Introduction
Restorative seeks to explore amicable ways of dealing with crime. This justice was provided for in the Crime and Disorder Act and it provides an opportunity for the offenders, the victims and the community as a whole to come together and derive a mediation strategy that ensures justice is served for both the offenders and the victims without necessarily relaying on the court procedures. The system is considered as a new approach of dealing with crime as opposed to the traditional radical system (Cavadino, Crow and Dignan 1999).
The Youth Justice Board (2011) indicates that there are four most common restorative justice processes that are frequently used in the UK justice system. They include the victim offender mediation where a facilitator takes the role of ensuring that the two parties come up with an agreement either face to face or through other agreeable means. The core role of this process is to ensure that the victim understands why the offender committed the crime. The offender is also supposed to acknowledge that they committed the crime, explain the circumstances that led to their actions and apologise for the same (Youth Justice Board 2011).
Another approach includes restorative conferencing were the victims and the offenders together with their supporters with the help of a facilitator come together and tackle the offence committed through reaching an agreement that ensures victim satisfaction and offender reparation. This may also come with a recommendation on a corrective program for the offender to help them deal with the reasons that led to them committing the crime (Youth Justice Board 2011).
Family group referencing is also another viable approach to restorative justice. This mechanism involves the extended family members of the offender and the victim. Through this approach, the respective families come up with an amicable agreement on solving the issue at hand under the supervision of a facilitator. Lastly, referral orders are also used to deal with first time offenders. This system involves the offenders and their families who together with the community panel come up with an agreement that includes a rehabilitation program for the offender. In this system, if the parties are not satisfied with the restoration process, they are free to exercise their civil right through a court hearing (Youth Justice Board 2011).
Impact of Restorative Justice
Restorative justice in the UK justice system has had major implications to the system, offenders and the victims. This has seen the establishment of youth offending services in most parts of UK. Some of the most common youth offending services are located in all the states of UK (Justice 2011).
Marsh, Cochrane and Melville (2004) argue that restorative justice acts as a rehabilitation program for the offenders and a healing process for the victims and as such, for the system to serve its intended goal, it is vital that the victims are consulted about the intentions of the approach and that offenders are not coerced to apologise for crimes but rather through self initiated reparation. They also indicate that the system has had its share of positive and negative impacts on the UK justice system.
To the victims, this system has worked to their advantage in trying to understand the circumstances that led the offenders to commit the crime. Therefore, according to a study conducted in 1998 by the British Crime Survey, a majority of the victims employing the restorative justice approach were inclined to support the system because it had very strong benefits as compared to the normal court proceedings. Further, research has also shown that victims who participate in the restorative approach of justice are prone to reduced post-traumatic stress disorder a disease that is highly associated with crime victims (House of Commons Justice Committee 2009).
To the offender, the system has enhanced their self esteem because the system allows them to air out their feelings without prejudice thus prevailing over any pre-determined judgment about their character. Further, the system allows the offenders to apologise to their victims at first hand thus providing a favourable environment and opportunity for offenders to be reintegrated back to the community more easily as opposed to the court procedure. The system also considers the well being of the offenders as the punishment and sentences issued are quite short and they incorporate a rehabilitation programme centred on tackling the issues leading to committing the crime. Therefore, the psychological needs of the offenders are met (House of Commons Justice Committee 2009).
Newburn (2003) asserts that the restorative justice approach boasts the justice system efficiency in terms of ensuring that the victims get closure as to the circumstances that might have triggered the offenders to commit the crime. He further asserts that the system has improved on the attitudes of victims towards the system since the victims directly hold the offenders accountable for their actions and as such, the crime seizes to be a state affair but rather a personal affair. To the offenders, by dealing directly with the victims, they are able to assess the extent of their wrong doing and therefore they are more likely to amend their way of life to conform to the societal expectations.
Matthews and Young (2003) highlight that the restorative justice system helps to disrupt the offender’s patterns and frequency of engaging in criminal activities. Further they indicate that the system works to the advantage of the government in reducing the crime rates since offenders who go through the system are more likely to avoid such circumstances and therefore retaliate from crime through self restrictions. This therefore builds on safety within UK and harmony among communities that have embraces this system.
Home office (2010) views this approach as more of a democratic approach as opposed to the normal court proceedings that strive to meet bureaucratic accountability for offenders. This also helps the police to avoid implementing the radical justice system that sets to punish the offenders. Rather the system provides an opportunity to devolve power from the central government to the local systems which are represented by the communities. Further, the system empowers the community to take an active and more direct responsibility of dealing with neighbourhood crimes that can be solved amicably.
According to Newburn (2003) the restorative approach as a justice implementation tool is an advantage to both the offenders and the victims because it employs a low cost strategy in terms of monetary expenses. This is realised because both parties do not indulge in legal fees rather they depend on the free services of trained facilitators who volunteer to chair such informal proceedings.
Nevertheless, Cavadino and Dignan (2007) argue that the system has not successfully convinced the penal system that it’s more effective in preventing crime as compared to the more recognised traditional justice system of going through court proceedings. They assert that the system contains minimum punishment and in most cases, it acts as a loophole for radical criminals who are more likely to engage in criminal activities even after accepting their wrong doing and apologising to the victims. This according to Cavadino and Dignan (2007) is an indication of lack of a streamlined system whose functioning does not ensure that recidivism of offenders is reduced to a reasonable rate that is convincing to the victims and their supporters
Maguire, Morgan and Reiner (2007) further argue that it is not clear if the restorative system works to the advantage of the offenders, victims or the state. They argue that the system has failed to depict some sense of proportionality in the sense that in some instances, one of the three parties seems to derive maximum benefits at the expense of the other parties. They further argue that victims are likely to be coursed to agreeing into a contact that seems to be rational to the community rather than their own perception.
Therefore, low reparation from offenders might take centre stage especially when the system inclines towards deliberate accountability which strives to force the offenders to accept the crime regardless of the circumstances that contributed to their actions. The system has tried to meet the civil liability of acknowledging that a crime was committed and its repercussions. However, the system has failed to sufficiently take into consideration the offender’s level of guilt thus lacking in sentencing policies, reliability and impartiality (Maguire, Morgan and Reiner 2007).
In addition, Hudson (2002) explains that though the theoretical aspect and the proliferation of programmes that accentuate the restorative process have been rampant in the UK, various issues with regards to the practicality of the system remain answered. This includes the type of cases that qualify to undergo the process, the rationale of the selection criterion for the cases and the number and nature of offenders that the system can handle within a given time frame. Perhaps the most important aspect of the system that needs to be tackled adequately is the standardisation process that will ensure equality and proportionality as depicted by the traditional court system.
The fact that participation in the system is by far still at a very low level begs the question as to the practicality of the restorative system in delivering justice to the victims and to what extent the public has been convinced about this option. According to Faulkner (2006), restorative justice has not been able to gain much publicity and attention from the public because, advocates and law makers have consistently highlighted the disadvantages of departing from the original penal law as a misguided approach in trying to deal with emerging issues in the traditional justice system.
Further, Faulkner (2006) argues that the political class has been adamant in punishing, shaming and encouraged the use of radical correctional policies and facilities to deal with all forms of crime therefore jeopardising mainstream restoration and proper reintegration of offenders in the society. Therefore, the lack of commitment to the system has derailed the actualisation of the system in UK.
Reference list
Cavadino, M. and Dignan, J., 2007. The Penal System: An Introduction. 4th ed. London: Sage publications.
Cavadino, M. Crow, I. and Dignan, J., 1999. Criminal justice 2000: strategies for a new century, Winchester: Waterside Press.
Faulkner, D., 2006. Crime, State and Citizen: A Field Full of Folk. 2nd ed. Winchester: Waterside Press.
Home Office, 2010. Chapter five: Tackling crime together- HTML version, Web.
House of Commons Justice Committee, 2009. Cutting crime: the case for justice reinvestment. London: Justice Committee.
Hudson, B., 2002. Restorative Justice and Gendered Violence: Diversion or Effective Justice? British Journal of Criminology, 42(3), pp. 616-634.
Justice, 2011. Young offending teams, Web.
Maguire, M., Morgan, R. and Reiner, R., 2007. The Oxford handbook of criminology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marsh, I., Cochrane, J. and Melville, G., 2004. Criminal justice: an introduction to philosophies, theories and practice. London: Routledge.
Matthews, R. and Young, J., 2003. The new politics of crime and punishment. Cullompton: Willan.
Newburn, T., 2003. Crime and criminal justice policy. Harlow: Pearson.
Youth Justice Board, 2011. Working with victims: Aims and principles of restorative justice, Web.