crime - modifying: restorative: overall

Question 1

effectiveness

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

ethics

Answer 2

P: Unethical as there’s potential psychological harm to the victim when offenders shows no genuine remorse, therefore causing distress.
E: Shapland et al found that some victims reported feeling worse due to offender’s lack of empathy or discomfort revisiting crime
T: Therefore RJ is unethical as the process may lead to re-victimisation, lowering their self esteem. It could further exacerbate feelings of injustice if offenders receive lesser punishment, despite not showing remorse, simply because they took part in the process.
Counter: However, risks can be mitigated by ensuring that restorative justice is voluntary, carefully monitored, and facilitated by trained professionals who can support the victim’s emotional well-being throughout the process.

Question 3

social

Answer 3

P: positive social implication of RJ is that it reduces costs associated with crime.
E: UK Restorative Justice Council reports that for every £1 spent on the restorative process, £8 is saved due to reduced custodial, court, and police costs
T: This cost-effectiveness is further enhanced as the process is sometimes funded by fines paid by offenders, which means that restorative justice not only reduces reoffending rates but also eases the financial burden on the criminal justice system which already struggle to secure funding to accommodate their lager prison systems