Arguments for Restorative Justice

ASSIGNMENT 1

Assignment 1: Restorative Justice

Various arguments have been presented in the past, both for and against restorative justice. I am of the opinion that the relevance of restorative justice cannot be overstated in the contemporary criminal justice system. To begin with, it would be prudent to note that as Pavlacic, Kellum, and Schulenberg (2021) point out, traditionally, the standard focus in seeking to respond to various kinds of crimes and wrongdoing in the US has been retribution, i.e. by sending people to jail. As the authors further indicate, costs associated with this response have been prohibitive. More specifically, in the words of the authors, “states incur incredible mass incarceration costs because of these ineffective practices” (Pavlacic, Kellum, and Schulenberg, 2021, p. 2). Towards this end, the embrace of restorative justice practices would be an ideal way of reining in the unsustainable mass incarceration costs. Secondly, it should be noted that as Lloyd and Borrill (2020) indicate, various meta-analyses have clearly demonstrated that restorative justice practices do result in lower rates of reoffending. This is in comparison to the various other interventions deployed in the criminal justice system. This is a finding collaborated by yet another study on how effective restorative justice is in reducing repeat offending. In this particular study, Sherman, Strang, Wilson, Woods, and Ariel (2015) make a finding to the effect that “restorative justice conferences (RJCs) between crime victims, their accused or convicted offenders, and their respective kin and communities are a cost-effective means of reducing frequency of recidivism” (11).

It would, however, be prudent to note that there are studies indicating that restorative justice practices are in some instances associated with high rates of victim dissatisfaction (Choi, Bezemore, and Gilbert, 2012). Indeed, the authors indicate that some victims deem offender apologies to be inadequate and/or insincere.

Choi, Bezemore, and Gilbert (2012) also indicate that the implementation of restorative justice in certain ways could be counterproductive. For instance, in the words of the authors, “these programs may focus on outcomes rather than process, and in doing so, may fail to identify and respond effectively to victims' needs” (37). To ensure effectiveness, there is, thus, need to apportion greater focus on fully addressing the needs of the victim other than certain outcomes of the programs (i.e. offender rehabilitation).

In the final analysis, it should be noted that based on the findings of the discussion above, restorative justice would serve our country’s legal system best. This is more so the case given that it has been deemed more cost effective than punitive justice, i.e. in as far as the present cost of mass incarceration is concerned. Restorative justice would also help reduce the burden on the country’s criminal justice system as some restorative justice practices have been shown to result in lower rates of reoffending.