Restorative Justice Principles are clear and distinct, and they have played a critical role in the field of criminology. The first principal states that crime is a violation of people and relationships. It has been established that crime is simply an act that violates the law and an act that is against the state but at the same time, the major concern is focused on its emotional, social or even physical impact that the act committed has on the people. Therefore, crime often harms and affects individuals in the society, damage people’s relationships and further disrupts peace in the society. In this case, the victims and the community have significantly been harmed, and as such, they are in need of a possible restoration. Therefore, the victims, the community, and offenders are considered key stakeholders in justice. A restorative justice process will thus attempt to maximize the inputs and participation of all the parties involved in the search of an effective restoration, healing, and prevention (Braithwaite, 2003) .
The second principal states that violations create obligations and liabilities: The act committed is very complex and tends to create obligations to repair the harm while at the same time try and put things right as defined by the involved parties. An individual has responsibility for his or her actions on how the act has affected other people, to make possible amends and further learn ways to avoid possible re-offense in the future. The community, on the other hand, has a responsibility to the members through supporting the needs of the victims and offenders. The voluntary participation of these offenders is greatly maximized while at the same time, coercion and exclusion minimized (Grasmick et al, 1993).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Lastly, Restorative justice seeks to heal and put right the wrongs. The starting point for a suitable justice is believed to start by identifying the needs of the victims for information, restitution, validation, and testimony Safety of the victims is also an immediate priority. The offenders are involved in the process of repair of the caused harm. The justice process tends to maximize the opportunities suitable for information exchange, dialogue and the mutual consent of the victims and the offenders. The needs and competencies of offenders are taken into consideration, and justice often belongs to the community (Grasmick et al, 1993).
Seeking to explain the rise of criminological conflict theory clearly, Sykes critically analyzed three major factors that he found very vital and he believed they led to conflict criminology in the early 1960s.
First, according to Sykes, the impact of the war in Vietnam on American society was one of the major factors. During this time, there were massive disinformation and lies that were told to the global community by the government about the armed troops and the peaceful protesters that were killed. As the war escalated, there were intense doubts concerning the government policy, wisdom and the credibility of the individuals in power (Brown & Esbensen, 2010) .
The second factor according to Sykes is the growth of the counterculture that was experienced in the year 1960s. Protest marches intensified and as a result, the armed troops engaged in firing and killing peaceful protesters. During this period there was extensive dramatized fundamental conflict in people’s values leading people to engage in various activities that they believed were harmless but were considered illegal and criminal offense (Brown & Esbensen, 2010) .
Lastly, the third factor is related to the increasing political dissent over discrimination and the use of excessive force by the police in their aime to suppressing political dissenting voices. There were the use illegal tactics by the police to deal with citizens who appeared to have expressed legitimate grievances. There was the impression of the society comprising of groups that were in conflict with the firmly established legal system and who were considered threats to the powerful interest.
The modification of differential association theory entails borrowing various principles of the psychological behaviorism to explain the learning mechanism. In the first revision, Burgess and Akers developed a differential reinforcement theory through adding the aspect of operant conditioning (Akers, 1990) . Later on, Akers added another concept of imitation in forming social learning theory. The social learning theory by Akers is founded on four basic concepts.
First Akers concept is differential associations. This concept states that people are exposed to various people with diverse attitudes and values. Most of these individuals will thus model a criminal behavior while at the same time communicate values that might not be positive or on the other hand; they can develop a positive behavior (Akers, 1990) .
The other Aker’s concept is definitions. To Akers, the definition is an individual attitude or meaning that an individual will attach to a particular behavior defining the commission of such an act as either right or wrong, justified or unjustified.
The third concept by Aker is differential reinforcement. This concept focuses on the balance of the anticipated rewards or punishment considered consequences of behavior. The rewards can either be social or tangible. On the other hand, reinforcement can be internal such as punishing oneself (Akers, 1990) .
Lastly, Imitation as Aker’s concept argues that some individuals are believed to serve as the role models for other people. Therefore, whether a given model of the behavior is rewarded it will determine whether such a model behavior will be imitated. Akers lays emphasizes the notion that not all the resources of definition or the role models are equal because there are instances that some individuals such as parents are more important than others (Akers, 1990) .
The self-control theory was developed by Gottfredson and Hirschi in the year 1990 as one of the general theory of crime. According to this theory, the primary argument is that low levels of the self-control among children arise from the ineffective management practices adopted by their parents. Those individuals believed to have low self-control often show the various characteristics.
First, these individuals are impulsive and often they tend to desire for an immediate gratification. Secondly, they have a risk-seeking behavior and the desire to participate in dangerous activities. The another characteristic is the aspect of simplicity where they have the preference for an easy endeavor, the fourth feature is the physicality where they have the preference for the physical over spiritual or even mental tasks. The fifth feature is the self-centeredness where these individuals are only concerned with their needs and desires rather than of the others and lastly, anger, where these individuals are believed to have very low tolerance for any frustration and have a quick temper (Grasmick et al, 1993).
Therefore, an individual believed to have a low self-control in most instances is presented with an opportunity to engage in delinquency; therefore, these characteristics will likely make the person choose to engage in such a delinquency behavior since he or she will perceive it to offer an immediate benefit mostly the material goods. For instance, these individual will consider delinquency behavior as the most suitable and easy way that would enable them to fulfill their personal desires, and this is often at the expense of other people.
References
Akers, R. L. (1990). Rational choice, deterrence, and social learning theory in criminology: The path not taken. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-) , 81 (3), 653-676.
Braithwaite, J. (2003). Principles of restorative justice. Restorative justice and criminal justice: competing or reconcilable paradigms , 1-20.
Brown, S. E., & Esbensen, F. A. (2010). Criminology: Explaining crime and its context . Routledge.
Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., Bursik, R. J., & Arneklev, B. J. (1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory of crime. Journal of research in crime and delinquency , 30 (1), 5-29.
