schmalleger & Hall, 2010).
The crime involved in the restorative justice case study had several effects on other people other than the immediate victim of the crime, Mildred. Mildred’s daughter, Betty and her husband get an increased burden to take care of Mildred at a time when they had other commitments with their kids.
They have to make more maneuvers in town since the crime took place. Barbara, who had recently moved into Mildred’s neighborhood states that the crime increased her sense of insecurity, and her son even asked if the bad people would break into their house and take his toys. She states that the crime made them potentially vulnerable especially at a time nobody was home.
David’s involvement in the crime also altered the usual fishing activities between him and his uncle. Before the crime, David had picked up a fight with his teammate and his coach was forced to expel him from the team which was a prelude to the crime.
As opposed to criminal justice, the suspect has no opportunity to meet the victim openly and does not provide any reconciliation processes. Criminal justice involves no pre-sentence investigations done to help in imposing charges, but the criminal is charged from the evidence and petitions made before the court (Siegel, & Schmalleger, 2011). The criminal justice process does not consider the effect of the crime on people other than the immediate victim of the crime. In restorative justice, the criminal is sentenced in a rehabilitative way that is specific to the cause of the crime.
To get rid of recidivism and facilitate the inclusion of a plaintiff in the whole court deliberation process, all the participating groups collaborate to reach a mutual agreement in restorative justice. This allows the offenders to be remorseful of the harm caused while pointing to the society that, offenders could also have experienced harm before. Rehabilitation of offenders by allowing them back into communities tries to bring harmony and peace by bringing about elements of personal responsibility and processes of decision making. This is not evident in contemporary justice systems.
By the help of the restorative process, David was able to reform and take his life back to the state it was before, reconciled to his parents and uncle, readmitted to his baseball team, and was able to get a job. Mildred felt relieved and lived in her house without any fear. She also got the opportunity to know her neighbors. The community gained more confidence in the restorative justice process and was able to work together through the public meeting organized by Barbara.
References
Schmalleger, F & Hall, D. (2010). Criminal law today. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Siegel, L & Schmalleger, F. (2011). Courts and Criminal Justice. New York: McGraw Hill.