Explain the Three Aims of Restorative Justice Peers Review

This module is a resource for lecturers

Topic one - Concept, values and origin of restorative justice

Before looking at the concept of restorative justice, the Module explores how conventional criminal justice systems seek to achieve justice.

The criminal justice system and legal justice

Conventional criminal justice systems focus largely on applying the police force, assessing guilt and administering punishment. Certain acts are classified as 'crimes' because they are considered to be offences against club at large, not just against private victims. They are thought of as public wrongdoings rather than private and, appropriately, criminal justice systems reply on behalf of society as a whole. Conventional justice responses to crime tend to focus on punishment, deterrence, denunciation, retribution, and community safety for breaches of the law, considerations which accept to be balanced by the court in the procedure of sentencing. It is worth noting, however, that rehabilitative goals, particularly for children, have gained importance over by decades. Goals of rehabilitation are reflected, for case, in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1990), which places emphasis on diversion from formal proceedings and the utilise of alternative measures whenever appropriate (article 40 (3)(b) besides as on the child's reintegration, article 40 (1)).

Punishment is the principal way that club denounces a criminal deed equally violating the shared norms on which society depends. The severity of the penalty is meant to be proportionate to the seriousness of the human activity committed, thereby rectifying the moral imbalance created past the offence. Because punishment is concerned with the infliction of hurting or the withholding of certain liberties, which must be advisedly and justly applied, criminal justice procedure has a range of in-built legal safeguards. To be considered 'just', penalty must be both morally deserved and proportionate to the gravity of the offence.

In contempo decades, efforts to strengthen the role of victims in criminal proceedings take seen the introduction of various mechanisms for victims to "inform the court about the impairment caused by the offence" (Erez, 1994, p. 63). While these mechanisms differ, depending on the legal arrangement and the legislation in identify in each state, it is largely the case that conventional criminal justice systems provide limited scope for the relevant parties to engage in dialogue with the aim of restoring respect and trust in relationships. Safeguards introduced through victim-focused reforms have been found to be partial, meaning that victims could all the same experience secondary victimization past the court process and/or as a result of measures to strengthen victims' rights (see Dignan, 2005). For example, victims' expectations accept not been met in cases were compensation was ordered merely non paid to victims, or where financial compensation does little to meet victims' psychological and emotional needs. Limited implementation of victims' rights is also shown by a Victim and Witness Satisfaction Survey conducted in the Britain, in which only 35 per cent of victims gave a personal statement to the court (Woods et al., 2015). Results from the same survey prove that ane fifth of victims reported feeling dissatisfied with the extent to which they were informed during the criminal process, and 19 per cent of victims expressed dissatisfaction with the Crown Prosecution Service (Wood et al., 2015). For further information, meet Module 11 on Admission to Justice for Victims.

Meeting justice needs

In dissimilarity, restorative justice is an approach to crime that focuses on trying to repair the impairment that it has acquired by involving those who have been affected. It understands crime non merely as a legal infraction that requires public condemnation, but also as an injury to real people and relationships that needs healing. Those defenseless upward in the result are left with a range of concrete, emotional, psychological, spiritual and fabric needs, and these so-called 'justice needs' have to exist addressed if they are to feel that justice has been served.

Victims

Victims oft have the most visceral needs. To be the target of some deliberate malice or violation past some other person can have a profound touch on on a person's sense of well-being and self-worth. Victims are frequently left feeling bewildered, demeaned, used, angry and insecure. Their sense of freedom is constricted by fears and anxieties, past anger and bitterness, as well as sometimes by physical or cloth losses. The hurting of the offence and the memory of the offender has the potential to exercise a debilitating influence over the victim's entire life.

Historically, the criminal justice system has given scant attention to the needs of victims. This is because victims are near incidental to the judicial process since, in well-nigh modern criminal justice systems, the designated "victim" of the offence is the state, not the actual person injured, and the criminal charge is ane of breaking the law, not harming the person. The role of the injured party is only to give evidence on behalf of the prosecution and, beyond this limited role, victims are not typically given a stake in the process. Often, victims may non even need to be personally present during the trial, since the criminal process is non really about them, it is about the police force. Consequently, when victims wait to the courts to evangelize them a sense of justice - equally instinctively they do - they are ofttimes disappointed.

Offenders

Offenders besides have justice needs. They demand a fair trial and due process. They need to come to terms with the consequences of their actions and exist held answerable for them. They need their full humanity to be acknowledged, non merely their darkest deeds, and they often need help in addressing their ain legacy of trauma, disadvantage and victimization. They as well need the opportunity to make amends for their law-breaking and be accepted dorsum into the law-abiding community.

In principle, the justice organization consciously tries to address the needs of offenders, especially their demand for a fair trial. However, in practice, the dominant goals of the system, in determining guilt and apportioning punishment, often eclipse any endeavor to address the full reality of the offender's feel and needs.

The friends, families, colleagues, assembly and other members of the community of both the victim and the offender are as well oft affected by what has happened (see UNODC Handbook on Justice for Victims, 1999; and Module 11 on Access to Justice for Victims). The impairment ripples out to touch their lives in a diversity of ways. While the justice system is intended to act on behalf of the interests of the customs at large, it does lilliputian to involve community members in addressing the causes and consequences of behaviour that has caused such havoc.

The affect of crime, therefore, creates a complex range of justice needs for the people involved - needs which the conventional justice system struggles to run across adequately. That is not to say that the organization is totally indifferent to these needs. To discover a meaningful sense of justice, victims frequently need their abuser to hear of their pain, respond their questions, reassure them of their safety, and affirm their dignity. Conversely, offenders demand the victim to disclose the human being consequences of their deportment, to hear their remorse and receive their apology, and to requite them a take a chance to make things right once more. Both parties, in other words, concord important keys to the other's restoration - both accept a role in coming together the other'southward justice needs and in transforming their relationship into a healthier condition.

This is where restorative justice has something special to offer. It brings together those affected by an incident of wrongdoing to name the incorrect that has been done, to describe the needs it has created, to place the obligations that at present exist, and resolve together how all-time to repair the damage and foreclose recurrence. It is these things that matter mostfor the individuals involved, and for society as a whole.

What is restorative justice?

How can the concept of restorative justice be understood, and what are the underlying values and principles at the heart of this approach?

Restorative justice refers to a fashion of responding to criminal offense, or to other types of wrongdoing, injustice or conflict, that focuses primarily on repairing the damage acquired by the wrongful action and restoring, insofar as possible, the well-being of all those involved. It reflects a more than relational theory of justice because it emphasizes the restoration of respect, equality, and dignity to the relationships afflicted by wrongdoing. Restorative justice is called 'restorative' because it employs restorative processes, that is, processes that restore agency, buying and decision-making power to those directly afflicted by the harmful event - victims, offenders, their supporters and the wider customs. Rather than deferring all responsibleness to the land or to legal professionals, information technology aims to engage the immediate participants in resolving the harm.

Restorative justice is also called restorative because it is guided by restorative values, those that favour collaborative and consensus-based procedures over the adjudicative and adversarial forms that oftentimes characterize conventional criminal justice procedures (Robins, 2009). When people who have caused injury are invited to truthfully acknowledge their wrongdoing, listen respectfully to those they have hurt, and accolade their duty to put things correct again, significant steps are taken to restoring dignity and meeting the needs of all parties. Furthermore, restorative justice is also grounded in feminist relational theory, based on the relational nature of human beings and "an understanding of the self as constituted in and through relationships with others" (Llewellyn, 2012). Information technology views wrongdoing in relational terms, as "damage caused to individuals in relationship with others and in the connections between and among them".

The definition of restorative justice cited in the Key Terms of this Module, includes a range of key values, such as 'voluntary' participation, 'true' speaking, the cosmos of a 'safety and respectful' environment, a positive commitment to 'repair' and a concern to 'clarify accountability for harms'. This is non an exhaustive list of core values, but it highlights how crucial relational values are to a restorative process.

Respect is of particular importance (Zehr and Gobar, 2003). Criminal offending, and other kinds of injustice, are experienced fundamentally as an act of boldness, a failure to value one's inherent nobility, identity, rights and feelings. This boldness can but exist remedied past respect, by a clear acknowledgement on the part of the offender that the victim did non deserve to exist treated as they were, and that their rights, feelings and interests affair every bit as much every bit those of the perpetrator. "Restorative justice offers an alternative vision criminal justice and rightly locates the interests of victims of crime at its core" (Chan, 2013, p. 19).

While acknowledging the impairment to victim/s is crucial, accountability also means assuming responsibleness for addressing the consequences of i'due south actions (Zehr and Gobar, 2003). When the criminal justice system holds someone accountable, this means ensuring they get the punishment they deserve, irrespective of whether they take personal responsibility for what happened. In restorative justice, accountability has a much more than demanding graphic symbol. It requires three things of offenders: an acceptance of personal arraign for inflicting harm; a willingness to witness first-mitt the consequences of their deportment on the lives of those they injure; and an assumption of agile responsibleness for doing all they tin to put things right again (Zehr and Gobar, 2003).

Origin and development of restorative justice

The dialogical and restitutive graphic symbol of restorative justice is not unique. Similar values and processes are reflected in several indigenous cultures. An early pioneer of restorative justice, Howard Zehr, argued that prior to the emergence of the nation state, wrongdoing was primarily viewed in an interpersonal rather than a legal context. This era of customs justice was far less systematic and generally had a restitutive character. The personal, customary and negotiated features of community justice were eventually replaced by a more institutionalized and centralized system of legal justice. Rather than communities, the land had responsibleness to enforce a system of laws and punishments (Zehr, 1990).

By dissimilarity, nigh indigenous traditions viewed wrongdoing in greatly communal rather than legal terms. This created a collective responsibility to answer to the impairment caused by wrongdoing, involving a much wider web of relationships surrounding both offender and victim. These traditions have influenced the mod evolution of restorative justice, as highlighted in the preamble to the Bones Principles (2000): restorative justice "often draws upon traditional and Indigenous forms of justice, which view crime as fundamentally harmful to people." Arguably, ane of the greatest harms perpetrated by European colonialism was replacing indigenous mechanisms of social regulation and belonging, with an abstract, law based system of country control and coercion.

The modern concept of restorative justice developed in the 1970s in N America, when the first restorative justice programmes emerged. In 1974, ii probation workers in Kitchener, Canada, brought victims and offenders of a vandalism instance together to deal straight with the wrongdoing and hash out ways to repair the impairment. This successful experiment led to the establishment of the Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program (VORP) under the auspices of the Christian Mennonite Committee, and provided the inspiration that led to other innovations in North America and across. Every bit the programme grew and adult over the post-obit decades, it generated a new prototype for thinking about crime that eventually became known as 'restorative justice'.

Around the same time that restorative justice was developing in North America, at that place were similar developments occurring in Europe. Norwegian criminologist Nils Christie, one of the representatives of the abolitionist movement in Northern Europe, voiced his critique of the criminal justice system in his article "Conflicts every bit Property" (1977). He argued that the concept of offense was an brainchild that should instead be understood as conflicts between actual people. Moreover, people have a proprietorial correct to their conflicts. What transpires in the criminal justice process is that legal experts have stolen these conflicts away from the parties to which they vest, thereby denying victims and offenders the right to participate in the resolution of their instance.

Christie argued that conventional criminal justice processes do not meet the needs of victims, offenders, and the wider community and, rather, those with a personal stake in a case should be empowered to have ownership of their personal conflicts to ameliorate encounter their needs. The abolitionist thinking of Christie and other scholars (east.m., Louk Hulsman and Herman Bianchi) contributed to the theory of restorative justice and influenced its evolution, particularly in Northern and Central European countries (e.g., Norway, Finland, Austria).

The emergence of restorative justice has also paralleled other reforms and innovations in criminal justice, in particular: the influence of the victims' rights movement; and attempts to strengthen the role of victims in criminal proceedings (justice for victims is examined in further detail in Module 11). Diversionary and rehabilitative approaches in sentencing have also impacted on the development of restorative justice and, in some cases, culminated in the introduction of legislative provisions for the delivery of restorative justice services, particularly for children in conflict with the law.

The reform of the youth justice organisation in Aotearoa, New Zealand following the passage of the 1989 Children, Young People and their Families Act is sometimes misconstrued as a conscious endeavor to recover Māori customary methods of dealing with family unit or tribal disharmonize. Nonetheless, it was awareness of the devastating impact of the mainstream European justice and welfare systems on Māori children, in item, that provided the impetus for youth justice responses that are more participatory, family-based, and more than compatible with indigenous values. This led to the nascence of Family unit Grouping Conferencing, an innovation that has played a significant role in promoting restorative justice throughout the criminal justice organization of New Zealand and in other parts of the world (for analysis of the influence that Family Grouping Conferencing has had in Thailand, for example, see Roujanavong 2005).

In addition to its application in the field of criminal justice, restorative justice has informed practice in other areas, such as child protection, educational settings (see for example Karp and Schachter, 2018; Sellman et al., 2013; Thorsborne, 2008; Hopkins, 2004), workplace disputes (east.g., Dekker and Breakey, 2016), family conflicts (e.g., Daicoff, 2015), ecology problems (east.m., Stark, 2016), elder damage (eastward.one thousand., Groh, 2003), and in post-conflict settings (east.thousand., Aertsen et al., 2012; and Valiñas and Vanspauwen, 2009. See also Braithwaite and Tamim, 2014, for analysis of lessons regarding the utilisation of restorative justice in post-conflict Libya).

A pregnant limitation, in the field of restorative justice, is that much of the academic scholarship on restorative practices derives from, and relates to, the contexts of Europe, N America and countries such every bit Commonwealth of australia and New Zealand. Appropriately, it is ofttimes the programmes in these countries that are well known. Yet scholars accept also noted the importance of furthering research on restorative practices that build on traditional or customary restorative processes in regions such as Asia (Chan, 2013); and Africa (see, for instance, Park, 2010, on Sierra Leone; Robins, 2009, on Uganda; and Kilekamajenga, 2018, on Tanzania), and countries such as Pakistan (meet Dzur, 2017, for example, for an interview with Ali Gohar). A leading restorative justice advocate, Ali Gohar, has worked extensively to highlight the complementarity of restorative justice, and the indigenous system of Jirga (a community based conflict transformation approach in the Pukhtoon belt of Islamic republic of pakistan) (See, for example, Dzur, 2017; Zehr and Gohar, 2003; and the website of the Merely Peace Initiatives).

International framework relating to restorative justice

Of considerable importance for promoting restorative justice at the global level are the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Restorative Justice Programmes in Criminal Matters (2002), which provide standards and safeguards on the use of restorative justice initiatives. As emphasized in the Basic Principles, restorative justice is "an evolving response to criminal offence that respects the dignity and equality of each person, builds agreement, and promotes social harmony through the healing of victims, offenders and communities" (Economic and Social Quango Resolution 2002/12, preamble).

Furthermore, the United Nations Announcement of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Criminal offence and Abuse of Power (1989) underlines the value of informal dispute resolution processes to heighten conciliation and redress for victims (for further information see Module xi on Access to Justice for Victims).

Restorative justice values are also reflected in other United Nations documents, such every bit the (legally binding) Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice - the 'Beijing Rules' (1985), the United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency - 'Riyadh Guidelines' (1990), the Un Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures - the 'Tokyo Rules' (1990), and the United Nations Rules for the Handling of Women Prisoners and Not-custodial Measures for Women Offenders - the 'Bangkok Rules' (2010). These documents encourage Member States to promote greater community interest when responding to offending, and to enhance diversion and alternatives to imprisonment.

The 2015 Doha Proclamation (GA Resolution lxx/174) emphasizes the importance of restorative justice in the resolution of social disharmonize through dialogue and mechanisms of customs participation, every bit well every bit in the area of prisoner reintegration (article v(j) and 10(d)).

In Europe, guiding documents adopted by the Council of Europe (CoE) and the Eu promote the use of restorative justice. Of detail importance is the Quango of Europe Recommendation (2018) 8 concerning restorative justice in criminal matters, which replaced Recommendation Rec No. (99) 19 concerning mediation in penal matters. The 2018 CoE Recommendation aims to promote the development and utilise of restorative justice in the criminal justice context, and elaborates on standards for its use, encouraging condom, constructive and evidence-based exercise. Moreover, the document aims to integrate a broader agreement of restorative justice and its principles than is laid downwardly in the 1999 Recommendation. A further aim is to elaborate on the use of restorative justice by prison and probation services (see Commentary to recommendation CM/Rec (2018)). The recommendation emphasizes a broader shift in criminal justice across Europe towards a more than restorative approach.

Furthermore, the European Wedlock Victims' Rights Directive (2012) establishes minimum standards on the rights, back up and protection of victims of crime and underlines the potential of restorative justice programmes. This legally bounden and enforceable instrument can be considered a milestone in providing protection and assistance to all victims of crime in European Wedlock Fellow member States. It replaced Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings, which required Member States to make legislative provision for victim-offender mediation. This Framework Decision was relevant in several European countries to innovate mediation in penal matters and acknowledge the impact of restorative outcomes within criminal proceedings.

The Council of Europe Recommendation (Rec (2006) 2) concerning the European Prison Rules highlights the importance of restoration and arbitration to resolve disputes with and amidst prisoners (2006, Rule 56.2), too equally when dealing with complaints and requests from prisoners (2006, Rule lxx.2).

For children in conflict with the constabulary, in detail, Council of Europe Recommendation No. R (2003) 20, concerning new ways of dealing with juvenile offenders and the role of juvenile justice, and Recommendation (2008) xi on European Rules for Juvenile Offenders Subject to Sanctions or Measures (ERJOSSM) both refer to the utilize of restorative justice and reparation. Recommendation No. R (2003) 20 emphasizes the apply of more innovative and constructive responses when dealing with serious and violent offending, and encourages the use of mediation, restoration and reparation to the victim (article 8). The 'European Rules for Juvenile Offenders Subject field to Sanctions or Measures' recommend that arbitration and other restorative measures should be bachelor at all stages of the criminal procedure, including at sentencing (2000, Basic Principle 12). The promotion of alternatives to judicial proceedings, particularly arbitration, diversion and alternative dispute resolution, is further emphasized by the Quango of Europe Guidelines on Child Friendly Justice (2010, No. 24). At a regional level, the Lima Proclamation on Restorative Juvenile Justice (2009) aims to strengthen the implementation of restorative approaches in Latin America.

In addition to this guidance, devised largely at the international and regional levels, it is equally of import to note that traditional and grassroots practices inside communities are often based on restorative processes. Indeed, scholars accept identified that constructive restorative practices crave a combination of importance grassroots principles nigh community justice, and broader mechanisms of conventional or restorative justice (see, for example, Robins, 2006, with respect to Uganda; and Kilekamajenga, 2018 with respect to Tanzania).

Safeguarding principles for restorative justice processes

The Basic Principles provide cardinal safeguards for victims and offenders, such as the right to exist fully informed of their rights, the process and possible consequences of their decision, the right of minors to the aid of a parent or guardian, and the right not to participate in a restorative process (2002, Basic Principle xiii).

As stipulated in the Basic Principles, restorative processes should always be based on the costless and voluntary consent of both the victim and the offender, and they should be given the option to withdraw their consent at any time during the procedure (2002, Bones Principle 7). Participation of an offender should non be used as evidence of guilt in subsequent legal proceedings (2002, Basic Principle viii).

Equally farther emphasized in Basic Principle 15 (2000), outcomes of restorative processes should be judicially supervised or incorporated into judicial decisions or judgements and, in such cases, should have the same status as any other judicial conclusion or judgement. In cases where an agreement between parties at a restorative dialogue cannot exist reached, this failure should never exist considered to the offender's detriment (2000, Bones Principle 16), and failure to implement an agreement should never result in a more than severe judgement in subsequent criminal proceedings (2002, Basic Principle 17).

Further key principles refer to impartiality of facilitators, respect to the dignity of parties and awareness of local cultural matters (2002, Bones Principles eighteen and 19). Solutions should be proportionate and reasonable and agreed past all parties.

Moreover, the Basic Principles recommend that guidelines and standards on the utilise of restorative justice should be developed and include provisions well-nigh referral weather and the handling of cases, the skills and preparation of facilitators, the administration of restorative justice and rules of acquit relating to how restorative justice programmes operate (2002, Basic Principle 12). Such standards are important to ensure the high quality of practise and promote equal access to services.

Research relating to participant satisfaction

In terms of participants' experiences with restorative processes and outcomes, numerous research studies take revealed high levels of satisfaction among victims and offenders (Shapland et al., 2007; Umbreit et al., 2008; Strang et al., 2013; Bolivar et al., 2015; Doak and O'Mahony, 2018; Hansen and Umbreit, 2018).

An evaluation of iii restorative justice schemes in the United Kingdom found high satisfaction rates for both victims and offenders - 85% of victims and 80% of offenders were very or quite satisfied with restorative justice processes (Shapland et al., 2007). Participants also expressed high levels of satisfaction with restorative justice outcome agreements. Xc percent of victims reported that their offenders had apologized.

Victims participating in restorative conferences reported:

"I was really pleased with what the offender said. He was sincere. In that location were some tools taken and I discovered where they were. He owned up to it."

"I felt the conference was quite productive, he signed an agreement most drug awareness, he'south going to write to me of his progress, and by Apr he's agreed to pay dorsum the coin he stole. I'one thousand glad I didn't striking him, I took pity on him actually, when I walked into the room and saw his mother and girlfriend crying. I am pleased with the result provided he doesn't renege on it."

Offenders were besides satisfied with the impact of the briefing on them:

"It went surprisingly well to be honest - did not think that information technology would actually exist like this. Really he (the victim) was pretty OK with me because what I did."

"Nervous about taking role, quite panicky, but afterwards I started to relax I felt really proficient to exist there and see the person I troubled. I felt nosotros had achieved something - both myself and the victim."

Consistent with international findings, the New Zealand Victim Satisfaction Survey (2016) showed that 84 per cent of victims were satisfied with the restorative justice briefing they attended, and 81 per cent reported they would be likely to recommend restorative justice to others in a similar situation. The survey revealed even higher levels of satisfaction of victims in family violence cases (87 per cent) compared to those in non-family unit violence cases (82 per cent). The study also indicated that 81 per cent of respondents thought that the briefing was a skillful style to bargain with the offence committed against them, and three quarters of victims could name at least one way that restorative justice had benefited them. Near victims (91 per cent) said they felt safe at the restorative justice conference.

Research has further revealed that restorative justice contributed to lower levels of fright and postal service-traumatic stress symptoms among victims, and that victims have a lower want for revenge afterwards going through a restorative procedure (Sherman et al., 2015).

Impact of restorative justice on recidivism

In addition to the to a higher place-mentioned research, numerous studies have indicated that restorative justice contributes to reducing recidivism among offenders (east.g. Sherman and Strang, 2007; Bonta et al., 2008; Shapland et al., 2008; Sherman et al., 2013; Sherman et al., 2015).

In their evaluation of three restorative justice schemes in England and Wales, Shapland et al. (2008) found that those offenders who participated in restorative justice committed significantly fewer offences in the following two years than offenders in the control group. Offenders' experiences with the conference, such every bit realizing the harm they caused, actively engaging in the process, and communicating with victims, had a pregnant touch on on decreased subsequent offending.

The New Zealand Ministry of Justice Reoffending Analysis for Restorative Justice Cases 2008-2013 showed that the reoffending rate for developed offenders who participated in restorative justice was 15 per cent lower, over the following 12-calendar month period, than comparable offenders, and 7.5 per cent lower over three years (New Zealand Ministry of Justice, 2016). The study found reduced reoffending across various types of offences, including violence and property related offences.

Next: Topic two - Overview of restorative justice processes

Dorsum to top

polanskyaciatur.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.unodc.org/e4j/zh/crime-prevention-criminal-justice/module-8/key-issues/1--concept--values-and-origin-of-restorative-justice.html