Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Interventions

Effectiveness of Restorative Justice InterventionsRestorative arbitrator is a holistic philosophy and a concept as it encompasses the offender, the dupe and the society in which the offence was committed. It aims to re dumbfound a conclusive end to the offence committed by making more or less type of reparations for the malice inflicted, the hurt caused and the deepening of the urge to re-offend. Restorative evaluator, although a get of the criminal justice military operation, is not a part of the criminal justice system as one of its goals it to alleviate the damage caused by the criminal justice system on the offender and the victim.There atomic number 18 many explanations of the concept of reviving justice (Zehr, 1990, 1997 Van Ness, 1996 Van Ness Strong, 1997 Sherman Strong, 2007 Amour et al, 2008). This shows that the concept remains hard to define (McCold, 1999 Braze more Schiff, 2001 Latimer et al, 2005 Pranis, 2007). However, at a linked Nations Convention, a wo rking definition was adopted and titled the Marshall Definition (McCold, 1999 Newell, 2002) the following is his definition Restorative justice is a process whereby parties with a berth in a specific offence collectively solve how to deal with the afterwardmath of the offence and its implications for the future (Marshall, 1999). Mier (1998), attempts to define restorative justice without any savoir-faire to two of the circles namely the victim and society. In a later definition Menkel-Medow (2007) acknowledges Marshalls definition besides attempts to be more concise restorative justice in its most idealised form attempts to repair, restore, reconcile and reintegrate offenders and victims to each other and to their shargond community. However, the United Nations and the Council of Europe have agreed that thither be differences in the terminologies and ideologies on restorative justice (Roche, 2001 Mier et al, 2001 Johnstone et al, 2006). With or without an accurate definition t he concept of restorative justice has been in use since the early 1970s in Canada and after became widely used and identified with Victim offender mediation (VOM), conferencing, circles, victim assistance, ex-offender assistance, restitution and community service. Whereas retributive/criminal justice focuses on punishment, the restorative persona emphasizes accountability, healing, and pulley block (Umbriet, 1998) and looks at the offence as on the person and not on the state.One of the major consequences of restorative justice is the healing or closure for the victim of the offence. For too long the victim was made to suffer the offence many times over in the criminal justice system and in some cases looking at a level of disrespect, as the case was dragged through court, this caused the victims to run that gauntlet of emotions over again and sometimes being un subject to allot with those feelings they skip hearings or even cause the case to be quashed letting the offender go f ree and feeling that he had the advantage (Graef, 2000 Herman Webster, 2005 Newell cited in Edgar, 2002. Menkle-Medow, 2007 YJB, 2008) In the criminal justice system the victim is hardly ever given an opportunity to explain how the have been impacted by the offence and sometimes are not even given the chance to meet their offender in court, this bum cause repression of emotions and further scaring, they are given very few rattling opportunities to be conform to an active participant in the court process because the criminal justice system is all about the offender and not the victim (Herman Webster, 2005 Umbreit 1998 YJB, 2008). In restorative justice the emphasis ideally should be on all three sections relating to the offence the victim, the offender and the society/community (Newell, 2002 Schiff, 2007 Marshall 1999) surrounding the offence, moreover a little more emphasis is placed in many cases on the victim, this type of mediation (Graef, 2000) makes the victims feel that t hey are an important factor (Graef, 2000 Crawford et al, 2003 Herman Webster, 2005 Angel, 2005 Kubanzky, 2007 cited in Sherman Strang, 2007). With restorative justice the victim feels a since of vindication understanding the reasons, if any, behind why they were targeted for the offence which sometimes lead to an understanding that this leave alone not devolve to them again, at least not by the hands of the same offender and that they were not the cause of the offence being inflicted upon them (Umbriet, 1998 Graef, 2000 Herman Webster, 2005 Green 2007). As a end of restoration the victim is able to put a face to the crime and not be assailed with the fear that the culprit is still out there observance them even living next door to them or possibly a friend, they are more satisfied with the resultant role (McCold et al 1998 Strang 2002 Sherman Strang 2007 Tudor, 2002.). The victims feel comfortable and are able to reintegrate themselves into society as a productive member (U mbriet, 1998 Marshall 1999 Graef, 2000). In cases where the victim is allowed to decide the retribution of the offender they keister feel a sense of justice as the sentence is exactly what they want in order of magnitude to feel retribution for the crime committed this assists in repairing the maltreat caused (Herman Webster, 2005 Schiff, 2007). Restorative justice is seen in these cases to be much more rehabilitative than any correctional programme in the criminal justice system because it is the military man side of the offence (Graef, 2000 Herman Webster, 2005 Tudor, 2002.) and it places emphasis on repairing relationships which are the tapestry of society (Schiff, 2007).Linda Radzik (2007) argues that restorative justice focuses heavily on the ability of the offender to gain optimistic restorative action (Graef, 2000), she continues to point out that in all cases in order for this action to be fully restorative it must be sober and voluntary (Umbreit 1994 Menkle-Medow, 2007). It must alike be offered for the right reasons and must also be married with other sincere and voluntary efforts on the part of the offender, much(prenominal) as a change in behaviour (Radzik, 2007). Radzik (2007) also goes on to outline the necessary steps the offender motivations to complete in order to be considered reformed under the restorative justice concept.One of the main consequences of restorative justice is that the offender is able to heal in a more positive and possibly holistic manner, thus limiting the impact of his suffering, to the criminal justice method of public shaming, this type of indirect shaming does not rehabilitate the offender but usually leads to further anger being internalised and then released as further offending (Graef, 2000). Within this system the offender is treated for the offence, this treatment may be for the psychological, psychiatric or other underlying problem which is underlying the offence committed and may not be limited to t raditional medicated treatments but may take the form of counselling, examination of self and emotions and understanding the impact of their actions (Umbriet, 1998 Graef, 2000 Radzik, 2006 Schiff, 2007 Menkle-Medow, 2007). Sutton (2002) states that the restorative justice process provides a concrete manner in which offenders can confront their own behaviour and the damage it causes. He goes on to say that the object is not to punish the offender of the prisoner but to show how they can become a part of the community even a prison community. Braithwaite (1989 cited in Graef, 2000) countered with the argument that shaming can be a useful tool in the restorative process and once used wisely forms a part of the offenders rehabilitation, this is called rehabilitative shaming.In order for restorative justice to work and healing to take place, the offender must take responsibility for their own actions and the effect on those impacted (Graef, 2000). Walgrave (2007 p.562) agrees that crim e is a public event. The following excerpt sums up the result of the act of taking responsibility by the offenderIn the restorative process, the victim has the opportunity to witness the offender taking responsibility for his or her actions and apologising for his or her behaviour. For the offender, this means taking responsibility for what happened, but doing so in a context in which he or she is reassured that he or she need to be defined by that action now ostracized forever by family, friends and community. Traditional processes tend to stigmatize both the act and the actor, in the restorative process the two are distinguished so that the offender having acknowledged responsibility and made reparations, can earn his or her way back to acceptance by the community (Brazemore, 1998 cited in Schiff, 2007 p.231).Another important result of the restorative justice process with respect to the offender is its effect on the offenders family. In many instances there are reports of the fam ily of offenders having to hide from the public or even move to other countries, states and deny any relationship with the offender because the public is willing to take their vindicate on the family if they cannot have the offender (Tudor, pp 16-19, 2002). This occurs too often to the detriment of the family and the offender. The offender usually look to their family for support, comfort and love no matter how heinous the crime, up to now if the family or support unit feels endangered by the actions of persons who are not in favour with the offender then they may not want to be in contact or may fall on foul deeds at the hands of another in society who in angry. The offenders also need a support system in order to reintegrate as a productive and valued member, usually loved ones are the distich which they use to regain trust and acceptance from society, if this is not there then there maybe a relapse (Graef, 2000, Sutton, 2002). In many cases restorative justice limits the suffe ring on the family of the offender. Sutton (2002) takes this a little further by proposing that prisons should be seen as extensions of the community and not a separate entity because it makes the offenders visible and he indicates that the prisons are community service vehicles or working communities (Graef, 2000 Sutton, 2002) and need to be seen as such, this he says is achieved through restorative justice. Through this restorative process the offender is able to re-evaluate their actions and use the network of support which is given to ensure that they never re-offend (Graef, 2000 Schiff, 2007).A recent briefing report on expenditure in the criminal courts by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (2010) indicated that expenditure in the criminal courts system rose by as much as thirty-one percent to 1027.89 zillion within the past three years, while staffing fell by fourteen percent (1,088 staff members) and the number of cases brought to the Crown Court increased by xvii pe rcent. This is a significant expenditure on any government for a criminal justice system. It is neatly summed up by Schiff (2007) when she stated that the criminal justice system assumes that the government is responsible to address all stakeholder concerns. Pranis (2002) made mention of the skyrocketing cost of punishment, and noted that restorative justice required much less monetary investment as it is about healing and reparations. While Menkle-Medow (2007) stated that restorative justice is less costly and more efficient in monetary and checkout effects. Due to the fact that restorative justice responds to crime and offences without utilising salaried members of the system (police, legal aid, lawyers, magistrates, clerical personnel, prison personnel, in-house counsellors and hospitals) and solutions within the system (correctional facilities, jails and hospitals) the cost of the offender and victim is much less (Marshall, 1999 Sherman Strang, 2007 Menkle-Medow, 2007). Even delays within the criminal justice system cause increases in cost. In a paper by the Barrow Cadbury institutionalize there are calculations showing the various costs and savings of diversions of cases from the criminal justice system to the restorative justice and juvenile system. It shows tremendous saving from these diversions in a period of one to five years. differences to restorative justice conferencing will realise a savings of 7,050 per offender diversions from custody to community orders via changes in sentencing guidelines will realise a savings of 1,032 per offender and diversions from trial under adult law to trial under juvenile law following maturity judicial decision is likely to produce a bearingtime cost saving to society of almost 420 per offender (Barrow Cadbury Trust, 2009). This will produce significant savings over the life of some cases where preparatory time is high and the chances of winning the case is low This is summarised by Sherman and Strang (2007) in the following quote ..one is to reduce the use of courts for processes that fail to bring offenders to justice. A second is to reduce the use of prisons for offenders whose incarceration does not prevent total crime.The unintended consequences coming out from the positive side of restorative justice as listed by the National Institute of Justice (2007) involves such things as the co-option of restorative process for coercive or punitive ends unfounded offender orientation and the expansion of social control. However according to the National Institute of Justice (2007) these are to be resisted.From the above references and studies conducted restorative justice has shown itself to be not only cost effective but also very effective in reintegrating and re-establishing some sense of normalcy in the lives of some if not most of the victims which were involved in the process. More research needs to be conducted on the variables of restorative justice which in more countries to be a ble to come to firm and conclusive statements regarding the concept. This research will also bring conclusion to thoughts from Miers et al (2001) who says that restorative justice is time consuming and labour intensive molest by communication problems and delays. Even if restorative justice does not become a mainstream section of the system, it can quite possibly be integrated into the present criminal justice system to deal with offenders or criminals (Walgrave, 2007 p. 569). In this manner he is countered by Sherman Strang (2007) with the following summary views on the effectiveness of restorative justiceCrime victims who receive restorative justice do better, than victims who do not, across a wide range of outcomes, including post-traumatic stress.In many tests, offenders who receive restorative justice commit fewer repeat crimes than offenders who do not.In no large-sample test has restorative justice increased repeat offending compared with criminal justiceDiversion from pros ecution to RJ substantially increases the odds of an offender being brought to justice.Restorative justice can do as well as, or better than, short prison sentences, as measured by repeat offending.Restorative justice reduces stated victim desire for violent revenge against offenders.With these above successes the must be some place in the system for restorative justice.