This Article is written by Pranjal Yashwant Padmgirwar, a Fourth Year Law Student of Manikchand Pahade Law College, Chh. Sambhajinagar

Introduction

Restorative justice addresses criminal behavior developed within specific communities. It negates the reasons why people commit crimes and their consequences. Justice should involve addressing the wrongdoings and reconciling the victim with the offender and society as a whole. The paper presents a definition of the restorative justice system, its tenets, specific practices, advantages, and difficulties along with how it has been embraced in different jurisdictions across the globe.

Understanding Restorative Justice

At the core of restorative justice is the notion that committing a crime would definitely hurt somebody and so a justice system should be made to restore such injuries. It is understood that ‘restorative justice’ strives to achieve the victim, the community, and the offender as near as possible the position they were before the offending. This is a constructive and participatory approach that takes into consideration all the justice process players.

Key Principles

1. Repair: Repair of the damage done is considered the most important aim of the judicial system. This emphasis includes concern for victims, constructive ways of ensuring that offenders are responsible, and reparation through the community as well.

2. Inclusion: It is inherent in restorative justice that all those affected by the crime be included. The process provides opportunities for the victims, the offenders, and other interested individuals to participate and address the issues collectively.

3. Accountability: Offenders in this case are made to confront the impossible situations of their actions. That is, they are expected to understand the consequences and how their behavior affects other people. This is more than just waiting for the punishment; it is redemption and efforts to clean one’s mess.

4. Reintegration: The goal of this process is to rehabilitate the offenders and bring them back into society as productive and responsible individuals. This means dealing with the problems, which could be the reasons why the offender engaged in criminal activities in the first place, such as addiction to drugs and mental health problems, illiteracy, or lack of social support systems among others.

Practices and Processes

To fulfill its objectives within the justice system, restorative justice has also included other rehabilitative practices. Amongst these is;

1. Victim-Offender Mediation: Such mediation entails bringing the victim of an offense in contact with the offender in a confident way such meetings where the impact of the crime is articulated and any remorse expressed is accompanied by reparations.

2. Family Group Conferencing: This is an element of restorative justice that was developed in New Zealand. This includes the involvement of both the victim’s and the offender’s extended families in the resolution process. This emphasizes the enactment of justice and the sharing of responsibilities.

3. Circles: held for restorative purposes, these involve the offenders and the victims WITH the community. Community talking together including members of the affected community, such as victims and offenders, to apply restorative principles and agree on a reparation plan is called a circle. Circles can be used for purposes of sentencing, healing, or reintegrating the offender back into the community.

4. Community Service: Community service is an alternative to being imprisoned that allows offenders to remain in the open community while serving out a sentence. That service must be relevant and in proportion to the injury caused.

5. Restitution: In certain situations, offenders can be ordered to pay victims for their economic losses that have occurred as a result of the crime where direct payments or other forms of reimbursement may be required.

Benefits of Restorative Justice

Restorative justice provides immense benefits compared to the conventional punitive justice model:

For the Victims:

1. Self-Determinancy: The justice system is constructed in a way that allows victims to be heard and their needs addressed. Such is often the case when they have people to speak for them. It offers hope of the victims taking charge again.

2. Healing: Understanding a crime and its consequent processes enhances the under’s healing capacity and affords them the closure that they may have yearned for.

3. Restitution: One of the primary objectives of restorative justice is to make things right which puts victims in a better position to be compensated and reimbursed properly.

For the offenders:

1. Accepting Responsibility: Offenders are expected to acknowledge their acts and the consequences associated with them which in turn fosters real repentance and development.

2. For Rehabilitation enhancement: Regaining offenders’ ideal behaviors and addressing the underlying factors of their actions will lead to reduced offenders and result in the rehabilitation of such people

3. For Reintegration: Offenders are allowed to apologize and rehabilitate themselves as active members of society which minimizes the negative impacts criminal acts have on the people concerned.

For the Community:

1. Enhancing the Participation of the Community: The restorative justice culture is built on community participation and shared responsibility moat which promotes social cohesion and commonality of the values held.

2. Re-offending rates lowered: Thanks to restorative justice which helps to change criminals thinking instead of doing punishment, the rate of offending again in the criminal justice system is lower with such an approach oriented to societal good.

3. Being Cost–Effective: Restorative justices are always associated with lower cost compared to the conventional methods of punishment which also relieves the criminal justice system and the taxpayers.

Challenges and Criticisms

Restorative justice gives rise to many advantages, but it also faces a lot of challenges and undergoes a lot of criticism.

Implementation Challenges

1. Change Resistance: As it is, many legal systems have a very punitive model. Therefore it is very hard to convince practitioner policymakers and even the public to move to a more restorative system.

2. Training and resource implications: For restorative justice to be put into practice satisfactorily, a lot of training has to be given to facilitators, mediators, and other concerned parties, and adequate resources invested to facilitate restorative practices.

3. Variability of restorative justice programs: There is the challenge of uniformity and quality assurance across different restorative justice program interventions, especially in the context of countries whose legal systems are not centralized.

Criticisms

1. Too Soft on Offenders: Some of the opponents of restorative justice appreciate its goals and their fulfillment; however, they fear that it may come off as too ‘soft’ on offenders, especially in serious or violent crimes. Again, they argue that there might be a weak deterrent.

2. Inequitable Processes: There is a concern that inequalities in power between victims and offenders could compromise the justice of the processes. This is particularly alarming where perpetrators and victims belong to different strata of society, and even more so if the victims are weak or marginalized.

3. Need for All Parties: All parties must want to be involved in restorative justice practices. Thus, this could be a challenge in some instances and donations where victims do not feel safe enough to be in the presence of the offender, nor are they prepared to.

Restorative Justice in Practice

Restorative Justice has been in use in different ways over the years in various parts of the world; there have been successes as well as some challenges. Here are examples of how this has been put into practice in various jurisdictions.

New Zealand

New Zealand is frequently referred to as the champion of restorative justice especially using the family group conference (FGC) model. The FGC was developed in New Zealand in the 1980’s focusing on juvenile offenders and has involved some extended family members in making decisions about the offenders in support of shared responsibility and engagement of the society. The FGC was hence introduced to various jurisdictions for its relative success in reducing recidivism and enhancing rehabilitation efforts.

Canada

Canada’s justice system has adopted the principles of restorative justice in several programs. Here the development of restorative justice involves the indigenous people’s communities these have systems of justice based on healing. Efforts by the Canadian government in promoting restorative justice include providing funding and training and developing relevant policies all of which have seen the introduction of programs such as victim-offender mediation and community justice programs.

Norway

Restorative Justice in Norway is implemented within a re-education and reintegration-orientated framework. The country’s prison system, which is regarded as humane and rehabilitative in nature, supports such restorative elements as allowing offenders to make amends or to speak with their victims in healing circles. Because of these restorative practices, Norway has low rates of recidivism and high safety among its citizens.

South Africa

Restorative justice is one of the strategies used in South Africa to deal with the burdens of apartheid and to foster peace in the country. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) established in the 1990s also employed a restorative concept to deal with unauthorized human actions during apartheid. The TRC was built on a framework of understanding between the victims of violent crimes and their offenders and fostered therapy and resolution of grievances. There are varying views concerning the outcomes of the TRC, as it still stands out to be one of the criticisms of transitional justice practices.

America

In North America, a community-based approach toward the philosophy has been adopted, which is aimed at implementing a range of programs directed towards victim facilitation of efforts towards the reintegration of offenders and the reduction of recidivism in general. The same has happened with the schools that have integrated restorative practices to settle disputes or resolve indiscipline, thus ensuring an enabling environment – constructive regardless of issues. Despite this, the restorative perspective has not been embraced in the American criminal justice system as a whole, as there are still issues of implementation in terms of finance, educating justice personnel, and public attitudes toward its, retrieval.

Conclusion

Restorative justice as a concept is radical because it presents a total shift from the present practices followed in criminal justice systems today. It calls for mending relationships especially that of the offender and the victim and society at large, which is a healing process for their five senses or members of the community and those who have caused harm to restore. However, it does not come easy since its practice surveys on historical and present factors that invalidate its efficient application, coupled with healthy resistance to change, resource availability issues, and insecurity on the regard on equity and efficiency.

Still, these drawbacks illustrate the notion that restorative justice has to be adopted or implemented in diverse legal systems across the globe. With regards to legal systems, their trends are that the legal rehabilitative justice systems come forwards.

References:

1. John Braithwaite, Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation (Oxford University Press 2002).

2. Howard Zehr, The Little Book of Restorative Justice (Good Books 2002).

3. Gerry Johnstone, Restorative Justice: Ideas, Values, Debates (2nd edn, Routledge 2011).

4. Heather Strang and John Braithwaite (eds), Restorative Justice: Philosophy to Practice (Ashgate 2000).

5. Daniel W Van Ness and Karen Heetderks Strong, Restoring Justice: An Introduction to Restorative Justice (5th edn, Routledge 2014).

6. New Zealand Ministry of Justice, Restorative Justice: Best Practice in New Zealand (Ministry of Justice 2011).

7. Julian V Roberts and Trevor C W Chan (eds), Restorative Justice and Criminal Justice: Competing or Reconcilable Paradigms? (Hart Publishing 2003).

8. Tony F Marshall, Restorative Justice: An Overview (Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate 1999).

9. Jennifer J Llewellyn and Robert Howse, Restorative Justice: A Conceptual Framework (Law Commission of Canada 1998).

10. South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa Report (vol 1, TRC 1998).

11. Lode Walgrave, Restorative Justice, Self-Interest and Responsible Citizenship (Willan Publishing 2008).