Restorative Justice and Juvenile Offenders, Essay Example

Introduction

Restorative Justice re-conceptualizes the judicial system by changing an intrinsically punitive and coercive process into a system that is more communicative, transparent, consensual, and constructive (Dzur, 2003, p. 3). It theorizes that if criminals meet their victims face-to-face as well as with members of the community at large, then transformational results would be yielded. As such, restorative justice empowers individuals both directly and indirectly impacted by crimes to render decisions regarding how to come to terms with and negotiate the offenses, thereby serving the best interests of the victim rather than those of the state (Morris, 2002, p. 598). Adherents argues that criminal justice policies that reduce incarceration rates would facilitate social and political changes and impact public perceptions of and attitudes towards crime and policies passed in the name of crime control (Dzur, 2003, p. 279). Critics, however, view the concept of restorative justice as merely a utopian ideal that could never fulfill the promises therein.  The United States presents a poignant case study in which restorative justice remains in its nascent stages, yet lawmakers and criminal justice officials alike have increasingly embraced it in order to dismantle the perpetuated cycle of recidivism that the American criminal justice system continues to experience.

In order to fully comprehend the potential of restorative justice on juvenile delinquency and the criminal justice system in the United States as a whole, one must take into consideration the impact of the current paradigm–retributive justice–on criminals and on society at-large. Policymakers firmly believe that the current system in place is effectively designed to treat juvenile offenders using various control mechanisms. The sentiment guiding disciplinary and punitive approaches reflect an ideology commensurate with the notion of retributive justice. The main trope of retributive justice is that a crime committed by a juvenile primarily victimizes the state, so the focus of the criminal justice system is placed on the perpetrator who violated and infracted upon the state’s interests (Moore, 1993). Such a criminal justice system shaped by the retributive justice paradigm is propelled by the fear of crime and by is focus on the offender. As such, the victims of crime and the communities that support them always retain an inherently passive position. Victims and their supporters lack the authority or capacity to provide input into the judicial process. Studies further show that retributive justice often results on juveniles being sent to penal institutions where they become further exposed to deviancy, never have the opportunity to compensate the victim or become reintegrated back into their respective communities devoid of any stigma (Chambliss, 2011). Studies on juvenile delinquency during the 1990s recommended that community-based treatment should also offer fair punishment for juveniles found guilty of a crime. Vagg et al. (1995) contends that there is ample evidence indicating that community-based treatment is far more effective than custodial treatment when it comes to juveniles. As such, a paradigm shift is necessary from a punitive to a restorative approach in order to enable offenders to rehabilitate and restoratively reintegrate back into their communities as productive members of society.

Restorative Justice: Effective Justice?

Restorative practices include a vast array of intervention strategies that focus on restoring relationships between individuals in conflicts. Ashworth (2002) examines and assesses the concept of restorative justice as an innovative and beneficial recourse for offenders regardless of age that not only deters future crime but also empowers communities. He postulates that scholars must continue to engage in dialogue regarding the necessary distribution of functions amongst crime victims, communities of victims, offenders, and the state in order for the altruistic aims of restorative justice to materialize. Ashworth (2002) complicates the notion of restorative justice by arguing that it is not a homogenous, clearly defined concept. Rather, it has developed via applied practice in an ad hoc manner, focusing on the reintegration of offenders back into their respective communities. Ashworth (2002) further proffers a discursive analysis of the phrase “criminal justice” itself through the prism of restorative justice, thereby widening the category of stakeholders in order to include the offenders, victims, and community members. Crimes against individuals also constitute crimes committed against local community members and society at-large. Thus, he contends that, to an extent,  the state retains the ultimate obligation to safeguard its denizens from crime vis-a-vis “procedural safeguards and substantive limits” (Ashworth, 2002). The state must therefore preserve its monopoly over the decision-making processes pertaining to punishments for criminal offenses. Questions arise, however, because such an approach to criminal justice eschews and often augments social inequalities that inhered a social and political system constructed upon white hegemony. Although in theory restorative justice seeks to divorce criminal justice from statist influences, the state must nonetheless play an central role in the administration of jurisprudence and to supervise and enforce all proper procedures. Thus, Ashworth (2002) acknowledges the limitations of a restorative justice paradigm currently as a feasible recourse for offenders. As such, a more nuanced and syncretic approach to restorative justice  is necessary that involves the confluence of statist principles and restorative justice ethics.

Although a plethora of state programs have recently put the concept of restorative justice into practice, many crucial questions still remain unanswered regarding the gaps in literature and apparent failures. Using a feminist framework to discursively frame restorative justice, Barbara Hudson (2002) investigates both sides of the debate over the querulous application of restorative justice in cases of domestic violence and sexual assault in order to assess whether the restorative judicial process is a viable solution for the deterrence of crimes often perpetrated by men in the United States. Critics who decry the extension of restorative justice to these particular cases contend that restorative justice merely reorients attention away from the heinous crime committed, while supporters view restorative justice an effective avenue through which “harmful and antisocial wrongs” can be corrected and stopped in the future (Hudson, 2002). Hudson (2002) deconstructs the argument regarding the universality of restorative justice by investigating the ethics of deploying the paradigm in particular cases. In addition, she takes into consideration the relationship between extant forms of criminal justice paradigms with the burgeoning restorative justice one. Hudson (2002)  infuses gender into criminal justice public discourses focused on restorative justice by scrutinizing the failures of the formal and traditional criminal justice system to being justice to victims of “gendered and sexualized violence” (Hudson, 2002, p. 616). Feminists convey a general ambivalence towards restorative justice because they have serious doubts over the protection and redress restorative justice gives to women in ways that the formal criminal justice system does not due to U.S. law being “fundamentally male” in its reasoning and structures (p. 617). She nonetheless concludes that, although both the traditional and restorative justice paradigms are replete with chasms and deficiencies, integrating principles of retributive and restorative justice presents the optimal avenue through which justice can be served for all types of criminal cases.

Critics of restorative justice have nonetheless attacked the paradigm, citing philosophical and empirical sophistry. Allison Morris (2002) succinctly rebuts critics of the restorative justice paradigm by elucidating how the critics do not fully comprehend the primary objectives of restorative justice, they expect far too much from this alternative form of criminal justice policy during its nascent stages. Furthermore, the critics neglect recent studies and research conducted on the subject, or they unequivocally skew findings in am adverse and negative fashion. Ultimately, Morris (2002) deploys extant studies and research from foreign countries such as New Zealand that have already effectively implemented principles of restorative justice to convey various reasons why people should feel optimistic about restorative justice as a viable alternative to retributive justice in the United States. Unlike the majority of sources in the corpus of literature covering restorative justice, Morris’ article staunchly supports and bolsters the implementation of the paradigm despite, as she acknowledges, some incongruencies that are conspicuous in criminology literature. Like Ashworth (2002), Morris pinpoints the social inequities deeply embedded in the U.S. criminal justice system. Although she acknowledges that critics do make some valid points regarding the imperfections and flaws of restorative justice, Morris (2002) concludes that, in comparison to the traditional criminal justice  processes, restorative justice proffers a far more satisfactory and optimistic opportunity for justice to be served by fundamentally altering the way that crime is viewed in the U.S. today.

Although there has been growing interest in implementing restorative justice principles in order to rehabilitate habitual criminals in the United States, many critics decry that restorative justice can never realistically manifest and live up to its promises. Deploying an environmental lens by framing justice with the concept of geography, Sawatsky (2007) posits that restorative justice fails to adequately confront the “underlying logic and geography of crime” (Sawatsky, 2007, p. 75). The burgeoning field of restorative justice therefore must adapt and integrate the principles and logic of so-called  “healing justice,” which structures and frames the criminal justice systems not only in the United States but worldwide in various indigenous and traditional societies. Environmental factors have impacted human logic and behaviors, traversing various temporal and geographical contexts. Epistemologies focused on criminal justice and the actions of primary actors within the criminal justice system such as lawmakers, judges, police officers, and lawyers therefore become a product of their environmental conditions/contingencies. In order for restorative justice to develop into a feasible option to the current criminal justice system, it must embrace a more centrist approach to criminal justice, thereby becoming a syncretic paradigm that blends together a punitive system with one undergirded by a healing approach. Sawatsky (2007) therefore embraces a methodology that reconciles and incorporates western, retributive principles with subaltern legal traditions. Studying criminal justice through such a unique prism adds nuance to the paradigm of restorative justice, thereby discursively framing it as a viable, syncretic legal philosophy.

Restorative Justice and Juveniles: The Need for Restorative Practices

As mentioned previously, the traditional criminal justice system, while it meets the needs of some juvenile offenders, it fails to meet the needs of all parties involved when a crime is committed, including the victims, the victim’s supporters, and the community at large. In some cases, youths are not held responsible for their own actions in the traditional criminal justice system. Restorative Justice proffers a novel way to conceive of crime by underscoring the damages crime spawns on individuals, relationships, and communities, thereby taking three stakeholders into account. Public safety is enhanced once juvenile offenders fully understand how much harm is cause by delinquency. In this way, they are forced to be accountable for their own actions and behaviors because they have acquired a new set of skills. Victims are better protected  because restorative justice stipulates that the rights and needs of victims be protected to the greatest extent, and that all victims are actively involved in the process as much as possible.

A coordinated community effort for restorative practices within the juvenile justice system include various facets that are community based. Successful strategies used in communities include various facets, such as: youth offenders who are held accountable for what they have done; community members are perceived as impacted parties and are thus woven into the restorative justice process; efforts to enhance and develop the assets, strengths, and competencies of youths; a safe environment in which victims feel safe and where they are heard, informed, and constantly validated. Juvenile delinquents are eligible to receive probation as a major component of their aftercare upon release. Probation combines corrective and restorative components of the juvenile justice system and seeks to enhance the capacity of the youths to thrive and live in their communities and become productive members of the community while also being held accountable for their personal actions. Case management by the parole office is immensely important for juvenile aftercare (Hess, 2004). Intensive supervision probation is a particular type of probation in which an intermediate sanction between standard probation sentences and detention is implemented. This type probation is a feasible option for crimes that are less severe and thus do not warrant incarceration. Yet, these crimes committed are too serious to warrant just regular probation. As such, based on the restorative justice paradigm, this type of probation integrates risk-control strategies with intervention. Prison aftercare aims at effectively integrating juveniles back into their communities while also curtailing recidivism rates.

Conclusion

Ultimately, restorative justice does not refer to a specific program but rather a set of values, a philosophy, and a protracted process. Restorative justice interventions should be implemented on an idiosyncratic basis according to community needs and certain contingencies. A litany of interventions are available in order to provide offenders and victims supportive, productive, and safe contact. All stakeholders become involved in the healing process, which enables the offender to reintegrate back into the community and learn how criminal behaviors adversely impact everyone around them. As such, restorative justice provides a serious means through which recidivism in juvenile populations can be exponentially reduced.

References

Ashworth, A. (2002). Responsibilities, Rights, And Restorative Justice. The British Journal of Criminology, 42(3), 578-595.

Chambliss, W.J. (2011). Courts, law, and justice. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Dzur, A. W. (2003). Civic implications of restorative justice theory: Citizen participation and criminal justice policy. Policy Sciences, 36(3/4), 279-306.

Dzur, A. W. (2003). Restorative justice and civic accountability for punishment. Polity, 36(1), 3-22.

Hess, K. M., & Drowns, R. W. (2004). Juvenile justice (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Hudson, B. (2002). Restorative Justice And Gendered Violence: Diversion or effective justice? The British Journal of Criminology, 42(3), 616-634.

Moore, D.B. (1993). Shame, forgiveness, and juvenile justice. Criminal Justice Ethics, 12 (1),   3-25.

Morris, A. (2002). Critiquing The Critics: A brief response to critics of restorative justice. The British Journal of Criminology, 42(2), 596-615.

Sawatsky, J. (2007). Rethinking restorative justice: When the geographies of crime and of healing justice matter. Peace Research, 39(1/2), 75-93.

Vagg, J., Bacon-Shone, J., Gray, P., & Lam, D. (1995). The final report on the social causes of juvenile crime. Hong Kong: Fight Crime Committee