Restorative justice

Created by: Skyfisher
Created on: 18-04-23 17:18


	Restorative justice
	Advantages The Restorative Justice Council (2015) reported an 85% victim satisfaction rate from face-to-face restorative justice sessions. The crimes varied from minor to severe, suggesting that restorative justice may be an appropriate response to a range of crimes. Sherman and Strang (2007) reviewed previous randomised control trials of restorative justice programmes that had taken place in the UK, the USA and Australia. They found that compared to conventional methods of justice, victims of crime were less likely to develop post-traumatic stress disorder when they had undergone restorative justice, and they were also less likely to desire revenge. They also had a much higher rate of victim satisfaction. comparison to punishments - can be argued that RJ and AM treat causes of criminality more than traditional punishments (eg. prison, community service) as they give the offender a chance to work through anger that may stem from social factors (starts a discussion that may lead to solving these issues)	Disadvantages However, Miers et al (2001) found that a significant minority of victims felt sceptical about the offenders’ motives for taking part in restorative justice. Many felt that the offenders were only agreeing to take partas it may lead to a reduced sentence. Some victims also found the experience to be a negative one; having direct contact with the offender was perceived as unsettling and intimidating. The system will never be able to apply to all offenders and all victims. First of all, an offender who has admitted to the crime is needed and second some crimes may not be suitable. Furthermore, some victims may decline the offer. This means that restorative justice can’t be a global solution to dealing with offending behaviour. research lacks generalisability - research into restorative justice is hampered by the fact that it is done on a strictly voluntary bases. 1) neither offender nor victim can be forced to attend 2) research suffers from selection bias and thus cannot be generalised Enter bullet point does not treat cause - restorative justice and anger management do not treat social causes for crime that mean it is committed out of necessity (unemployment, poverty) or ignorance (education, childhood) rather than hate or anger (BUT - see advantage 4)
	Evaluation Benefits for society:• 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. Restorative justice may be able to put the brakes on this cycle of violence.As we have seen, restorative justice has the potential to bring about great benefits for both offenders and victims. However, the 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?

Restorative justice

Advantages

The Restorative Justice Council (2015) reported an 85% victim satisfaction rate from face-to-face restorative justice sessions. The crimes varied from minor to severe, suggesting that restorative justice may be an appropriate response to a range of crimes.
Sherman and Strang (2007) reviewed previous randomised control trials of restorative justice programmes that had taken place in the UK, the USA and Australia. They found that compared to conventional methods of justice, victims of crime were less likely to develop post-traumatic stress disorder when they had undergone restorative justice, and they were also less likely to desire revenge. They also had a much higher rate of victim satisfaction.
comparison to punishments - can be argued that RJ and AM treat causes of criminality more than traditional punishments (eg. prison, community service) as they give the offender a chance to work through anger that may stem from social factors (starts a discussion that may lead to solving these issues)

Disadvantages

However, Miers et al (2001) found that a significant minority of victims felt sceptical about the offenders’ motives for taking part in restorative justice. Many felt that the offenders were only agreeing to take partas it may lead to a reduced sentence. Some victims also found the experience to be a negative one; having direct contact with the offender was perceived as unsettling and intimidating.
The system will never be able to apply to all offenders and all victims. First of all, an offender who has admitted to the crime is needed and second some crimes may not be suitable. Furthermore, some victims may decline the offer. This means that restorative justice can’t be a global solution to dealing with offending behaviour.
research lacks generalisability - research into restorative justice is hampered by the fact that it is done on a strictly voluntary bases. 1) neither offender nor victim can be forced to attend 2) research suffers from selection bias and thus cannot be generalised
Enter bullet point
does not treat cause - restorative justice and anger management do not treat social causes for crime that mean it is committed out of necessity (unemployment, poverty) or ignorance (education, childhood) rather than hate or anger (BUT - see advantage 4)

Evaluation

Benefits for society:• 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. Restorative justice may be able to put the brakes on this cycle of violence.As we have seen, restorative justice has the potential to bring about great benefits for both offenders and victims. However, the 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?

Get Revising

Restorative justice