Restorative Justice

Question 1

What are the aims of restorative justice programmes?

Answer 1

Aims to rebuild relationships between the offender, victim, their family and the whole communtiy; attempts to improve victims experience and encourages the offender to take responsibility

Question 2

What is the changed emphasis of restorative justice?

Answer 2

Emphasises individuals to provide a healing process, more about reparations than retribution
- focused on victims recovery and offenders rehabilitation

Question 3

Outline key features of restorative justice

Answer 3

• supervised meeting between parties involved in a non court setting
• attendance is voluntary
• meeting led by a trained mediator
• victim given opportunity to confront the offender and explain how the incident impacted them
• offender can see the consequences of their actions and the emotional distress caused
• active involvement of all parties involved
• focus on positive outcomes for both survivors and offenders

Question 4

Outline alternative variations of restorative justice programmes

Answer 4

May not involve a face to face encounter and instead financial restitution from the offender to reflect the psychological damage or physical damage (I.e in the case of a robbery)

Question 5

Give strengths of restorative justice

Answer 5

Positive outcomes
- restorative justice council reported 85% of survivors reported satisfaction with the process of meeting their offender, only 2% said it made them feel worse
- suggesting it achieves its aims with helping victims of a crime deal with the aftermath
however some argue that the focus is not enough on the victim and RJ is simply used as a way to reduce sentencing

Question 6

Give weaknesses of restorative justice

Answer 6

Danger of ill intentions
- hinges upon offenders remorse for their actions —> can be used as a way to avoid prison or reduce sentencing rather than genuinely wanting to make amends
- victims also may have an ulterior motive in wanting to seek their own revenge or retribution
- May lead to recidivism and negative outcomes for both parties if intentions aren’t from the right place, reducing effectiveness
Lacks real-world application
- requires specialist professionals trained to mediate these matters which are expensive
- RJPs also suffer from high dropout rates as offender or victims may withdraw from the scheme
- lack of funding in prisons makes it inaccessible
- high dropout rates means offenders a d victims don’t actually benefit from the programme, reducing its effectiveness
Domestic violence
- some argue against the use of RJ in domestic violence cases due to the power imbalance between the victim and offender —> victim may feel guilt for putting the person (often a loved one) in prison, can bring up trauma
- may have a negative impact and not always a suitable option, limiting effectiveness
Regarded as a soft option
- do not receive much public support as seen as too soft
- may not be implemented and so reducing effectiveness
- public + political opinion against this approach limits funding for these programmes