Criminal Behaviours - Methods Of Modifying Behaviours: Restorative Justice Flashcards
(19 cards)
What’s the main idea behind RJ
- It came about based on the idea that punishment doesn’t seem to always work for criminals, so restorative justice is used as an alternative rather than a prison sentence.
- The idea is that it’s called restorative because it is trying to restore the criminal/victim/whole situation back to the time before the crime was committed.
What are the 4 main components to describe
- what’s involved
- aim of RJ
- victim’s perspective
- theory of RJ
Describe: what’s involved
- It’s a form of communication from the criminal to the victim. There’s 3 options for the offender to do…
1) Give payment to repair relationships: Offenders may offer concrete compensation for the crime (money or doing community service).
2) Write a letter to the victim: explaining why they behaved the way they did
3) Meet with the offender: Getting the offender and victim to have an interaction, e.g. video conferencing or face-to-face where there is an impartial facilitator (a mediator between the two). - Restorative justice is an alternative to prison, stopping them from entering the prison system.
Describe: aims of RJ
- They’re trying to get rid of custodial sentencing by doing 2 things
- The first is the rehabilitation of offenders so they do not reoffend
- The second is to provide atonement for wrongdoing and make amends for what they did
1) Rehabilitation of offenders:
- The victim has an opportunity to explain the real impact of the crime and this enables the offender to understand the effects on the victim. - Offenders may learn to take the perspective of others, which reduces the likelihood of reoffending. In particular, the offender is encouraged to take responsibility for the crime and this is hoped to have an effect on their future behaviour.
- Being punished is a passive process but rehabilitative justice requires the criminals active participation which may therefore change their attitudes towards crime and their behaviour.
2) Atonement for wrongdoing:
- Offenders may offer concrete compensation for the crime (money or doing unpaid community work).
- Most importantly the ‘atonement’ is psychological by simply showing their feelings of guilt. The offender can also show an understanding of the effects of their action.
The victim has the opportunity to express their distress and this provides the offender with a chance to develop empathy by taking the perspective of the victim.
Describe: victims perspective
- From the victim’s perspective restorative justice can reduce their sense of victimisation because they are no longer powerless and have a voice.
- Furthermore a victim may develop a greater understanding of the offender by listening to their account which, in turn, reduces the victim’s sense of being harmed.
Describe: the theory of restorative justice
- Wachtel and McCold (2003) propose a theoretical framework. Their starting point is that focus should be on relationships rather than punishment. Crime harms people and their relationships, and justice requires that harm be healed as much as possible.
- Early models of restorative justice focused on the offender and victim only but more recent ideas recognise the effect on the wider community.
- There are 3 stakeholders: the victim (seeking reparation), the offender (taking responsibility), and the community (aims to achieve reconciliation to maintain healthy society)
- If only one stakeholder is involved the process is only partly restorative, e.g. the government pays financial compensation. If two stakeholders are involved then it is mostly restorative, e.g. if the offender receives therapy.
- Full restoration involves all three stakeholders.
When evaluating, what do you talk about
- effectiveness
- ethical implications
- social implications
Evaluate the effectiveness of RJ, what do you talk about
- victim’s perspective - supportive research
- removes cause and reducing offending (criminal’s perspective)
- issue with who’s used
Evaluate the effectiveness of RJ, supporting evidence of effectiveness from victim’s perspective
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.
Evaluate the effectiveness of RJ, removes the cause resulting in reduced offending
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
Evaluate the effectiveness of RJ, issue with who’s used
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
When evaluating the ethical implications, what should you talk about?
- ethical issues from victim’s perspective
- ethical issues from offenders perspective
- positive because it empowers victims
Evaluate the ethical implications of RJ, ethical issues from victim’s perspective
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.
Evaluate the ethical implications of RJ, ethical issues from offenders perspective
P: Unethical due to a lack of valid consent creating a hostile situation that they can’t escape from.
E: Offenders may be offered reduced sentencing for taking part in restorative justice, and so may be coerced into taking part despite not wanting to. Then when they’re in these programmes, there can be misuse of the process when the offender is subjected to excessive shaming, berating and humiliation from the victim due to power imbalances - particularly in cases where the offender is young or vulnerable.
T: This contradicts the intended purpose of RJ to provide balanced and constructive dialogue. There unethical as it can trap offenders in overly distressing situations that can worsen mental health
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 and offender’s emotional well-being throughout the process.
Evaluate the ethical implications of RJ, positive because it empowers victims
P: is ethical as there’s supportive evidence 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 ethical as it provides victims closure and empowerment, involving them actively in the resolution process helps reduce their sense of being a victim and powerless, helping rehabilitate not just the offender but also the victim.
When evaluating the social implications of RJ, what do you talk about
- financial implications
- wider approach in the community
- inequality in access to programmes
Evaluate the social implications of RJ, financial implications
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
Evaluate the social implications of RJ, wider approach in the community
P: Positive social implication of RJ is its involvement of the wider community.
E: Peace circles, bring together community members, victims, and offenders in a structured setting where a talking piece is passed to allow uninterrupted dialogue and is managed by a designated keeper to maintain respect. (Pranis et al., 2003). Fosters mutual understanding to reduce reoffending rates
T: This community-centric model encourages social cohesion and accountability, creating a more peaceful and understanding society
COUNTER: However, communities may not be involved enough in the process. Perhaps it’s a harmful society that influences people to commit crime (e.g. community is hostile to individuals) and if blame is focused too much on the victim, society will continue being the problem and causing offending behaviour
Evaluate the social implications of RJ, inequality in access to programmes
P: One weakness of restorative justice is its inequality of accessibility, whereby marginalized communities are less likely to benefit from its implementation.
E: Umbreit et al. (2007) found that referrals to restorative justice programs were significantly lower among ethnic minority groups compared to their white counterparts, indicating a disparity in access.
T: This discrepancy suggests that restorative justice can inadvertently reinforce existing social and racial inequalities, leaving those most in need of reform to continue enduring punitive measures while more privileged groups enjoy alternative, rehabilitative processes.
COUNTER: Nonetheless, some argue that with targeted policy reforms—such as improved outreach, unbiased referral protocols, and enhanced facilitator training—these disparities can be minimised, ultimately contributing to a more equitable justice system
