Chapter 10 Flashcards
(25 cards)
Communtiy justice
philosophy that uses community stakeholders to control & reduce crime & rebuild community policing, community courts, & restorative justice
Restorative justice
sentencing philosophy, emphasizes offender taking responsibility to repair the harm done to victim & surrounding community
RS principles
-community based, combines mainstream American CJ w/indigenous justice practiced by indigenous people
- focuses of victim, offender, & community, rather than punishing offender
- uses reintegrative shaming rather than stigmatizing
- this shaming allows victim & community to disapprove of criminal behavior & repairs weakened social bonds
More RS principles
- 1 session held in community, allows victim to communicate how crime affected them
- reparative plan is developed & approved by offender & victim, both volunteer
- Parties rely on community partners & volunteers for help
- offenders accept responsibility for crimes
- some take place in jail & prisons, but most are CB, an alternative to traditional court
Procedural justice
idea that individuals who perceive that they have been fairly treated & respected that they are more likely to comply w/court expectations, citizens can exercise some control over this, used consistently w/similar cases, procedures proceed w/o bias to race/ethnicity, gender, & others, citizens appeal results, participants are treated respectfully & valued
Victim & offender medication (VOM)
began in the 80s, victims agree to participate in order to seek restitution, oversee punishment, & share their grief w/offender, many victims report satisfaction w/case outcomes, more likely to get restitution, less fearful of being victimized, concerns that offender’s perspective is overlooked, VOM doesn’t really reduce recidivism
Sentencing circles
based off tribal justice, rely of re-integrative shaming, have offender, victim, family, friends, coworkers, social service personnel, & interested community members, purpose is to arrive consensus of how justice can be achieved, this involved most number of participants & is most effective in smaller communities
Reparation boards
meditate between court & offender, may or may not involve victim, meet after offender is convicted to decide how offender will repair harm done & reform conduct, volunteers will mentor & supervise offender, board reports to court on offender’s compliance, will recommend sanctions is offender violates reparative plan
Victim impact panels
1+ confrontational meetings occur post-conviction between, not necessarily exact same victim of offender but can be, not meant to condemn or shame offenders, but help them make better decision in the future, effectiveness has been mixed in research, (used by MADD)
Effectiveness of RJ methods
-studies: restitution more likely to happen as part of RJ programs than traditional court
- RJ less likely to be accepted by victims of violent crimes than victims of property crimes
evaluations - positive impact of recidivism in juvenile offenders, but not for adult ones
Victims’ concerns of RJ
- some find RJ more focused on offenders
- some criticize it for its emphasis on reintegrative shaming rather than retribution & stigmatization
- many find it difficult to advocate on their own & RJ just adds pressure
Restitution
court ordered payment by offender to victim &/or their family to cover tangible losses that occurred during crime, victims’ rights’ movement in 60s encouraged judges for restitution, Congress passed 3 statutes in 1990s to increase collection of restitution
Losses by victims available for compensation has
lost income, medical expenses, transportation to court, child care, counseling sessions, sexual assault exams, HIV testing, moving expenses, travel & meal expenses, burial expenses, eligible parties include: victims, victim’s families, organizations that provide care, shelter, or counseling, victims typically apply for restitution through prosecutor’s office, press charges, & testifying
Restitution problems
- underutilization
- lack of victim participation in system
- defendant’s indigence
- determining proper amount
- collecting restitution
Indigent offenders
indigent defendant who can’t pay restitution can’t be cited for contempt or sent to prison, if they can afford but refuse to pay restitution, they may be incarcerated depending on jurisdiction, declaring bankruptcy doesn’t excuse offender from paying restitution
Determining restitution amount
in RJ cases - determined at mediation session
in traditional court cases - judge sets amount
officers can suggest an amount in PSI reports
Amount based on
- offender’s financial obligations
- if victim was injured or partially at fault (escalating situation)
- expenses victim incurred b/c of crime (prosecutor must determine amount of harm beyond preponderance of evidence)
- harms & costs to qualify for restitution
- type of plea agreement
Collecting restitution
- collected by probation offices, day reporting centers, & restitution centers
- only about 1/3 - 1/2 of felony offenders pay full restitution before end of sentence
- some systems won’t release incarcerated offender if restitution is not paid
Community service
unpaid service to public to compensate for harm done by offender, ordered by judge as part of probation: picking up roadside trash, landscape maintenance, removing graffiti, painting buildings, in U.S, it’s an alternative to fines or probation
What else about community service
- in U.S, CS isn’t acceptable alternative to prison
- is both punitive & rehabilitative
- good alternative for indigent offenders who can’t afford monetary sanctions, for wealthy offenders where sanctions aren’t meaningful
- states differ in how often CS is mandated, used as sole sanction
- offender’s employment status must be considered when determining schedule
CS effectiveness
- many nonprofit organizations benefit off of labor from offenders
- completion rates vary, depending on strength of law enforcement
- though very little research, CS has wide public support
CS questions
- purpose: reduce recidivism, diversion, both?
- used instead of or w/other sanctions?
- be expanded for prison bound offenders?
- how its value calculated compared to days in jail or fines?
Fines
monetary sanction imposed by judge, amount depends on severity of offense, fixed fines (set amount), day fines - based on offender’s daily personal income- logical method of determining amount of financial punishment being imposed, fine is punishment, sole penalty or other penalty, fines in U.S underused, not enforced
Fees
court imposed reimbursement that offender pays administration of CJS, acquitted defendants don’t pay fees, these aren’t considered punitive & indigent offenders not required to pay them, fees assessed for: DNA, drug, & alcohol testing, diagnostic testing, inpatient/outpatient treatment, prosecution/court costs, repayment of fees for appointed counsel, community supervision fees, EM/GPS
