Restorative Justice Theory, its Underlying Assumptions and how this Theory proposes to Reduce Crime
The restorative justice theory holds the view that crime is destructive to human life and the best way to deal with it is through fixing those harms by bringing together both the victim and the offender. The theory mainly focuses on repairing the harm that has been done, and it allows the stakeholders to meet and find a resolution ( Cullen & Johnson, 2017). According to Clarysse and Moore (2017), r estorative justice theory holds the assumption that the role of justice is to fix the harm that has already been created by an offense. It also holds the belief that the responsibility of the people who have been affected by the offense to come together and find a resolution while the government is expected to maintain peace and order within a society.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Three Problems with Restorative Justice and how these Problems affect the Feasibility of implementing this Theory in Practice
The restorative justice theory has three main problems which are the justice problem, the prison problem, and the criminology problem. According to Cullen and Johnson (2017), t he major justice concerns that are as a result of restorative justice theory are the fact that the theory is not concerned with what happens before an offender admits to committing a crime. The theory has no provisions for instances where offenders don't confess to their crimes. Additionally, the theory also depends on persuading offenders to accept their guiltiness. The theory’s major prison problem is that it attempts to rehabilitate all offenders while they are still part of the community. Finally, Standing, Fearon, and Dee note that another problem is the criminological theory where the restorative theory suggests that the involvement of the people affected by an offense in finding solutions reduces crime (2012). It must, however, be noted that no criminology theory suggests the cause of crime as the stigmatization of the offenders.
The Four Limits to Restorative Justice and the one that is most troubling
The four limits to restorative justice are the fact that it is founded on a limited crime theory, it does not aim to alter the apparent predictors of recidivism, its intervention methods cannot work on serious offenders, and it does not also pay attention to correctional intervention that has always proven to be effective ( Choi, Gilbert, & Green, 2013) . The most troubling limitation is its poor intervention methods. The theory’s suggestion that crime can be solved by involving all the affected parties in the process of finding a resolution does not take into account hardened criminals who are a danger to society ( Cullen & Johnson, 2017) .
Reintegrative Shaming, how does it differ from Stigmatizing Shaming and the Similarities and Differences between the two Types of Shaming
According to Valenzuela (2016), reintegrative shaming is a sanction enforced on an offender and the community by the justice system with the primary aim of improving the bond that exists between the community and the offender. The main difference between reintegrative shaming and stigmatic shaming is the fact that former is aimed at reintroducing offenders back into their societies as rehabilitated individuals while stigmatic shaming destroys the bond that exists between the offender and the community. The main similarity between the two types of shaming is that they are both used as a way of finding a resolution between offenders and communities.
Procedural Justice and how it works as an Underlying Theory of Restorative Justice
Procedural justice refers to the fair process used by people in authority to arrive at decisions and allocate resources ( Hollander-blumoff, 2017) . According to Hollander-blumoff (2017), p rocedural justice can also be instrumental if used as a theory of restorative justice as through it, due process will be followed before a resolution is made. The application of procedural justice will also ensure fairness as both the accounts of the offender and the victim will be taken into consideration before making a decision. Additionally, procedural justice will create a structured process to be followed while applying the restorative justice theory.
References
Choi, J. J., Gilbert, M. J., & Green, D. L. (2013). Patterns of victim marginalization in victim-offender mediation: Some lessons learned. Crime, Law and Social Change, 59 (1), 113- 132. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10611-012-9382-1
Clarysse, L. B., & Moore, S. A. (2017). Restorative justice, peacebuilding practice, and educational praxis: Critical analysis of Canadian and United Kingdom discourses. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 14 (4), 123-138.
Cullen, F. T., & Johnson, C. L. (2017). Correctional theory: Context and Consequences (2 nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Hollander-blumoff, R. (2017). Formation of procedural justice judgments in legal negotiation. Group Decision and Negotiation, 26 (1), 19-43. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10726-016-9498-2
Standing, V., Fearon, C., & Dee, T. (2012). Investigating the value of restorative practice. The International Journal of Educational Management, 26 (4), 354-369. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513541211227764
Valenzuela, R. (2016). The Nashville john school: Affective governance and the reintegrative shaming approach. Human Organization, 75 (3), 249-257. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.17730/1938-3525-75.3.249
