STUDENT REPLIES STUDENT REPLY #1 Rita Ennis Restorative justice considers crime as a wrong against another person and not as a depersonalized breaking of the law (Armour, 2012)

Subject:LawPrice: Bought3

Share With

STUDENT REPLIES

STUDENT REPLY #1 Rita Ennis

Restorative justice considers crime as a wrong against another person and not as a depersonalized breaking of the law (Armour, 2012). The primary focus of restorative justice is on the broken relationships between key players: the victim, the offender, and the community. The Centre of Justice and Reconciliation (2019b) argues that restorative justice's main priority is to repair harm while recognizing that maintaining positive relationships with others is an important human need. Therefore, the key elements of restorative justice are the related concepts of encounter, repair, and transform. Each principle is distinct and important. Together they are a representation of a journey towards wholeness and wellbeing that victims, offenders, and community members can experience.

 

The traditional adversarial approach looks at justice as punishment. Instead of looking at justice as punishment, restorative justice views justice as repair to the harm caused by the crime or the conflict. It prioritizes the harm caused by the offense, particularly to the victim, the offender, and the community, instead of simply on the rule of violation. Therefore, restorative justice ensures that the offenders must repair the harm they have caused, in contrast to the traditional adversarial justice approach without reparation to the victims. Notably, the traditional adversarial approach does not allow forgiveness by ensuring that the offenders are penalized for their actions.

 

Restorative justice and the traditional adversarial approach have advantages and disadvantages. The pros of restorative justice include emphasizing the victims instead of the offenders, promoting problem-solving techniques, and stimulating communication between the parties involved (Armour, 2012). The disadvantages of this approach include the failure to inhibit future crimes and the failure to impose penalties. On the other hand, the advantages of the adversarial approach include allowing the offender and the victim to defend themselves. The disadvantage is that the process takes long before justice is served.

 

References

 

Armour, M. (2012). Restorative justice: Some facts and history. Tikkun, 27(1), 25-65.

 

Centre for Justice and Reconciliation. (2019b). Lesson 4: Conceptual issues. In Tutorial: Introduction to restorative justice. Retrieved from http://restorativejustice.org/restorative-justice/about-restorative-justice/tutorial-intro-to-restorative-justice/lesson-4-conceptual-issues/#sthash.CLsbjJMJ.dpbs

STUDENT REPLIES

STUDENT REPLY #2 Kyle Ragland

 

“Restorative justice views crime not as a depersonalized breaking of the law but as a wrong against another person. It attends to the broken relationships between three players: the offender, the victim, and the community.” (Armour, M. 2012)

 

The underlying principle of restorative justice is finding out what the specific issue is with the person, offender, prisoner and etc. What makes he or she so antisocial? What are the root causes of their resistance to life and the law. The restorative perspective starts to become therapeutic and rehabilitative. It is trying to change the mindset of just "throwing away the key" As the author writes in the article, and I am just paraphrasing here, "criminals become a "lost society" with that narrative, and over time, offenders will become repeat offenders because since they feel forgotten they start to lose hope in society. So, what is their need to want to go back into a society that can be unforgiving at times and have the desire to prosper?

 

Even though the restorative approach has its benefits, the issue of it is there are some offenders that may never respond to it properly because for a multitude of reasons. Some of the main reasons are having serious mental issues, severe trauma, and being "too deep" in the criminal world. Some offenders may take advantage of this approach to try to soften society's thoughts of them to get back to the "free world" and commit more crimes.

 

This is when the adversarial approach is needed. There are some criminals that need to go through a level of punishment and that need to despise the correctional system, so hopefully, they will never want to return or commit more acts of crime. The problem with this approach is that over time, offenders become "numb" to punishment. What I mean by that is they become institutionalized. They start to think, "Hey if I get caught, jail is not so bad. I get three meals a day, a place to sleep, and a shower" this becomes the norm.

 

Ultimately both approaches have their plus and minuses. As a correctional officer and being able to work at the state prison and county jail, I have seen both approaches work and fail. What I also noticed is a smaller percentage of the inmate population are hardened criminals. A larger portion of them are just misguided, lacked parental guidance, and are trying to process all of the traumas from their past.