RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
Abstract
Encountering the information about a crime, we tend to find out the allegedly basic issues concerning one’s guilt and the accountability of an offender in the form of just punishment. Such approach is not an exception or a rare case, instead – it is an overwhelming thought.
However, in fact, the committing of a crime is far more complicated issue than the mere interrelation between illegal act and inevitable punishment. Nevertheless, people are still likely to neglect the accomplishments of restorative justice as one of incomprehensible novelties.
Therefore, this paper is dedicated to the revealing of the truth regarding restorative methods of doing justice as alternative to retributive ones. There are clarified the issues of the origin of reparative justice, its defining, main principles, scientific background, core aspects of practical realization, including contemporary challenges.
Hence, this very research will be rather useful for those, who are professionally engaged in the process of justice. In addition, many students and lecturers could also find it interesting for scientific enrichment. Last but not least, it is also addressed to all the active representatives of civil society, who eagerly build strong communities.
The history is rather rich with similar examples, which undoubtedly proves the long-existing tradition of restorative justice. However, defaced punitive system, elaborated by Western civilization comparatively recently, has affected the majority’s imagination concerning what the efficient justice should look like and struggle for.
Having clarified the true origins of the history of restorative justice, it is a high time to consider the defining of this very notion, in order to avoid any potential misunderstandings. Apparently, different people will give different answers to the question about what restorative justice means.
Ones will fervently advocate the necessity of rehabilitation and resocialization of previous criminals, whereas others would convince that the main point is associated with the compulsory harm reparation for both particular victims and societies as the whole. Simultaneously, the other would emphasize the top priority of reconciliation between parties, etc. Different but related conceptions are the consequence of the nature of restorative justice itself, which only means that a deeper appreciation of the richness of the concept should be applied (Johnstone, Van Ness, 2013, p. 19).
Frankly speaking, restorative justice cannot be limited to only one of mentioned aspects, as it equally comprehends all of them. Therefore, a rational idea will be to define the notion of restorative justice conversely – by the determining of what is usually misunderstood.
Actually, it should be understood that restorative justice does not mean an easy way for offenders, as its measures, linked with psychological state, usually affect one’s personality much more. In addition, it is a mistake to consider the forgiveness by a victim as a compulsory prerequisite of restorative justice. Indeed, victims are not obliged to do so, they are not bounded with any time limit, but they still usually come to genuine reconciliation. What is more, restorative justice does not put emphasize exclusively on the personality of offender. Instead, direct victim and community are irreplaceable participants of the whole process as well.
Because crimes causes injuries to everyone involved, restorative justice advocates insist that all affected parties participate in a restorative process, emphasizing on the restoring of emotional and material losses on victims, providing forums for dialogue and sponsoring negotiation and problem solving in the community (Strickland, 2004, p. 1-2).
What is also very determining for restorative justice is its compatibility with other practices. Hence, it can easily co-exist with sound kinds of common justice. Restorative justice encompasses diverse practices at different stages of the criminal process, including diversion from court prosecution, actions taken in parallel with court decisions, and meetings between victims and offenders at any stage of the criminal process, and can be used by all agencies of criminal justice as well as in non-criminal decision-making contexts (Miller, 2008, p. 12).
In addition, the specific attention should be paid to the scientific basis of this very concept. To begin with, it is grounded on such basic principles as principle of repair, principle of involvement not only offenders, but also victims and stakeholders as well as principle of transformation of the roles of community and government.
Actually, these very principles concentrate the basis of all the considered theory. Firstly, principle of repair encompasses the eradication of all the committed negatives. It concerns not only material losses, but also emotional pain, as due to meetings between victims and offenders the first group begins to feel remorse and strong empathy, whereas the second one eventually comes to forgiveness, which rescues from stress.
The second and third principles are a bit interrelated, as they concern very special role of governments and local communities in the whole process of justice. Instead of punishing and shaming, such institutions take part into the strengthening of social ties of victims as well as of offenders, who strive for positive role models and adequate treatment.
Furthermore, restorative justice is not taken from nowhere, instead, it has solid scientific ground. Actually, it is established on various sociological theories and theories of criminology, which turned out to be rather efficient in practice.
For instance, such acknowledged theories as the theory of social support, theory of healing dialogue, reintegrative shaming theory give valid ground for the development of scientifically credible direction of restorative justice. In fact, all of them are concentrated on the particular needs of particular group of members of this kind of justice, emphasizing the fact that professional meeting the needs is a priceless tool.
What about the practice of restorative justice? To be honest, it has many faces, each of them is more or less common for a particular national and legal tradition. General practices of restorative justice comprehend community crime prevention, community policing, problem-solving courts, community corrections, whereas to specific techniques belong diversion, victim-offender reconciliation, victim impact panels, victim impact statements, family conferencing, community peacemaking, reintegrative shaming, etc. (Strickland, 2004, p. 5-9).
Indeed, such wide list is also not an exhaustive one, so we can only imagine of what great scope opportunities of restorative justice actually are. Nevertheless, all the activities can be divided on some community practices, conferencing models and restorative duties of offenders for the repairing of harm. Apparently, each kind is applied due to the specific features of a particular misconduct.
What is great, researches convincingly prove the efficiency of restorative justice. It really helps all parties. In particular, victims receive a good treatment, their fears and wishes are attentively listened to, whereas the main harm is repaired. In addition, they eventually become ready for healing by forgiveness, which cannot be regarded as an easy route, but still – the only one, which is workable.
Considering offenders, they receive a right to participate in decision-making, to be understood instead of ashamed. In addition, they are able to develop true feelings of remorse, whereas their self-esteem and social life are not broken. No wonder, the recidivism rate comes lower.
Surprisingly, communities benefit as well. These social ranks are unified, working for common goal and welfare, caring for each member equally, bringing up law-abiding social elements instead of hardened criminals.
Such challenges as the weak support among particular parts of society, misunderstanding of the whole concept, mistaken tries to eradicate either common system or restorative one instead of letting them rationally co-exist are to be taken into account. Nevertheless, restorative justice is very efficient course of action, aimed at general welfare, which should be widely promoted.
Works Cited
1. Johnstone, G., Van Ness, D. (2013). Handbook of Restorative Justice. Devon: Willan Publishing.
2. Miller, H. V. (2008). Restorative Justice: From Theory to Practice. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
3. Strickland R. E. (2004). Restorative Justice. New York: Peter Lang.
