Introduction
Restorative justice occurs when the offender accepts accountability, and the victim agrees to enter into a reconciliation process. This research paper analyzes the efficiency of restorative justice in Canada.
Values and principles in the society
The restorative justice in Canada is based on four primary principles. The Encounter is the first value, which aims at creating an opportunity for the victim, offender, and the society to meet and discuss the crime (Restorative Justice, 2011). The encounter also aims at creating a forum whereby the parties can examine the consequences of the offense. The second one is Amends, and offers a chance to the offender to initiate steps to overhaul the harm, which resulted due to the crime (Restorative Justice, 2011). Importantly, the offender is a key determinant of their future relationship with the victim and the society. This value expects the offender to undertake the necessary towards restoring their community confidence. The Reintegration is the third value, and it seeks to restore the offender and victim as whole. The reintegration is vital since the perpetrator and victim are united, and gain recognition in the community. Both the offender and victim become as vital members of the society who should contribute towards success and development. The last value in restorative justice is the Inclusion. The inclusion offers an opportunity for parties affected by a particular crime to take part in its resolution (Restorative Justice, 2011). In this case, the parties include the offender, victim, and the community. Amicable resolution of the crime delivers justice for the parties and restores unity in the society.
The restorative justice in Canada is based on various principles. Crime is a conflict between people and it hurts the victim and society (Price, 2000). Also, crime is an offense averse to the state. Another principle of the restorative justice is that it aims at reconciling the victim, offender, and their society as well as repair the harm created by the criminal action. However, this principle does not imply that community safety is not fundamental. Instead, it is a way of realizing security in the society through debate. Further, the restorative procedure should promote active engagement of the victim, offender and the society, which consequently limits the state participation. Crime harms the relationship between the offender, victim, and community. That is why criminal justice should focus on restoring harmony rather than punishing the offender. Ideally, the society plays the role of a facilitator or mediator during the restorative justice process. During the restoration process, the parties consider the broad context of the offense including moral, political, religious and social impacts.
Different practices and their efficiency
Victim-offender reconciliation program
This program was the first restorative justice methods in Canada, and it is very effective (Chatterjee and Elliott, 2003). The procedure prepares concerned victim and offender for a chance to meet in a secure and organized setting with the help of a qualified mediator. The offender and victim enter into a dialog about the impacts of the crime and possible ways to restore their relationship. Also, the offender gets a chance to apologize and offer information on how they plan to regain personal growth.
Whether victim-offender reconciliation program is effective or not in the society
This practice is effective since it provides an opportunity for the offender and the victim to meet and reconcile with the help of a mediator.
Community conferencing
In Canada, community conferencing brings together the families of the offenders, victims and their supporters in the procedure of proving that the offender is accountable. The objective of the conferencing is to overhaul the harm caused by an offense and to reduce the possibility of future mischief. This process proceeds through a dialogue aimed at bringing an understanding between the parties. According to Lawrence (2007), dialogue is effective in delivering justice to the victim and holding the offender accountable.
Whether community conferencing is effective or not in the society
Community conferencing in Canada is ineffective since it involves supports of the victim and the offender who are not family members. These supports may have different interests other than initiating reconciliation
Peacemaking circles
This practice is based on the notion that the responsibility for handling the harm of an offense lies in the society, rather than those affected by the crime. The circles hold that it is crucial to control the prevailing criminal infliction as well as build the community. Thus, peacemaking circles do not focus on addressing the criminal harm only. This practice focuses on uncovering the inherent issues and restoring balance if possible. The discussions held during peacemaking circles also focuses preventing future crimes.
Whether peacemaking circles is effective or not in the society
This method of restorative justice is effective because it addresses issues that may result in crime in the future.
Surrogate restorative justice dialogue
The victims or offenders decide to meet with a person who perpetrated a similar offense or who experienced a similar abuse, rather than meeting with the particular offenders or victims of their case (Restorative Justice, 2011). This type of dialogue is productive in a situation whereby the individual victims and offenders do not want to meet each other. It may also help the affected parties prepare for a meeting in the future.
Whether surrogate restorative justice dialogue is effective or not in the society
This system of reconciliation is effective since the victim and offender get advice from a person who has faced a similar or related situation.
Healing lodges
Healing lodges develop a new method of offering rehabilitation for Aboriginal offenders who have been sentenced by the federal government. The aim of the Aboriginal justice scheme is to restore balance and peace in the society as well as reconcile the offender with the victim (Baskin, 2002). The requirements of the offenders serving federal sentence are handled through Aboriginal teaching, celebrations, elder addresses and contact with nature.
Whether surrogate healing lodges is effective or not in the society
Healing lodges may be relatively ineffective since it focuses on the Aboriginals only. However, it helps to restore peace and balance in the community.
Conclusion
Restorative justice in Canada is elaborate and aims at rehabilitating an offender by offering them a chance to dialogue with the victim. The values and principles of this system are structured towards repairing the harm and building the community rather than punishing the offender. While some practices are effective in the society, others are ineffective. The effectiveness of a restorative justice program is based on its ability to reconcile the offender, victim, and community.
References
Baskin, C. (2002). Holistic healing and accountability: Indigenous restorative justice. Child care in practice, 8(2), 133-136.
Chatterjee, J., & Elliott, L. (2003). Restorative policing in canada: the royal canadian mounted police, community justice forums, and the youth criminal justice act. Police Practice & Research, 4(4), 347-359.
Price, M. (2000). Personalizing Crime: Mediation Produces Restorative Justice for Victims and Offenders. [Dispute Resolution Magazine]. Retrieved July 26, 2016, from <http://www.vorp.com/articles/justice.html>
Restorative Justice in Canada: what victims should know. (2011). . Retrieved from <https://crcvc.ca/docs/restjust.pdf>
