24/7 Customer support here

   Other restorative justice programmes include restoration, sentencing circles, and conferences. Restoration seeks to restore the victim and/or the community to the state of wholeness that existed prior to the offence, (White and Haines, 2000: 177-8). There are cases where the victims may not wish for the offenders to come to their house, in such cases the victim’s views are respected and alternative arrangements are made. In sentencing circles, interested community people take part in a discussion of what happened and what should be done to prevent further such incidents. The community plays a vital role in these practices, when offenders are accepted back into the community it is for the community to monitor offender’s behaviour. However, it can be argued that a sense of community has become increasingly fragile and in some places eradicated altogether, therefore these claims are not realistic. It can further be argued that communities themselves can be biased, members of the community may be racist and others may be patriarchal, for example, a patriarchal community will do little to help the victims of sexual violence. On the other hand it can be argued that the communities involvement in the process can help make better decisions, this helps strengthen community bonds and can lead to close knit communities. Also, members of the community can provide effective ‘support and assistance’ to victims as they proceed through the justice process and seek recovery. ( Johnstone, 2002: 27-28).

   Conferencing involves, victims, offenders, and any other interested parties which can include, family members, the police, social workers, and community members. It can be argued that the family’s presence is beneficial to victims especially if they need support. Moreover, if the offender’s parents have neglected him or her and are responsible for the offender’s actions they are made aware of the consequences of neglecting their children. Furthermore, members of the offenders family may resolve to monitor the offender and support them from further law- breaking and anti social behaviour, (Wright, 1996: 46-53). It is important to note that conferencing is influenced by Braithwaite’s theory of reintegrative shaming. He argues that family and community shaming directed at offenders, followed by efforts to reintegrate them is an extremely powerful form of social control. It can be argued that reintegrative shaming is not effective, there is no point of the shaming the offender and accepting him or her back into society. However, this conflicts with those who argue that this form of shaming is effective. Adam Crawford (2000:32-3) argues that through reintegrative shaming the conscious of offenders will be reached and they will experience shame about their misdeeds, as a result they will be less likely to repeat them. It has also been argued that reintegrative shaming is better than prison shaming. Prisons stigmatise, shame, but fail to reintegrate, (Braithwaite, 1991: 165-8).

   One of the principle popular complaints put forward by critiques of restorative justice is that some victims may feel that restorative justice practices are soft on crime, especially serious crime. It can be argued that it is not a soft option for offenders to confront victims. The reason as to why it is seen as a ‘soft option’ is because the objective of restorative justice is not to punish offenders.

   The point of restorative justice practices is:

‘Not to punish the offender, but to work towards the goals of repentance, reparation, reconciliation, and rehabilitation. Such goals are not distinct from punishment, rather they are the proper goals of punishment itself, and goals that can be properly achieved only through a punitive, communicative process,’ (Duff, 1996: 82-83).

   According to Duff the criminal justice process, by segregating and ostracising offender’s renders them more rather than a less of a threat to communities and increases victimisation. The punitive system also drives offenders into criminal subcultures where they become more and more like alien enemies of the community. This is one of the reasons why conventional justice does fairly poorly in reducing re offending; reconviction rate for those imprisoned is high. When released from prison, these prisoners are likely to have become hardened and embittered and will most likely quickly re-offend. The imprisonment of offenders does little to assist their victims, who, in many (or even most cases), might prefer reassurance, an apology, reparative measures, and compensation, (Braithwaite, 1992: 53-5).On the other hand, there is some encouraging data on the reconviction with respect to restorative justice. With these practices victims are at less risk of being the victim of the offender in the future, the possibility of reconviction is reduced when certain aspects of restorative justice are achieved.

   Another important argument in relation to restorative justice practices is that offenders lie at the heart of the processes. It has been argued that restorative justice practices divert attention away from the victim and focus their attention solely on the offender. Offenders are more involved in the process whereas victims are led into playing councillors roles. Offenders explain why they undertook the offence, which ultimately becomes like a counselling session instead. In the end the victim will get stuck in the spider web and will feel sympathetic towards the offender. In such cases theses practices rather than benefiting the victim work favourably towards offenders. However, it can be argued that restorative justice cannot simply cut offenders off and act in a totally hostile manner towards them. These processes try and involve offenders, and hear their views. If this was not the case and instead offenders were segregated and ostracised they would be rendered more rather than a less of a threat to us. They would be driven into criminal subcultures where they become more and more like alien enemies of the community. We lose whatever chance there was of influencing them to behave better and to subject themselves to various forms of supervision and control. Therefore, especially for victims it is wiser to strengthen the relationship with offenders rather than weaken it, (Johnston, 2002:13-15).

   In conclusion, campaigners against restorative justice practices argue that restorative justice practices leave victims feeling worse than before and leave untouched a ‘hard core’ of unrepentant offenders. The real issue is that restorative justice offers more potential than conventional justice processes to touch the hearts and minds of offenders and to benefit the victims involved by effecting change. Its emphasis is positive and it provides justification for a consensus in society. The essay demonstrates that victims are more satisfied if they succeed in a constructive interaction with the offender. Unlike the punitive system restorative justice seeks to restore the victims security, self-respect, dignity and most importantly, sense of control. These practices can also be seen as a more effective ways of dealing with criminal behaviour than the court system. The victim is placed at the heart of what happens and, indeed, many victims find the experience positive. Restorative Justice allows the victims to contribute directly to the process of seeking remedy and justice. Finally, Restorative justice practices can make a substantial contribution to victims of crime. It would be a good idea to involve attaching restorative justice practices to existing court procedures, they can both emerge to make the system more effective.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Braithwaite, J, (1991) Crime, Shame and Reintegration, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Braithwaite, J, (1992) Not just Deserts-A Republican Theory of Criminal Justice, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Crawford, A and Goodey, J, (2000) Integrating a Victim Perspective within Criminal Justice, Great Britain: Dartmouth Publishing Ltd.

Davies, P, Francis, P and Jipp, V (eds) (1996) Understanding Victimisation, Northumbria: Athenaeum Press Ltd.
Hirsch, A, Roberts, J and Bottoms, A, (2003) Restorative Justice and Criminal Justice, Oxford: Hart Publishing Ltd.

Johnstone, G (2002) Restorative Justice: Ideas, Values and Debates, Devon: Willan.

Jones Finer, C. and Nellis, M (eds) (1998) Crime and Social Exclusion. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Maguire, R, Morgan, R and Reiner, R (eds) (2002) The Oxford Book of Criminology (3rd ed), Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Marshall, C, (2001) Beyond Retribution, Grand Rapids Mich: Eerdmans.

Marshall, T and Merry, S, (1990) Crime and Accountability-Victim/Offender Mediation in Practice, London: HMSO.

Mawby, R and Walklate, S (1994) Critical Victimology, London: Sage Publications Ltd.

McLaughlin, E, Fergusson, R, Hughes, G and Westmorland, L (eds) (2003) Restorative Justice-Critical Issues, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Strang, H (2002) Repair or Revenge-Victims and Restorative Justice, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Strong, H and Braithwaite, J (eds) (2000) Restorative Justice-Philosophy to Practice, Great Britain: Dartmouth Publishing Ltd.

Walgrave, L (ed) (2002) Restorative Justice and the Law, Devon: Willan Publishing Ltd.

White, R and Haines, F (2000) Crime and Criminology-An Introduction (2nd ed) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williams, B (1999) Working with Victims of Crime-Policies, Politics and Practice, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers Ltd.

Wright, M (1996) Justice for Victims and Offenders-A Restorative Response to Crime (2nd ed), Winchester: Waterside Press Ltd.

INTERNET:
http://www.vorp.com  (date accessed-16/11/2003).
www.concencusmediation.co.uk (date accessed-18/11/03).
www.mediationuk.org.uk/template  (date accessed-18/11/03).
www.crimereduction.gov.uk  (date accessed-18/11/03). ".
NEWSPAPER:
Daily Mail, Friday November 14th 2003-(page 5).

1  2

BACK TO CRIMINOLOGY