Week 3 Discussion-Joshua Curry

Restorative Justice differs from traditional ways of treating offenders and crime victims

because the focus is not on punishing offenders. Restorative Justice focuses on the importance of

reform and restoration. Restoration is a modern sentencing alternative that focuses on the

importance of healing the pain brought on by crime rather than deterring future crimes through

punishment (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2009). Restorative Justice is a response to crime that

focuses on healing the wounds of victims, offenders, and communities. The importance of

restoration has intensified in recent years. Restoration is the process of bringing everyone

involved or impacted by a crime back to the condition they were in prior to the offense

(Schmalleger, 2009). Supporters of Restorative Justice looks into the overall impact crime has.

They believe that someone learning that a neighbor of theirs got robbed while waiting for a bus

could cause them to believe that they could be next. This is how communities are impacted by

crime.

Crimes impact the public differently. People are impacted when there are epidemics of

armed robberies, home invasions, random batteries, sexual assaults, and even murders plaguing

their communities. Citizens become too frightened to live their lives normally. They grow afraid

of taking their children to the park, they fear going for their morning run, and even develop

sleeping problems because they convince themselves every noise they hear or every shadow they

see is a potential burglary happening.

The pain caused by crime has a propensity of being mended through mediation,

negotiation, and empowerment (Samaha, 2008). Restorative Justice does not support deterrence,

retribution, and punishment. Punishing criminals is not believed to get to the root of what causes

crime. Punishment does not do much with resolving issues offenders have. Mediation and

empowerment provides opportunities to tend to the needs of offenders. It gives victims and

communities a chance of understanding why a crime took place. Addressing the needs of an

offender could go a long way with preventing recidivism.

Supporters of Restorative Justice feel as though offenders could benefit from it, despite

the reality offenders are the blame for the crimes they cause. In order for offenders to

transition back into society, they must have comprehension of the negative impact their actions

had on others. Restorative Justice humanizes crime. Offenders are compelled to interact with

those their crimes affected. They get to hear how lives were transformed because of their actions.

The Criminal Justice System has three core components: which Police, Courts, and

Corrections (Worrall, 2010). Each of the core components are directly involved with restoration

and Restorative Justice. Law enforcement departments are in a position to initiate Restorative

Justice following the arrest of an offender. Police officers have the initial interaction with

offenders. They respond to crime scenes, conduct investigations, and search for and apprehend

offenders. Police officers are usually the only direct contact victims and communities have with

the Criminal Justice System. They could bring victims and offenders together immediately

following a crime. Moments after crimes occur are usually when victims are at their emotional

peak because they are absorbing the reality they were victimized. This phase of the Criminal

Justice System may perhaps be the most advantageous time to implement Restorative Justice

because it helps healing to begin right away.

Restorative justice plays an influential role in the court system. Victim-impact statements

serve an instrumental role when sentencing is handed down. A victim-impact statement is a

description of the harm and suffering that a crime has caused victims and survivors (Orme-

Johnson, 2011). Victim-impact statements are explanations by victims and their loved ones

describing how their lives transformed by their crime victimization. Restoration comes into play

by the victim-impact statement covering how the victims were allowed to heal by interacting

with the perpetrator that caused them harm. Victim-impact statements go into how healing and

recuperation would not have been possible without the perpetrator not placing blame on anyone

or anything else. They could influence the court to strongly consider reformative sentencing

alternatives because mediation and interaction would be more advantageous with helping the

victims, their loved ones, the communities, and even offenders heal.

Making offenders address their victims, and openly talk about any physical, emotional, or

psychological damage they caused is a major aspect of Restorative Justice. Even though crime

generally has a negative effect on victims, perpetrators, and communities, victims could come to

a level of forgiveness, or even develop a bit of understanding of what motivated the offender.

Through extensive counseling and mediation, a victim could come to the point where they may

ask the court for leniency because they have been exposed to a different method of dealing with

offenders.

Restorative Justice is not just a way to keep offenders out of prison. There is not a crime that perhaps has a more negative impact on an entire community than murder. The majority of murders are perpetrated by an offender that had some sort of relationship with their victim (Gavrielides, 2008). The statistics may support murderers and their victims knew each other, but random murders happen as well. Regardless of whether or not a murderer was a relative, acquaintance, or a stranger, families and friends of the victim may need to meet with the murderer to understand why they felt as though taking a life was an option. This could be beneficial with aiding the emotional and psychological recovery of the loved ones.

Research pertaining to the impact Restorative Justice has on public safety would substantiate whether or not it would be beneficial to dedicate more resources towards restoration rather than punishment. It would provide the Criminal Justice System with information regarding whether reform or punishment more substantially suits criminals. The judicial system will see which sentencing alternative is more preferred by victims and communities.

Unfortunately not every criminal can be reformed. There are some acts that warrant maximum punishment allowable by the Eighth Amendment. Everyone that commits a criminal act is not destined to be a repeat offender (Cripe & Pearlman, 2005). There are offenders that will fully cooperate with any sentencing stipulation: not just to avoid spending time incarcerated, but to demonstrate their repentance and willingness to become better, more productive members of their communities. Restorative Justice is intended to bring restoration to victims, perpetrators, and communities. Offenders are not only an important part of the equation, but they have a lot to gain from restoration as well. Sufficiently recovery from crime could be a gradual procedure for everyone involved. Accountability is an essential aspect of Restorative Justice. Offenders must accept accountability for their actions before any significant steps towards restoration and recovery can transpire. This is why an incoming police chief could be determined to implement a

Restorative Justice model in order to effect positive changes in public safety and quality of life.

There could be awareness that there is no chance that causing such a drastic shift in

culture without enlisting enthusiastic support from important contributors within the organization

and the community as a whole. This is why good leaders have others involved in what is going

on throughout their organization. Consideration of how one might proceed to identify and enlist

the support needed to implement Restorative Justice could focus on providing education and

professional development. It could be challenging to leaders to implement something

organizationally if their subordinates are not knowledgeable about what is being implemented

(Budhathoki & Haythornthwaite, 2013). In order to effectively lead criminal justice

organizations, executives must be cognizant of capabilities, knowledge, and interests of those

they are in charge of.

References:

Budhathoki, N. R. & Haythornthwaite, C. (2013). Motivation for open collaboration. American

Behavioral Scientist, 57(5), 548–575. doi: 10.1177/0002764212469364.

Cripe, C. A. & Pearlman, M. G. (2005). Legal aspects of corrections management (2^nd ed).

Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc.

Gavrielides, T. (2008). Restorative justice, the perplexing concept: conceptual fault lines and

power battles within the restorative justice movement. Criminology and Criminal Justice

8(2), 165-183. doi: 10.1177/1748895808088993.

Orme-Johnson, D. W. (2011). The use of meditation in corrections. International Journal of

Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(4), 661-664. doi:

10.1177/0306624X10371803.

Samaha, J. (2008). Criminal law (9^th ed). Belmont: Thomson Learning, Inc.

Schmalleger, F. (2009). Criminology today: an integrative introduction (5^th ed). Upper Saddle

River: Pearson Education, Inc.

Schmalleger, F. & Smykla, J. O. (2009). Corrections in the 21^st century (4^th ed). New York

City: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Worrall, J. L. (2010). Criminal procedure: from first contact to appeal (3^rd ed). Upper Saddle

River: Pearson Education, Inc.