Restorative justice advocates for repair and healing. Through restorative justice, the standard punishment is based on the extent of harm or damage caused rather than degree of the mistake committed. It holds three principles which are; the Principle of repair advocating for fair justice, restoration of the offended, offenders and society as a whole (all the injured by the felony), the principle of stakeholder involvement which requires that the victims, offenders and society should be actively involved in the justice process right from the occurrence of the offence, so as to increase the participation of the two parties and the community making decisions about the offence committed and finally the principle of transformation in community and government roles and relationships.
The third principle above stands for the idea that both the community and the government should be involved in promoting justice by each playing their roles; government to observe order, and community to create peace (Bazemore, 2007).
Grounded on the three principles, no practice is naturally restorative, but just operates on restorative decision making (involves the three parties passing information respectfully in response to the offence, and subsequently holding the offender accountable for the requirements of the victims and the society), sanctions and obligations (offenders come into agreements on how to repair the harm they have caused). The policies are not fixed (depends on the type of mistake). Therefore, each member affected by the crime should participate in planning injury repair.
Bazemore has clearly put out the best solution of the disagreement between the offenders and the offended with a deep concern for the community and the policy makers. This way of punishment inclines more on arbitration, which is one of the best methods of solving such cases. In this world that is geared towards peace making, restorative justice is best (Bazemore, 2007).
Restorative Justice Case Analysis
Two young men had just slain a woman who presumably had refused to give up her handbag. After the woman’s death, the two young men were arrested and charged for murder. It was later found out that the two young men had killed their classmate’s mother. Under the normal court procedure and subsequent judgments the two young men would be found guilty of murder and violation of human rights (freedom to life). They would also be charged with disrespect and thus subjected to five years imprisonment (Hardley, 2001).
Under a restorative justice, the offenders, the offended and the community comes into an agreement with the contribution of each. However, the decision would finally be made by the judge on deep consideration of each party. Considering the offended classmate, with respect to the policy and practices under the principles of restorative justice the two young men were bound by sanctions and obligations to carry the burden of catering for the bereaved child’s daily expenses (Zehr, 2002).
The community would raise concerns about such increasing behavior that would rout their children’s discipline and inflict pain to several families. Again, another concern comes from the question why did the children do such a thing; was it a parenting issue, acting under the influence of drugs (abuse), or just mischief? On the other hand considerations will be given to the two young men who are still school children, to have their right for education as children.
From the above complains and suggestions it would most possibly result that the two young men would be imprisoned for two years, do community work and provide for their classmates needs with the help of their parents.
References
Bazemore, G. (2007). The expansion of punishment and the restriction of Justice: loss of limits in the implementation of retributive policy. Social Research, 74(2), 61- 662.
Hardly, M.L. (2001). The spiritual roots of restorative justice. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Zehr, H. (2002). The Little Book of Restorative Justice. Intercourse, PA: Good Books.