In recent years, researchers have started to pay considerable attention to the concept of restorative justice (RJ) in criminology. In this regard, researchers and other experts have put forward some fundamental principles and practices of RJ. This includes the view of crime as a conflict between individuals rather than between the offender and the State. More to this is the belief that the responsibility for the governance of security, crime, and disorder in the society, in a region or a state, is for all members of the society, region, or State, respectively (Menkel-Meadow, 2007). According to Mantle et al. (2005), RJ is a humanitarian approach. Based on this, Mantle et al. (2005) argue that RJ brings to the foreground ambitions of forgiveness, healing, reparation, and reintegration. In this paper, the concept of RJ will be reviewed. In addition, the paper will examine the affinities and tensions between RJ and three “individual” criminological theories. The three theories that will be examined are classicism, individual positivism, and “law and order” conservatism.
The Concept of Restorative Justice
RJ is both an “idea” and a “movement” (Mantle et al., 2005). As such, it carries many different understandings and unites adherents who hold widely differing aims. In this regard, RJ programs are designed to bring together offenders and their victims and community representatives and attempt to engage them in the process of reconciliation and reparation (Menkel-Meadow, 2007). The purpose of RJ programs is to allow these parties to meet and voice their concerns in order to achieve a mutually agreeable resolution. To facilitate this process, there are a number of models that can be employed. This includes “victim-offender reconciliation, family-group conferencing, and sentencing circles” (Mantle et al., 2005). These three models differ in many aspects, such as in terms of the role played by the facilitator and the number and type of participants included.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Three Individual Theories of Crime
A wide range of literature has documented the respective relations between RJ and several dominant criminological theories (Mantle et al., 2005). In this paper, three major criminological theories will be considered, which include classicism, individual positivism, and law and order conservatism. These three theories differ in many aspects, such as in terms of “the view they take on human nature; their understandings of the origins of social order; their definitions of crime, their assumptions about the extent and distribution of crime; their of views on the causes of crime; and finally, the implications they hold for policy and practice” (Mantle et al., 2005). Classism presents the offender as making the wrong choice, whereas law and order conservatism looks to individual wickedness as the cause of crimes. It is important to note that these three criminological theories are of importance within the current penal policies and systems. Out of these three criminological theories, classicism remains at the heart of the legal framework used for sentencing (Mantle et al., 2005). This theory mainly focuses on the seriousness of an offense.
Relationship between RJ and Classicism, Individual Positivism and Law and Order Conservatism
The Relationship between RJ and Classism
Classicists view human beings as voluntary and rational beings, governed by self-interest. In this regard, classicist holds that all individuals are equal and that each individual has a free will as well as faculty for reasoned action (Mantle et al., 2005). In addition, classicists hold that all individuals are equal in the sense that each individual is obliged to enter into a contract with the State. Thus, social order is understood in terms of this contract, and crime as an act that violates it. People who break the law ought to be punished, and the responsibility of dealing with offenders lies with the State. According to classicism, the punishment should be dispensed in accordance with the two key principles of proportionality and parsimony (Maxwell & Morris, 2001). It is important to acknowledge that this theory aligns itself with both retributivism and reductivism. Punishment is aimed at deterring an offender from further committing a criminal offense.
Similarly, RJ may be seen as having both retributivist and reductivist ambitions. Theoretically and philosophically, RJ and retribution are compatible. Classicism draws attention to the criminal act. In other words, this theory is not concerned with the offender, the offender’s history, or the offender’s personal or social circumstance but rather on the seriousness of the criminal act (Mantle et al., 2005). As such, this criminological theory holds that the severity of the criminal act must be dispassionately appraised. In addition, this theory holds that the offense must matched with a commensurate amount of punishment. Because of the sharp focus on the seriousness of the criminal act, classicism and RJ are uneasy bedfellows (Mantle et al., 2005). The latter demands a more complicated and subjective process. The circumstances of the criminal offender are afforded relevance. In addition, the victim and community representatives are required to make a contribution to proceedings (McCol, 2004). Therefore, the outcomes of RJ are much less predictable compared to the outcomes of the classicist approach. Thus, the relationship between classicism and RJ is strained. Under classicism, the State has full responsibility for determining if an individual is guilty as well as for punishing offenders. On the other hand, RJ places this responsibility on the hands of the community (McCold, 2004). Here, the State system is used as the last resort. However, both classicism and RJ have some affinity when it comes to their concern about the offender’s future. Both RJ and classicism wish for a return to law-abiding citizenship.
The Relationship between RJ and Individual Positivism
Individual positivism is a criminological theory that holds that crime arises because the offender has not been sufficiently or effectively socialized or educated in society’s values. Simply put, this theory holds that the under-socialization of the offender causes crime (Mantle et al., 2005). RJ and individual positivism are not entirely at peace with each other. However, they share some important assumptions. Both RJ and individual positivism have similar views on social order. They both define crime in a similar “social” way. In addition, both RJ and individual positivism aim to “reintegrate” offenders. The difference is that RJ focuses on changing the attitudes of the offender through individual or group therapy, whereas individual positivism focuses on re-socializing the offender.
The Relationship between RJ and Conservatism
The conservative theory holds that humans are obliged to curb their drive for self-gratification. In this regard, social order is maintained through eschewing self-interest for the general good (Mantle et al., 2005). In addition, this criminological theory holds that an offender should be punished harshly to not only provide them with a moral lesson but also to serve as a general deterrent. Although RJ and conservatism differ in a number of aspects, such as in terms of how best to respond to crime, they share some features. For instance, both RJ and conservatism adopt a broader definition of crime that the two criminological theories discussed above. RJ’s interest in strengthening community ties and values moves it close to conservatism. RJ seeks to include the community much more directly in the delivery of justice, with the aim to strengthen social ties. Similarly, conservatism has a natural concern with the community due to its position on the source of crime.
References
Mantle, G., Fox, D., & Dhami, M. K. (2005). Restorative justice and three individual theories of crime. Internet Journal of Criminology , 1 , 36.
Maxwell, G., & Morris, A. (2001). Putting restorative justice into practice for adult offenders. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice , 40 (1), 55-69.
McCold, P. (2004). What is the role of community in restorative justice theory and practice. Critical issues in restorative justice , 155-172.
Menkel-Meadow, C. (2007). Restorative justice: What is it and does it work? Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. , 3 , 161-187.
