Introduction
The American criminal justice system (CJS) is retribution-oriented and is defined by its overreliance on punishing offenders, with imprisonment as the primary mechanism of sanctioning criminals. The sentencing philosophy drove the justice policy to its most punishing point and resulted in the country becoming the global leader in the prison population. However, this retributive orientation has impeded the attainment of other objectives of the CJS, including rehabilitating offenders, deterring reoffending, and assisting reparations. The inefficacies of incapacitation and the destructive effect of exposure to prisons have necessitated reforming the current system, embracing a more restorative approach and reintegrating youthful offenders into the community. This transition is influenced by the notion that juveniles are not innately criminal and that they can lead constructive lives if given an opportunity to change their behaviors instead of being deemed irredeemable. Although the harsh realities of the traditional juvenile sentencing policies have contributed to the rise in the prison population, a restorative approach can alleviate this challenge and help reduce the rate of recidivism in the country.
Using Restorative Justice to Prevent Recidivism and Reduce Adult Prison Population
The United States’ CJS emphasizes punishing offenders, which has led to a rapid rise in prison populations. A significant proportion of the imprisoned are repeat offenders whose interaction with the justice system exposes them to such challenges as parole violations, reoffending, and subsequent sentencing of longer jail terms. The scenario illustrates the inefficacy of the traditional CJS in addressing recidivism and its destructive effects, especially on minors, and necessitates the diversion of juveniles from the conventional court processes. The redirection of youth offenders aims to influence positive behavioral changes, make reparations, and be reintegrated into the communities. Source D notes that restorative justice systems depart from the conventional CJS by considering the harm done by the offender and seeking to make amends between the perpetrator, the victim, and the community. From this perspective, restorative justice diversion deemphasizes punishment. It aims to initiate repairs on the wounds caused by an offender’s actions, effectively rebuilding societal wellbeing through the harmonious relationship between victims and perpetrators.
Restorative justice diversions as a response to youth engagement in crime are premised on the notion that juveniles are not innately criminal. As a result, they can successfully be redeemed through various interventions formulated to protect them from the detrimental severities of the traditional systems. For instance, Source B contends that youth offenders processed through the court systems have higher instances of reoffending than those subjected to the restorative approaches. This implies that diversion programs are effective strategies, which help minimize the number of potential youth detainees, ultimately reducing adult incarceration rates in the country. The non-adversarial nature of the approach, its distinctive emphasis on accountability, and the need to repair the harms ensure that the offender understands how their actions impacted others. This implies that restorative justice challenges offenders to face their actions and encourages them to analyze their behaviors and choices, effectively enhancing their potential for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
Sentencing youth offenders should be inclined towards repairing the damages emanating from the crime and restoring healthy relationships between the offender, the victim and society, instead of merely inflicting punishment on the perpetrator. Restorative justice approaches achieve this objective by promoting closure of the offenses through the involvement of the victims and community, who are often excluded in the traditional prosecutorial processes. The dialogic and meaningful involvement and participation by the three parties illustrate the system’s responsiveness and sensitivity to the needs of the victims, which is a critical component in fostering forgiveness. Source F contends that such immersive interactions provide a window through which the victims and community understand the underlying individual preferences of the offender and the likelihood for recidivism. Source C argues that the assessment of a lawbreaker through such engagements can be used to sufficiently profile an individual and determine whether their violation of the law was due to situational forces. By bringing together community members, the victims, and the juvenile offenders, the youths understand the impacts of their actions and are provided with an opportunity to make amends and reconnect with society.
Restorative justice programs allow juveniles to internalize the consequences of their actions, particularly the disruptive consequences on the relationship between the offender, the community, and the victim. The disposition of the cases is based on the needs of the offended persons and such other considerations as the offender’s history, predisposition to reoffending, and genuine remorse. These considerations play an integral role in restoring harmony through forgiveness. Source D illustrates this perspective and argues that where the perpetrator is deemed willing and capable of completing restitution, they are protected from the adversarial legal system. Notably, when dealing with juvenile delinquents, this approach yields more benefits that would not have been realized if the offender had been processed through the courts. For instance, the restorative community conferences consider the precipitating factors that trigger the offending behavior and rank the offender’s norms and motives. This implies that since youths are not innately criminal, it is imperative to evaluate the conditions or circumstances that led them to lawbreaking before imposing such punitive sanctions as long jail terms.
Additionally, juvenile delinquency peaks in the teenage years and declines progressively in the early twenties. In this regard, most people who commit offenses as minors cease their criminal tendencies as they become adults. The trajectory underscores the significance of rethinking the justice interventions when dealing with youth offenders. This is further reinforced by the fact that minors involved in the juvenile justice system experience challenges transitioning into adulthood due to the system’s negative influences. For instance, the court processes do not achieve desistance, and the involvement in the traditional CJS inadvertently increases a minor’s likelihood of criminal activities in their adulthood. Conversely, juveniles processed through restorative justice systems disengage from future offending since they are allowed to internalize their actions and be protected from the adverse effects of the conventional CJS. For instance, in Ohio, youth offenders who were supervised in the community achieved lower recidivism rates than those subjected to the severities of the traditional CJS (Source B). In this regard, restorative justice programs are more effective in achieving deterrence from reoffending, reducing prison populations.
Diversion programs are designed to facilitate juvenile delinquents to meditate about their behaviors while still integrated into their communities. They impose accountability on the offender, allowing them to assume full responsibility for their delinquency while facing the victims of their offending. The community function as a support system and replaces the retributive aspects of the traditional CJS with the need to restore cohesion, effectively reintegrating the offender. For instance, when the victims, the community, and the perpetrator come to a consensus, and the latter agrees to repair the harm done, they benefit from community-wide forgiveness, which restores the initial ties and cohesion. From this perspective, the offender takes ownership of their inappropriate behaviors and commits to modify their delinquent tendencies. According to Source D, this approach alleviates the offender’s feelings of being hated and abandoned and increases their sense of guilt, motivating them to act more pro-socially. For instance, Conor committed to improving his behaviors and volunteered in animal shelters (Source D). As a result, such a minor is unlikely to reoffend, indicating the ability of the restorative justice system to achieve desistance and minimize recidivism.
Moreover, the flexible nature of restorative justice programs allows the decision-makers to consider a wide array of factors that could have predisposed the offenders to delinquency. This attribute facilitates the dispensing of cases without imposing excessively harsh sentences to minors whose actions could have been influenced by circumstances beyond their control. Source C argues that situational forces and powerful external pressures may lead people to commit crimes. Source D corroborates this view and notes that the restorative justice conference handling Conor’s murder of his girlfriend had the opportunity of looking at the root of his behavior and anger. Notably, this window would not have been available if the matter had gone the trial route. For instance, it was noted that Conor’s family had anger issues, which could explain his explosive action. In this regard, the behavior could not be deemed a premeditated murder, which would ordinarily attract a more punitive sentence. According to Source F, such a threshold of violence cannot be considered the expected behavior of the offender, warranting his processing through an alternative justice system that would not be solely focused on retribution.
Conclusion
The traditional CJS is overly retributive, and minors involved in that system often experience problems transitioning into adulthood. The system yields adverse consequences and increases their likelihood of reoffending in future. This trend potentially worsens the challenge of mass incarceration, which necessitates the processing of juvenile delinquents through an alternative system that reduces recidivism. Restorative justice programs have proven effective in reducing reoffending. Therefore, it provides an avenue through which more people can be prevented from entering the already overpopulated prisons.