Peacemaking and Reconciliation, Essay Example

Peacemaking and reconciliation are the cardinal principles of the restorative justice approach. This approach is similar to the rehabilitation perspective in many ways, and certainly invites comparisons with its emphasis on dealing with offenders through reformation and enlightenment, rather than punitive sanctions. However, the restorative approach has its own, unique take on the process of dealing with offenders: it emphasizes restoring their relationships with the community they have caused harm to.

For the advocate of restorative justice, all crimes are, fundamentally, transgressions against human relationships. Rather than ‘punishing’ the offender, the restorative justice advocate seeks to first assist and give succor to the victims of the crime, and then to restore the offenders’ relationships with the community that they have hurt. The picture is made more complex and nuanced, however, by the fact that this approach also enjoins a view of all crimes as the product of dysfunctions or conflicts in the victim-offender relationship, systemic factors and imbalances which must be addressed and redressed thoroughly.

A major way in which advocates advise that all of this be done is through shaming: inculcating in the offender a sense of shame for the harm that they have caused to other people. The goal is to induce reintegrative shame, shame that will help the offender to feel and express contrition, and rejoin the community. Because the offender has personal responsibility for their actions, they must make good for their offense, both through compensation of a monetary nature, and compensation of a more symbolic nature. By so doing, they can pay their debt to their victims.

The restorative justice approach has traditionally been practiced in a wide variety of cultures, many of whom still hold to it: a number of European, Asian, and Native American communities still use it as a way to solve disputes and ease tensions. Even in the contemporary justice system, it is making inroads with community policing, and in the courts, with victim advocacy, victim-offender mediation, and sentencing circles.

For sentencing Michael Pickens, an advocate of this approach would probably favor victim-offender mediation, aimed at helping the victim(s) and the offender to solve the ‘conflict’ in question and to find a legitimately just solution, one that will be mutually acceptable to both parties. The aim here, of course, would be to help Pickens understand that what he did was very wrong, and to help him make amends in consultation with his victims. Conferencing is another, similar option: this one differs from victim-offender mediation mainly in that it includes family members, friends, and other supportive parties to help the offender realize that they are cared for. Again, the aim is to arrive at a solution that will be just, and acceptable to both the victim(s) and the offender. Personally, I like this approach a great deal, and I think it should be followed whenever feasible. However, I also believe that some additional punishment is probably called for, such as prison time. In general, I favor use of this approach as an accompaniment to others.