crime - modifying: restorative: effectiveness

Question 1

supporting evidence

Answer 1

P: is effective as there’s supporting evidence of how it empowers victim’s
E: UK restorative justice counsel found that 85% of victims felt satisfied after face-to-face meetings with offenders, Avon and Somerset police reported a 92.5% satisfaction fate among victims of violent crimes
T: high levels of satisfaction suggests that RJ is effective as it provides victims closure and empowerment, involving them actively in the resolution process.

Question 2

who’s used

Answer 2

P: not effective because it’s not an appropriate global solution for dealing with all offending behaviour
E: There’s major limitations when offenders have to admit guilt in cases when they deny responsibility and when victims refuse to take part due to the emotional distress and fear of facing their offender.
T: Therefore no matter how effective restorative justice may be when it reduces reoffending rates, its low participants rates make it an ineffective method of modifying because it is very limited in who it can be delivered to
COUNTER: However, Howard Zehr claims that restorative justice can still take place without an offender’s presence

Question 3

cause

Answer 3

P: is effective because it is an active process (compared to prison which is a passive process) which changes the attitudes criminals have towards crime, removing the cause of their criminal behaviour and therefrore reducing reoffending.
E: Sherman and Strand conducted a meta-analyses of 20 studies across the US, UK and AUS, examining the impact of face-to-face RJ meetings. Found offenders who participated had a reoffending rate of only 11% after 2 years, compared to 37% for those who served a prison sentence
T: There it’s effective as it suggests that through accountability and rehabilitation, it modifies criminal behaviour and reduces reoffending rates
COUNTER: However 2 years in only short-term and we cannot conclude that this reduced reoffending will hold up in the long term