Respond by Day 5 suggesting additional steps that might be effective in bringing about necessary changes in individual and group viewpoints and behaviors.
Respond to Natasha as if you’re having a conversation with him. A few sentences and a question.
Restorative Justice can be described as an alternative method of dealing with misbehavior distinguished from the two currently dominant models of retribution (justice model) and rehabilitation (welfare model). Its core values focus on “healing rather than hurting, moral learning, community participation and community caring, respectful dialogue, forgiveness, responsibility, apology, and making amends” to restore victims, offenders, as well as broader affected communities to a more positive place after something terrible, has happened (Simson, 2012, p. 8). The www.restorativejustice.org website (2019) repairs the harm caused by crime. When victims, offenders, and community members meet to decide how to do that, the results can be transformational through restorativejustice.org and affiliates. Offenders often re-offend due to chronic issues and lack of empathy for someone else or the thing they want the most but have no means to obtain. Restorative justice applies extensive use of models of retribution and rehabilitation to chronic criminal justice system problems.
So, do we make a difference and where in the world are we using this model? Yes, the difference can be seen through school systems to faith-based affiliates within the United States and Internationally. The difference in models used by Restorative Justice is vastly different and efficient from older models. Under the classic School Position, the essential purposes of punishment historically have been retribution, expiation, deterrence, reformation, and common defense (Wolfgang, 1998, p. 111). The use of paying the financial equivalent in money or punishment is equal to the biblical rule of “an eye for an eye.” A deterrence used to instill fear that the same or harsher punishment will follow re-offense, including retribution under the death penalty. However, these theories of deterrence do nothing to those who are not able to equate the crime to the loss (emotional, time, sentimental, or monetary value) that the victim incurs. Strict homeostasis cannot be achieved with the death penalty, for, as we all know, the victim of killing cannot be restored (Wolfgang, 1998, p. 113).
Restorative justice most effective method of deviance is through informal means, which necessitates a stake in the community on the part of the offenders (Deflem, 2019, p. 167). The goal is to reduce recidivism, by ending participation in informal adjudication that increases marginalization. Transformation and returning the person to the community whole with the sense of how far their actions affect others (like dominoes stacked in a line) directly and indirectly and not just the person the offense was against is part of the goal. The goal of any system-based response to crime and deviance, including restorative justice, is desistance – or, at least, decreased recidivism (Deflem, 2019, p. 167). Restorative justice uses methods that are holistic for the offender, victim, other parties, the community, and how their actions set off a series of events. The offender is held accountable to their activity and hear how the effect has changed each person or party’s life to empathize, understand their action, and atone for the offense. In the criminal justice system, atonement and empathy included in the guilty verdict and sentencing, but many offenders do not feel any insight into their victims and often re-offend.
Restorative justice is not an accepted form of rehabilitation and has the probability of creating new offenses based on the offenders’ reactions or lack in response with empathy. The retributive model of justice focuses on offenders’ past behavior (i.e., the crime), whereas restorative models focus on the harmful consequences of offenders’ behavior and places emphasis on the future (Deflem, 2019, p. 169). Victims become the focal point instead of the offender and concern in the process as their rights are foremost as opposed to criminal justice. Ultimately, restorative justice offers a framework for reconciling the interests of the victims and other concerned stakeholders (Deflem, 2019, p. 170). Restorative justice is not widely accepted but has been in use for many decades and through other ethnic groups as a form of reintroducing the offender back into the community. Restorative justice measures have become firmly entrenched in western criminal justice systems in recent decades. Their emergence and acceptance into these criminal justice systems are, however, rarely a topic of direct inquiry (Richards, 2009, p. 111). Immersing the community into reducing repeat offenses can be as effective as each party involved is willing to make the difference in showing that the offense can be part of the pst, understood, and forgiven.
Centre for Justice and Reconciliation. (2019). Retrieved from http://restorativejustice.org/#sthash.BZGO3amd.dpbs
Deflem, M. (2019). The handbook of social control. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
Richards, K. (2009). V: Rewriting and reclaiming history: An analysis of the emergence of restorative justice in western criminal justice systems. International Journal of Restorative Justice, 5(1), 104–128.
It is retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
Simson, D. (2012, July 15). Restorative Justice and its Effects on (Racially Disparate) Punitive School Discipline. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2107240
Wolfgang, M. E. (1998). The Medical Model Versus the Just Deserts Model. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/51b2/0965f7d6c36e2156d1363f9f9b7fcea66b39.pdf