Restorative justice is currently hailed as a progressive way to deal with young offenders. But what are the hidden pitfalls of using this approach?
10191094 CCJS 2103 Youth Justice, Restorative Justice and Victims of Crime Essay 1 Restorative justice is currently hailed as a progressive way to deal with young offenders. But what are the hidden pitfalls of using this approach? Whereas the present criminal justice system responds to criminal activity with punishment, a Restorative Justice system responds by attempting to restore the well-being of the victim, the offender and the community. According to the Home Office (1997), it recognises the needs of the victims, and creates an opportunity for them to confront the offender with the hurt they have caused, in a face to face meeting in a controlled environment. It is often the first step to understanding, remorse and apology for the offender, as they are made aware of the repercussions of their criminal actions (Marshall, 1996). Not only does it focus on restoring calm with the victim, but restorative justice also aims to affect the wider community through a ripple effect. There is much involvement with victims, particularly when seeking a suitable punishment to make amends for their behaviour. With young offenders, the ultimate goal is to reintegrate them back into society, hopefully preventing future criminal behaviour. As the home office puts simply, it focuses on the three R’s; restoration, reintegration and responsibility (Crawford and Newburn, 2003). At the heart of this modern approach, is a desire to allow the victim to find peace and security and at the same time create a way for the offender to earn his or her way back into the community. The goal, as it was designed and as it has borne out, is to make the community a safer, more whole place through a commonly experienced ‘healing’ process. When a crime is committed, the entire community suffers. It does not matter where they live, people are at least momentarily devastated and probably forever changed by the news of violent crime. Therefore it’s important to restore a sense of social wellbeing, and justice, in the community as a whole. Often, it is argued that tougher sentences should be introduced, however there is no evidence that these measures reduce levels of offending, and in many cases they do little if anything for the victims of crime. It was Barnett (1977) who first keyed the term ‘restorative justice; whilst talking of certain principles arising out of early experiments in America using mediation between victims and offenders. Over time, these principles were developed as other innovative practices have been taken into account, but their basic justification is still grounded in practical experience. Studies over time looked into the impact on offenders, victim satisfaction and public opinion to aid its development, and it was found that the needs of victims, offenders and the
community generally were not independent and that justice agencies had to engage actively with all three in order to make a positive impact. Earlier studies conducted by Howard Zehr (1990), who was one of the pioneers leading the argument for restorative justice, highlighted three questions presented when taking a restorative approach: What is the nature of the harm resulting from the crime? What needs to be done to make things right or repair the harm? Who is responsible for this repair? He ascertained that “crime is fundamentally a violation of people and interpersonal relationships”. He also noted “Violations create obligations ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
community generally were not independent and that justice agencies had to engage actively with all three in order to make a positive impact. Earlier studies conducted by Howard Zehr (1990), who was one of the pioneers leading the argument for restorative justice, highlighted three questions presented when taking a restorative approach: What is the nature of the harm resulting from the crime? What needs to be done to make things right or repair the harm? Who is responsible for this repair? He ascertained that “crime is fundamentally a violation of people and interpersonal relationships”. He also noted “Violations create obligations and liabilities…… Restorative justice seeks to heal and put right the wrongs”. Restorative justice has become mainstream following the establishment of youth offender panels under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. And there are already existing restorative practices in place within the criminal justice system amongst them; probation, restitution and community service (Zehr, 1995). Admittedly they are not readily termed restorative justice programs but they are grounded in its theory. The increasing popularity of using the restorative method in place of the traditional ‘retributive system’ has led to increasing optimism: That it’s no longer just another possible option available in some places at various points in the criminal justice system, but that it could in the future become the basis for which the penal system operates on (Meirs, 2002). Meirs (2002) found that a public demand for severe punishments were counter-productive when trying to also reform offenders. He said that in order to keep severity low, but not affect the victims or community negatively, more work would be needed to focus on victim needs and to manipulate the public opinion. Within restorative justice the individual has a key place. The aftermath of crime cannot be fully resolved for the parties themselves without facilitating their personal involvement, it is also based on the assumption that justice consists of a balanced approach in which a single objective is not allowed to dominate the others. Although restorative justice is a strongly held concept in the criminal justice field, and has a healthy success rate, it is not without limitation. Firstly and most obviously, it relies hugely on voluntary participation; all parties involved must be willing to participate. If a willingness is lacking, the chances of restorative justice having a positive impact are drastically reduced (Newburn 2007). In some cases, although participants are willing, they may fail to reach a mutually acceptable outcome or resolution. As well as this limitation, in more recent years there has been an emphasis on privacy and autonomy, which has led to social divides in cultures and in particularly, between age divides. Newburn explains that age plays a large role in the debate on punishments, due to changes over time in laws, social acceptance and expectations. For example, people who are older and were exposed to the death penalty may believe in harsh sentences, or ‘eye-for-an-eye’ resolutions, whereas younger people may opt for community orders, less severe punishment and more on rehabilitation, for example. As restorative justice aims to support communities, there must first exist a stable community. With young offenders, it is understandably important to halt deviant behaviour and help the offender regain a socially acceptable way of life, to maintain a safe community, as well as to help reintegrate the offender back into a life they can thrive in. It is also important with young offenders that they take responsibility for their actions, to create strong moral grounds on which to hopefully continue to grow (Newburn 2007). Recently, restorative justice interventions have been applied in youth justice policies and programmes. These include pre-court disposals, such as final warnings; court disposals, such as rehabilitation or training orders; and referral and reparation orders. Restorative youth justice programmes focus on enabling the young offender to take responsibility for their behaviour and restore them into a mainstream life, whilst enabling victims to actively participate in the restorative justice process. (Stahlkopf 2009). The question is, does restorative justice work? In May 2011, the Guardian newspaper reported the success of restorative justice in a case involving a prolific offender, having burgled the home of an elderly lady. Following his arrest, the offender agreed to meet with the victim and discuss what had happened. The outcome was better than expected. Realising what harm he’d caused, not only physically to the lady’s home, but emotionally causing her to have to move into sheltered housing for fear of it happening again, the offender explained to her he was on drugs, desperate for cash, and was sorry for what he’d done. This led to the young offender progressing through a rehabilitation programme and eventually reintegrating him back into a society free of the opportunity to become involved in drugs again (Guardian, 2011). It may be argued that one positive outcome does not prove that this works and this is true to an extent. Every case is different. Some people will not be willing to meet with a victim or offender, and some will. Some may meet and argue, whereas others will listen to each side and come to a mutual understanding. It relies on the parties being willing to meet, and the offender accepting that their behaviour was wrong, or for the most part agreeing to consider it may have been wrong (Guardian, 2011). Evidence suggests a reasonable level of success in ‘responsibilising’ young offenders through challenging their attitudes and moral reasoning, and making them realise the outcome of their crime and the effect not only on the victim but the community (Gray, et al 2003). Studies in Plymouth, England, found 95.2% of offenders he questioned felt that Restorative Justice had held them responsible for their behaviour, with 90.2% having a better understanding of the effect of their behaviour on others, and 73% having more consideration toward the feelings of the victim. As for restoration, although the victim accepts responsibility, they may not be ready to restore the peace by apologising to the victim and accepting the emotional guilt. Plymouth’s study found 71.4% of victims thought that restoration was fair and just. It may be one aspect that often benefits the victim more than the offender. As for reintegration, Raynor (2001) argues that it is synonymous with social inclusion and this can be achieved by providing young offenders with ‘social support’ to ‘access’ resources and opportunities, such as support workers, meetings and social clubs. However, following studies into reintegration, Munchie (2002) and Pitts (2003) both argued that social support is not enough unless accompanied by sustained attempts to ‘combat structural inequalities’. For example, communities need to feel they are all equal, as opposed to having areas of deprivation and areas of wealth. The study by Gray in Plymouth seemed to suggest that restorative justice had a limited impact in alleviating social disadvantages and inadequate resources. Restorative justice will work for some people, but not for others, and the key seems to be to try to identify correctly those for whom it will work. If used properly, it can do a lot to reduce the number of crimes committed, and the number of offenders who reoffend. It seems, also, that the best place to introduce restorative justice is with young offenders to replace punishment, and the mostly futile efforts of psychologists and social workers. This way, society can begin to understand what leads to crime, and offenders can see what crime leads to. Miers et al (2001) conducted a 15-month study in Great Britain, which aimed to study the effectiveness of restorative schemes conducted over a period of time. It was funded by the government aimed at discovering ‘what works’ in reducing crime and reoffending. The principle aim of this study was to identify which element or combinations of elements in restorative justice are most effective at reducing crime. There were different schemes in place for offenders and victims in different counties. They concluded that each county was diverse in their understanding of the notion of restorative justice, and also in their degree of focus on victims and offenders (Miers 2001). The overall conclusion taken from this was a lack of support through funding, suggesting that restorative justice could work, with a healthy support system and funding. As Strang (2001) explained, ‘we do not know yet very much about how effective the restorative approach may prove to be in reducing re-offending; this is especially difficult to estimate when programs are mostly directed at a population of offenders whose offences are minor and criminal careers brief. Large claims of ‘successes among those who may never have re-offended anyway confuse and distract policymakers”. He is stating that the participants in restorative justice tend to be people to have committed less severe crimes, and would not necessarily have re-offended anyway. He suggests that a larger sample be looked into, using offenders who have committed severe crimes, maybe even serial offenders, to broaden the validity and reliability of the results. In conclusion, as McElrea (1994) suggested, although this process gives the victim a powerful role in the community and a role in the decision making process for the community as a whole, restorative justice requires manipulation, refinement and above all, funding and support to even start examining its effectiveness Wright, 1991). Words: 1,958 Works Cited Barnett, R. (1977). Restitution: a new paradigm of criminal justice. Ethics vol 87 , 279-301. Crawford, A. N. (2003). Youth Offending and Restorative Justice. Portland, Oregon: Willan Publishing Gray, P. M. (2003). An evaluation of the Plymouth Restorative Justice Programme. Plymouth: University of Plymouth. Home Office (November 1997) No More Excuses – a new approach to tackling youth crime in England and Wales. London: Home Office. Laughland, O. (2011, May 24). The Converstion; Does Restorative Justice work? Yes! The Guardian online. Retrieved December 2011, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/21/conversation-restorative-justice Marshall, T. (1996). The Evolution of Youth Justice in Great Britain. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research vol 4 , 21-43. McElrea, FWM (1994) The New Zealand Youth Court: a model for development in other courts? Paper for the National Conference of District Court Judges, 6–9 April. Miers D (2001) An International Review Of Restorative Justice. Crown Copyright UK. Muncie, J. (2002) A New Deal for Youth? Early Intervention and Correctionalism. In Hughes, G., McLaughlin, E. and Muncie, J. (eds) Crime Prevention and Community Safety. London: Sage. Zehr H (1990) Newburn, T. (2007). Criminology. Cullompton : Willan Publishing. Raynor, P. (2001) Community Penalties and Social Integration: ‘Community’ as Solution and as Problem. In Bottoms, A., Gelsthorpe, L. and Rex, S. (eds) Community Penalties: Changes and Challenges. Devon: Willan. Wright, M (1991) Justice for Victims and Offenders. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Zehr, H. M. (1998). Fundamental Concepts of Restorative Justice. Contemporary Justice Review , 47-55.