With the right training and support, restorative justice can be more effective than traditional discipline in building a stronger school community. The U.S. criminal justice system has historically used two models to deal with crimes and criminals. The reprisal model emphasizes deterrence and punishment through the adversarial criminal justice process, and the rehabilitation model emphasizes the need for society to help criminals change their attitudes and behaviours. Since the 1970s, however, a third model, called restorative justice, has been accepted in many American communities. Restorative justice emphasizes the same concern for victims and perpetrators, while emphasizing the importance of coercion. It also seeks to focus on the harm done to people and relationships, rather than breaking a law. Beyond its philosophical framework, the restorative justice model includes a range of programs designed to meet the needs of victims of crime, the community and perpetrators. There are many programs and ideas associated with restorative justice. Several hundred communities have adopted the Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program (VVRP), which brings together victims and perpetrators to talk about the crime and its impact on the victim and to communicate a mutually acceptable solution. In a VRP mediation, the aggressor acknowledges the injustice he or she has committed and negotiates a plan to restore the victim and repair the damage.
In addition to financial compensation to the victim, VORP seeks to heal the emotional wounds of the victim and show the perpetrator the consequences of the crime and the need for behavior change. While lawyers can play a minor role in facilitating the restorative justice process, it is citizens who must shoulder the majority of the responsibility for healing the pain caused by crime. [5] The restorative justice process thus transfers responsibility for fighting crime. Finally, some researchers agree that more research is needed to support the validity of restorative justice in schools, particularly with respect to its implementation. [45] Specifically, restorative justice practices that are inconsistent, inadequate or under-resourced tend to have the worst record of success. [76] While many studies support positive restorative justice outcomes, more studies are needed. Other restorative justice programs include not-for-profit facilities for offenders, often with the participation of victims of crime; comprehensive victim services; and Community Crime Advisory Councils that address situations that contribute to crime. The concept of circles, which has long existed among Native Americans in the United States and Canada, has become more appealing. The victim and perpetrator agree to attend a group meeting where community members share advice and perspectives. “Healing circles” allow the abuser to express repentance while giving the victim and the community the opportunity to accept repentance.
In “penal circles,” the community helps determine the right response to crime. The concept of the circle has worked within Native American cultures in part because they tend to be closely related and circles require the participation of community members. The conferences, which originated with the Maori of New Zealand, are used with young offenders. Conferences involve discussion and mediation, but they involve community members (families, support groups, police, lawyers) as well as the victim and perpetrator. The Aboriginal Justice Program supports Aboriginal community justice programs that provide culturally relevant alternatives to traditional justice processes in appropriate circumstances. According to Howard Zehr, restorative justice differs from traditional criminal justice in the key questions it raises. In restorative justice, the questions are: These are the steps that traditionally take place in a restorative process. A 1998 meta-analysis by Bonta et al. found that restorative justice programs resulted in a slight reduction in recidivism rates. [70] Latimer, Dowden and Muise conducted a meta-analysis that provided a more precise definition.
[70] conducted the second meta-analysis on the effectiveness of RJ. This study is important because it addresses the problem of file drawers. In addition, some of the studies analysed implemented a randomised controlled trial (a gold standard in research methods), although this does not represent the majority of the included studies. This meta-analysis provides empirical support for the effectiveness of restorative justice in reducing recidivism rates and increasing compliance and satisfaction rates. However, the authors caution that self-selection bias is prevalent in most restorative justice studies. They cite authors of one study[71] who found no evidence that restorative justice has a therapeutic effect on recidivism beyond a self-selection effect. Restorative justice requires some form of encounter between the perpetrator and the victim. A 2013 Cochrane review highlighted the need for the perpetrator to meet the victim face-to-face. [46] In addition, individuals representing the entire community may participate in the meeting. The development of restorative justice in continental Europe, particularly in German-speaking countries, Austria, Germany and Switzerland, is somewhat different from the Anglo-Saxon experience. For example, victim-perpetrator mediation is only one model of restorative justice, but in the current European context it is the most important. [28] [29] Restorative justice is not just a theory, but a practice-oriented attitude in addressing (not only) criminally relevant conflict.
Restorative justice could evolve into a restorative practice. [30] The myth is that restorative justice replaces harsher consequences. The truth is that restorative justice is the stage that will lead to harsher consequences if necessary. But say it the way it is used in our schools. In summary, restorative justice helps a student own what they have done, do things right for the injured or affected, and engage the community to help both the victim and the perpetrator. Restorative justice recognizes that those who do evil also need healing. But somehow, when you put the two words together, they take on a different sound that doesn`t do the term any favors. Why use such a loaded term? I think – and I just think here – that this has to do with criticisms of the “softer” discipline. I believe that restorative justice is a term meant to convey tenacity while really meaning empathy and using more compassionate measures before applying stricter measures. The COREPOL (Conflict Resolution, Mediation and Restorative Justice and the Policing of Ethnic Minorities in Germany, Austria and Hungary) project is investigating the effects of restorative justice programmes in Germany, Austria and Hungary. The aim is to determine whether restorative justice can lead to better relations between the police and minorities.
The first phase is to examine the scope and role of RJ programmes in countries. The second step is to examine the position of certain minorities within societies, with the study focusing on Turks in Germany, Roma in Hungary and Africans in Austria. Police involvement in RJ programmes for minorities is being investigated. Finally, the proposed research will provide examples of situations where RJ can be used to improve communication and interaction between police and minority groups. The study focuses on countries that use the civil law legal system, as opposed to the common law legal system of English-speaking countries. COREPOL is coordinated by the German Police University and funded by the European Commission`s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7). A philosophical framework and suite of programs for the criminal justice system that emphasize the need to repair the harm done to victims of crime through a process of negotiation, mediation, victim empowerment and reparation. I will simplify the new school administration concept of the day (which has been around for some time): restorative justice.
