Future of Restorative Justice Restorative Justice

The most common form of criminal justice is retributive justice, which is based on an adversarial system that pits the offender against the victim (reviewed in Brownlee, 2010). In retributive justice, it is the offender's job, so to speak, to proclaim their innocence or diminish the seriousness of the offence. The state on behalf of the victim seeks to severely punish the victim through monetary penalties and prison terms. Both offender and victim are separated physically and emotionally from the very beginning of this process, once the offender has been identified and arrested. Retributive justice ignores the Aristotelian principle of responsible agency, because the offender is expected to combat any and all criminal charges.

In contrast, restorative justice seeks to mend the harm caused by the commission of a crime by encouraging the offender to accept responsibility for his or her actions (Brownlee, 2010). Restorative justice brings the victim and offender together voluntarily in order to facilitate a process of healing for victim, community, and offender by creating plan for reparations. In essence, retributive justice is adversarial and punitive in nature, while restorative justice seeks to restore social harmony. This essay will examine the principles of restorative justice, its efficacy, and its future within the criminal justice system.

Restorative Justice in Action

Retributive justice relies heavily on incarceration to achieve its goal of punishment, but with a steep...

With nearly 2 million adults currently incarcerated in the U.S. And a $3 billion dollar price tag, the need for alternatives to retribution seems clear. Restorative justice may offer a viable alternative, since it depends on the combined efforts of the community, victim, and offender to heal the damage caused by the criminal act. The expected benefits are lower recidivism and crime rates and less severe penalties. Restorative justice depends on the offender accepting responsibility for their actions and the harm they caused to both victim and community. This requires a dialog to take place between these three stakeholders in order to determine an acceptable remedy that can help everyone heal from the harm done.
The three main restorative justice approaches are victim-offender mediation (VOM), family group conferencing (FGC), and peacemaking circles (reviewed by Gumz and Grant, 2009). The typical approach for VOM is for the mediator to meet with victim and offender separately before the all three come together. This can be very time consuming; however, research has shown that both victims and offenders are universally very satisfied with this approach. Most VOM interventions have been limited to nonviolent property crimes and juvenile offenders; therefore, it is unknown whether VOM can be successfully expanded to include more serious crimes, such as domestic violence, without triggering violent retributions against the victim.

FGC is even more time consuming than VOM, because it incorporates attendance by not only the…