- Switch emphasis from needs of the state (crime against the state) to needs of the individual victims; victims encouraged to take an active role in process.
- John Braithwaite (2004) – ‘crime hurts, justice should heal’; collaboration between the offender and the victim based on principles of healing and environment.
- Supervised meeting attended by trained mediator, victim given opportunity to confront offender, offender can see consequences of actions.
- Key features of the process:
- Acceptance of responsibility and positive change, less emphasis on punishment.
- ‘Survivors’ and offender may choose to meet face-to-face outside a courtroom environment, not restricted to court rooms.
- Active involvement by all members of parties involved.
- Focus on positive outcomes for survivors and those who have offended
- Variations of the process:
- Occasionally can involve financial restitution, or preparing damaged property themselves; flexible and can serve as an alternative to prison or as an ‘add-on’ to community service.
- The Restorative Justice Council (RJC):
- Independent body who’s role it is to establish clear standards for the use of restorative justice and to support victims and specialist professionals in the field.
- RJC advocates the use of the restorative practice in preventing and managing conflict in many areas including schools, children’s services, workplaces, hospitals and communities – as well as prison.
| Flexibility – programme can be adapted to cover a wide range of applications – useful in a lot of situations. This includes schools and hospitals.
Cost-Effective – Joanna Shapland et al (2007) – every £1 spent on restorative justice saves the criminal justice system £8 – economic and useful for the criminal justice system. Reduced Recidivism and Beneficial – Sherman and Strang (2007) – compared 36 studies of restorative justice with custodial sentencing, reduction in recidivism for violent and property crimes and chance of PTSD in victims reduced – restorative justice may have more effective and positive for both the offender and the victim. |
May Rely on Offender Showing Remorse – offender could simply comply for their own benefit, eg: reduced sentence – would not be effective at reducing offending behaviour as offenders would fail to sympathise with consequences of actions, would not result in a positive outcome.
Difficult to Implement – would require trained mediator, may be expensive or difficult to find, furthermore victims or offenders may drop out due to process being emotional – would not be that cost-effective, and wouldn’t be useful without professionals. Feminist Criticism – Women’s Aid have called for a ban on restorative justice in domestic violence cases, this may result in power relationships being reinforced, and may reinforce victim-blaming approaches in communities |