Future of Restorative Justice Restorative Justice the

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 price (Gumz and Grant, 2009).

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 victim and offender, but also the victim's affected family members (reviewed by Gumz and Grant, 2009). In contrast to VOM, however, this approach has been used successfully for serious crimes, including domestic violence and repeat offenders. Such an approach is consistent with a family therapy paradigm that recognizes the harm caused by the criminal act would extend to family members of the victim.

Despite its record of success, widespread implementation of FGC has yet to occur. A lack of funding and other forms of support has been blamed, including a lack of support by social workers. In spite of these concerns, FGC is a rapidly expanding approach to criminal justice. Peacekeeping circles are based on the Navajo approach to community problem solving and therefore involve not only the victim and offender, but also any and all family members and interested members of the community (reviewed by Gumz and Grant, 2009).

A respected member of the community serves as mediator, which could be a judge, social worker, or minister. A similar approach is used by Memmonites and Baptist church leaders. Critics of this approach have argued that the tremendous resources it would take to implement this form of restorative justice, in a culturally and religiously diverse community, prevent its widespread utilization. The future of peacekeeping circles may therefore be limited to tribal and religious communities.

Restorative Justice Efficacy Researchers examined the efficacy of a FGC juvenile justice program in Maricopa County, Arizona and found that youth in the restorative justice program were more likely to complete the program (89.7% vs. 86.8%, p < 0.05) and less likely to reoffend (20.4% vs. 32.0%, p < 0.05) than.