Restorative justice within the system

Restorative Justice Within The System

Restorative justice is a justice system that rehabilitates an individual's character instead of punishing the criminal. The formula of justice focal point is agreement and mediation. The method of justice was introduced in the 1970s as one of the solutions to long court processes. The traditional method of justice focused more on punishing the criminals than correcting them; consequently, after the punishment is over, the individuals would return to crime a situation known as recidivism (Robinson & Shapland, 2008). The traditional system did not care to know the reason for the crime or even to eliminate the circumstances that led to the crime. Some people commit crimes not because they want but because life and circumstances have pushed them to that end. For example, a jobless person stealing to feed his family will be charged with theft and jailed or fined, after which he might return to stealing to feed his family. Therefore, such situations need a permanent solution, and restorative justice provides this. When individuals are open to accepting restorative justice, the two of them can sit down and talk about what happened. The offender will be accountable for his actions and thoughts that led him to try to reach a solution. The offender can sense the impact of his actions, and the victim is gradually brought into healing. In some places, jails have been converted into rehabilitation centers rather than punishment centers, where people are taught new skills and rehabilitated from crime so that when the jail term is over and such people are released into the community, they can fend for themselves (Ross & Muro, 2020). 

The restorative justice system has four principles:  relationship, respect, responsibility, repair, and reintegration(5r) (Piggott, & Wood, 2018). The relationship principle depicts that the relationship between the victim or the community and the offender is broken when a crime is committed. This is because the offender has caused pain and negatively impacted the community. The community, however, cannot build on resentment and broken bonds; therefore, relationships must be restored. Respect is a critical principle of restorative justice where parties are expected to show respect to each other during the process. All parties have a right to be listened to with little or no assumptions. Parties might disagree, but they do it respectfully, and efforts to understand the parties' perspectives are made. At the end of the restorative justice process, respect between the parties grows, or if any was lost, it should be restored. The third principle is responsibility, where everyone is expected to take responsibility for their action. Parties are also expected to take responsibility for eliminating crime and preventing re-occurrence. Finally, honesty with oneself and the parties is also expected (Piggott, & Wood, 2018).

After restoring respect, the fourth principle is repairing where healing takes place. The offender is supposed to repair the damages; even though damages are not repairable, the offender should show remorse. Repair is supposed to eliminate bitterness and thoughts of revenge and impact a peaceful and positive attitude on the victim. The repair process also earns the offender respect from the community and the victim. Reintegration ensures the victim is accepted back into the community and bonded with it. Isolating the offender denies them community participation and a chance to exercise their liberty. The offender and the victim should rejoin the community as part of a community afterward.

The same idea of justice is applied in the Bible to serve justice with the principles of recognizing sins, repentance, restoration, and reconciliation. To give a few examples, in Leviticus 6:1–7, the Lord told Moses that if someone sins by sinning or stealing but realizes their mistake, they must return what they stole to the owner in full. They must also add the owner a fifth of the things they took from the victim as they present their guilt offering to God. Then, the priest must do an atonement to the Lord on their behalf, after which they will be forgiven. Numbers 5:6–7 also give the same demand to anyone who has offended another or been unfaithful. That they must confess their sins, make full restitution, and give a fifth of the value of what they stole to the victim, after which they will be forgiven. Matthew 5:23–24 claims that before a person makes an offering to the Lord, they must reconcile with the people they are on bad terms with. And finally, in the New Testament, God sent His only son Jesus to die on the cross for our sins. Jesus taught the people of the earth to truthful lives, He taught them to pray a prayer in which people recognize their sin and ask for forgiveness, and when he finally died, and our relationship with God that sins had flawed was restored.

Though the guiding principles of restorative justice are the same worldwide, this type of justice is affected by factors such as class, race, gender, and media influence (Richner, 2022). People of different classes, races, or gender tend to be more aversive to restorative justice. People of the same class however tend to forgive each other easily, but where there is a class difference, bitterness and a feeling of entitlement and resentment may make it difficult to resolve issues. Racism has forced black people into court and caused them life imprisonment and fines. Racism has made some races feel superior to others, and if a person from a minority race does an offense, there is a need to cause more suppression through punishment and intimidation. People of the same gender also quickly solve conflicts without subjecting each other to court processes.

Social, psychological, and biological factors also significantly influence restorative justice. Some people believe that people, as well as communities, equate punishment to justice. Only after pain or fines are inflicted on an offender does the victim feel contented. While it is agreeable some offenses should not be taken lightly, and restorative justice may not be enough to serve justice, it is crucial to understand that punishing the offender may not heal the victim (Zinsstag, 2018). Therefore, restorative justice should be integrated with the judicial system to provide efficient justice. Restorative justice may not be efficient in cases such as terrorism, treason, and rape, among other cynical crimes, since word-of-mouth apologies cannot return the victim's dignity or heal them. The victim is also perceived as a threat to the community and cannot be readily accepted. Therefore, the judicial system has to be applied to keep the victim in prison away from other community members. In prison, restoration and rehabilitation can be done. During this stage, the person in charge of rehabilitation may try to understand the factors that led to the crime. It is from understanding the root source of a crime that the rehabilitator can guide the perpetrator out of a life of crime (Zinsstag, 2018). At the same time, the offender may be taught new skills or given a chance to grow already existing skills and talents. Restorative justice influences the criminal justice system positively as it reduces crime by rehabilitating criminals. It also heals the victims, and the community stays united through reintegration. However, for the system to be successful, law enforcement, court officers, and corrections officers must be trained to serve justice effectively. 

References

Piggott, E., & Wood, W. (2018). Does restorative justice reduce recidivism?: Assessing evidence and claims about restorative justice and reoffending. In Routledge international handbook of restorative justice (pp. 359-376). Routledge.

Richner, K. A., Pavelka, S., & McChargue, D. E. (2022). A restorative justice intervention in United States prisons: implications of intervention timing, age, and gender on recidivism. International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology, 0306624X221086555.

Robinson, G., & Shapland, J. (2008). Reducing recidivism: a task for restorative justice?. The British Journal of Criminology, 48(3), 337-358.

Ross, K., & Muro, D. (2020). Possibilities of prison-based restorative justice: transformation beyond recidivism. Contemporary Justice Review, 23(3), 291-313.

Zinsstag, E., Aertsen, I., Walgrave, L., Rosenblatt, F. F., & Parmentier, S. (2018). The International Journal of Restorative Justice: new horizons for independent research and development. Int'l J. Restorative Just., 1, 3.