|
Advantages
- The Restorative Justice Council cites research conducted by the Ministry of Justice and concludes that overall, restorative justice programmes reduce reoffending rated by 27%. This, they argue, leads to a reduction in crime and therefore saves the economy £9 for every £1 spent on restorative justice programmes.
- Sherman and Strang (2007) argue that restorative justice has a key role to play in reducing community conflict. When used correctly, it can lesson a victim’s desire for revenge. Without restorative justice, a victim may seek retribution against the offender outside of the legal system, which could then spiral into more crime
- However, the fact that restorative justice is mediated by trained practitioners reduces the risk of psychological harm. These facilitators work to build a healthy and productive dialogue between victim and offender in a way which does not discriminate against either party. However, facilitators are not trained mental health professionals, and so may not be able to spot the signs of distress quickly enough to terminate a restorative justice session. Also, there is little follow-up once the sessions are over. Any harm that has been caused by the restorative justice process may go unrecorded and untreated.
|
Disadvantages
- process can be incredibly stressful for both parties. For the offender, reflecting upon their behaviour and coming face to face with the consequences of their actions could lead to distress or psychological harm, particularly if the offender has caused death or severe injury. Additionally, offenders tend to have a higher rate of mental illness, especially those in prison. Asking someone who is already psychologically vulnerable to confront their victims could lead to negative outcomes, such as depression, self-harm or even suicide. Therefore, even when an offender has willingly volunteered, it still may not be appropriate for them to engage in restorative justice.
- For the victim, there are similar risks with regards to mental health and psychological distress. Coming face to face with the person who caused them trauma can be an incredibly stressful experience. It can trigger memories of the crime, worsening symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. The victim may feel intimidated by being near the offender.
- Another issue is whether the victim and offender really have free will in choosing to take part in restorative justice. One of the key principles is that the process needs to be voluntary. However, despite this, individuals may feel pressured into a programme that they don’t wish to take part in. This is a particular problem for offenders whomay feel that refusing could jeopardise their chances of gaining parole, or who may feel that cooperating could result in a reduced sentence. Free will can also be an issue for victims of crime; if a victim knows that the offender is willing to engage in restorative justice, they may feel obligated to take part even though they would rather not. Therefore, are victims and offenders truly volunteers if they only take part due to external pressure?
|
Comments
No comments have yet been made