Introduction
Restorative justice focuses on reconciling the offenders and the victims. It involves three steps: encounter, reparative, and transformation. Encounter is the first step, where the parties involved reach out to one another to identify a better solution. Reparative is the second step, where the parties identify and pursue the best means to repair the harm caused. Transformation is the last step that addresses the specific cause of the issue and provides a proper means for the offender and the victim to be integrated back into society.
There are four cornerstones of restorative justice: inclusion, encounter, amends, and reintegration. The system’s pros include reduced recidivism, recovery and satisfaction of the victim, and an opportunity for the offender to understand their mistake and reform. On the other hand, the cons include increased psychological harm to the victim, exposing the offender to physical assault, and not being used as a global justice system. However, restorative justice is very effective in today’s environment and should be implemented.
Definition
There are four types of justice models in the world. Among these are distributive justice, which stresses who receives what; procedural justice, which emphasizes treating people fairly; and restorative justice, which emphasizes punishing offenders; and restorative justice. The first three are termed punishment and treatment models and concentrate on the behavior of criminals, excluding victim involvement in the legal system and only calling for the offender to participate passively (Hobson et al., 2022).
Restorative justice is a term that came up in the mid-20th century and has since dominated the legal justice system (Van Ness & Strong, 2014). The term was coined by Albert Eglash, an American psychologist, in his 1958 articles (Van Ness & Strong, 2014). Restorative justice emphasizes the negative consequences of criminal behavior and actively incorporates both victims and offenders in the healing and rehabilitation process (Hobson et al., 2022). It is based on the idea that crime violates human relationships and imposes a responsibility to set things right. The community, the criminal, and the victim must thus be included in seeking solutions to encourage reconstruction, reconciliation, and reassurance if justice is to be served.
Components
Restorative justice has three interconnected elements: encounter, reparative, and transformation. Each of these components is distinct and very important. Together, they guide how the offenders, victims, and community members may restore wellness and completeness. These actions give individuals the tools they need to practice restorative justice.
Encounter
Encounter is the first step and involves a guided meeting of those most affected by the crime to decide how to reconcile. Concerned individuals are invited, and everyone participates voluntarily (Van Ness & Strong, 2014). For an effective encounter, the offenders must admit their crime and express a desire to make atonement before they are allowed to join. Secondly, all the participants, including the victims, criminals, and community members affected by the wrongdoing, must have a say in the legal system. Lastly, the encounter must occur in secure environments, encourage vulnerability, and provide unrestricted sharing.
Reparation
The second step is a reparative concept that seeks to repair the harm caused by the crime amongst the different stakeholders. The harm caused is usually at different levels, and the parties involved can successfully resolve the issue during their meeting (Van Ness & Strong, 2014). However, if any of the parties refuse to meet and solve the matter informally, the court would step in and focus on identifying and finding solutions to mend the effects of the crime. The process would not be considered restorative if it did not give immediate victims, community members, and offenders some redress. Therefore, the reparative conception must focus on the victims’ need for healing, the offenders to make amendments, and the community’s need for relational health and safety.
Transformation
The last step is the concept of transformation, which addresses the root causes of crime and creates a space for the victims and offenders to transform (Van Ness & Strong, 2014). In addition to addressing specific instances of injury, it also confronts systemic injustices, including racism, sexism, and classism. Each keeps people from having complete, peaceful, healthy connections with others and their social and physical environments.
Four Corner Posts of Restorative Justice
A restorative justice process has values that guide and give practical directions on how the community and society approach crimes when they occur to maintain the world vision of an effective justice system. Van Ness and Strong (2014) posit that restorative justice is anchored on four key aspects: inclusion, encounter, amends, and reintegration. They are recurrent and significant elements in several programs and locations across time.
Inclusion of All Parties
The first corner post of restorative justice is the inclusion of all affected parties. It demands all the victims, offenders, and community to directly engage, influence the restorative process, and redress the harms caused (Van Ness & Strong, 2014). All interested parties are invited to join restorative encounter programs that allow them to explore their interests.
These programs occur outside the courtroom’s adversarial setting but provide a framework for victim protection and civil discourse. Their adaptability enables them to consider different strategies that work for specific parties (Van Ness & Strong, 2014). Because of their advantages, several states and jurisdictions have passed legislation granting victims the right to access restorative justice programs, including victim-initiated victim-offender dialogue programs offered through the Department of Corrections.
Encounter of All Parties
The second corner post is an encounter where all the affected parties are allowed to interact with the other parties in a safe setting to talk about the crime and damages and provide acceptable responses. The contemporary court system limits encounters through the rules of evidence, practical factors, and the predominance of professional attorneys representing the clients (Van Ness & Strong, 2014). The absence of necessary parties, such as the primary and secondary victims, further limits it. Furthermore, the defendants serve as silent players in court, sometimes failing to understand what is happening due to the complicated terminology and processes involved. The restorative approach provides encounters outside the formal court proceedings through mediation, conferencing, circles, and impact panels.
Mediation provides victims and offenders the chance to get together with the help of a skilled mediator to discuss the crime and agree on how to proceed with justice. Conferencing involves a facilitator who helps the group and ensures that the conversation stays on topic and safe for all parties (Van Ness & Strong, 2014). In restorative programs, a community-based decision-making method, circles are increasingly employed (Van Ness & Strong, 2014). They are organized community gatherings that involve criminals, victims, their friends and relatives, interested locals, and justice system representatives.
A community member known as a “keeper” is the facilitator, whose primary responsibility is maintaining order and regularly providing summaries to benefit the gathering. Impact panels bring together groups of victims and offenders who are not linked (Van Ness & Strong, 2014). These meetings aim to assist victims in finding closure and make offenders aware of the harm their crimes have caused to others, resulting in a change in the offender’s views and actions.
Amends
The third pillar is amends, which states that those who committed the offense must do whatever is necessary to make things right. Making amends entails four components: an apology, altered conduct, restitution, and generosity (Van Ness & Strong, 2014). All four are crucial in restorative procedures, including conferences, circles, and mediation.
Reintegration
The last pillar is reintegration, where the parties are provided with the tools and chance to rejoin their communities as whole, valuable members instead of continuing to carry the stigma of wrongdoing and crime (Van Ness & Strong, 2014). For radically different reasons, a crime and its aftermath can serve as defining events for both victims and offenders. Victims experience material and psychological loss, the possibility of bodily damage, as well as the social stigma of being a “victim” (Van Ness & Strong, 2014). Criminals frequently hide out in a jungle of bitter justifications, which is made worse by the obstacles put in their way by those with a record. Therefore, restorative justice highly values taking the necessary actions to assist victims and offenders in reintegrating into society as a whole, as well as valuable and contributing members.
The Pros and Cons of Restorative Justice
Pros
For Community
There are several pros of restorative justice for the victim, offender, and society. The benefits of restorative justice to the community include reduced recidivism. Restorative justice significantly reduces repetition offenders (Hobson et al., 2022). This kind of justice system allows the offenders to have a chance to atone, learn from the experience, and move on so that they can more readily lead a life free from crime.
Recidivism significantly decreases when communities reintegrate their residents once the harm has been addressed. The other pro of restorative justice to the community is increased safety. A neighborhood becomes safer when recidivism rates are lower. Restorative justice allows people to improve their communities’ safety and livability.
Furthermore, restorative justice ensures a stronger community. Community justice centers help foster more engaged civic participation. Volunteering increases connections within towns and neighborhoods and helps create stronger, more cohesive communities.
For Victim
The pros of the restorative justice system for the victims include empowerment. Giving the victims a chance to speak with their offender makes them feel empowered and involved in the process, especially in a secure and supported setting (Hobson et al., 2022). The needs of victims are recognized and taken into account, giving them a voice in a sometimes impersonal system.
In addition, it leads the victim on a path of healing and satisfaction (Wemmers, 2020). The restorative justice system enables the victims to recover their stolen or grabbed items, which may involve a sense of security and tranquility regarding their physical assets. They have a better chance of recovering from the trauma and returning to their regular lifestyles.
For Offender
On the other hand, the advantages to the offender may include an opportunity to understand their mistake and how they offended the victim. It allows them to express remorse and mend their relationship with the offended and society (Leonard, 2022). It also provides them with an opportunity to overcome the incident. Offenders can continue after making meaningful and acceptable reparations (Leonard, 2022). They may return to their towns with confidence that the issue has been resolved.
Cons
Psychological Harm for Victim
Even though restorative justice has several pros, it also has some cons. Firstly, restorative justice can lead to increased psychological harm to the victim (Leonard, 2022). Restorative justice assumes that the offender is remorseful and ready to make amends with the victim, which might not be the case in some situations. If the offender doesn’t show any empathy for the victim, it might cause psychological torture and impair the victim’s self-esteem.
Physical Harm and Unavailability for Offenders
Secondly, it may expose the offender to physical harm (Lloyd & Borrill, 2020). In some situations, the victim and the community may gang up against the offender and physically assault them. It can happen in situations where there is no guaranteed security. In addition, the victim may try to shame the offender, which may psychologically affect the criminal.
Lastly, restorative justice is not available to all offenders. The offer is only provided to those who have admitted to having committed the crime. In addition, the offer depends on the victim, who might sometimes deny the offender an opportunity for restorative justice. Therefore, this system cannot be a universal solution.
Conclusion
Restorative justice is an effective strategy in today’s environment and has worked. The criminal justice system’s primary focus is to ensure a safe and healthy environment for each member of society. Therefore, the main emphasis of the system is to reduce the number of criminals and inspire confidence among the members of society (Tolla & Murhula, 2021). Compared to more conventional criminal justice responses such as imprisonment, probation, and court-ordered restitution, restorative justice programs enhance victim-offender satisfaction, increase offender compliance with restitution, and reduce recidivism.
In addition, restorative justice effectively addresses these concerns in several ways. According to Lloyd and Borrill (2020), there is some evidence that restorative justice does alleviate post-traumatic symptoms more effectively than traditional legal processes. Furthermore, Van Ness and Strong (2014) contend that numerous studies show that repeat criminals who get restorative justice commit fewer crimes than those who do not. According to Sherman and Strang (2007), restorative justice has several potential benefits to victims and crime reduction and thus should be implemented across the country. Restorative justice as a diversion could provide the basis for far more general use of restorative justice, with potentially significant crime reductions, less victim post-traumatic stress, and more offenses brought to justice.
References
Hobson, J., Twyman-Ghoshal, A., Banwell-Moore, R., & Ash, D. P. (2022). Restorative justice, youth violence, and policing: a review of the evidence. Laws, 11(4), 62. Web.
Leonard, L. J. (2022). Can restorative justice provide a better outcome for participants and society than the courts? Laws, 11(1), 14. Web.
Lloyd, A., & Borrill, J. (2020). Examining the effectiveness of restorative justice in reducing victims’ post-traumatic stress. Psychological Injury and Law, 13(1), 77-89. Web.
Sherman, L. L., & Strang, H. H. (2007). Restorative justice: The evidence. The Smith Institute. Web.
Tolla, A. D., & Murhula, P. B. B. (2021). The effectiveness of restorative justice practices on victims of crime: Evidence from South Africa. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 10(1), 98-110. Web.
Van Ness, D. W., & Strong, K. H. (2014). Restoring justice: An introduction to restorative justice (5th Ed.). Elsevier.
Wemmers, J. A. (2020). Restorative justice: How responsive to the victim is it? International Journal of Restorative Justice, 3(1), 30-37. Web.