Restorative justice is currently hailed as a progressive way to deal with young offenders. But what are the hidden pitfalls of using this approach?

Authors Avatar
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
Join now!
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