The standard definition of justice by both police officers and ordinary people is punishing wrongdoers. It seeks to set an example for others while also reprimanding those involved in wrongdoing. This definition of justice is widely accepted and encouraged because it satisfies our inherent human desire for revenge. For instance, sentencing a murder to hang does not bring back the lives he or she took. Instead, it feeds the anger those affected by their action have by having them feel the murderer has suffered the way their loved ones did. While this feeling may be satisfying, it does nothing to the wounds that remain sore even after the execution of justice. Contrary to common belief, such a form of punishment does not give closure to those affected. In simple words, two wrongs do not make a right. Restorative justice seeks to punish wrongdoers and identify and repair the crime's damage—dialogue and contextual interpretation are the primary constructs of this type of justice. Restorative justice appeals to the emotions of both sides of the crime; the victims and the criminals. This type of justice allows everyone to feel included and part of something substantial in the long run. Since they are significant players in enforcing justice, police officers are best equipped to pioneer restorative justice and create a healthy society for every person.
Policing has, in many ways, represented danger rather than peace. Children and young adults learn to associate police officers with chaos from an early age. For that reason, restorative policing should begin in schools so that students can learn the real purpose of justice (Johnstone, 2013). Most criminal cases in schools are minor, such a petty theft, bullying, and vandalizing. Applying restorative policing in such situations means identifying the crime, the criminal, the victim, and its impact. In the case of bullying, authorities should educate students that bullying is not right (Bazemore & Griffiths, 2003). Further, they should learn the various types of bullying and its consequences on victims and offenders. In doing so, anyone who commits the crime cannot use ignorance as an excuse. At that level, the students' conscience will itself be a barrier to the crime. Authorities should employ the same idea in other crimes (Johnstone, 2013). They should engage the victims and offenders in dialogue and give each ample time to speak their sentiments on the issue at hand.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Conversation encourages forgiveness and remorse from the victims and offenders, respectively. However, that is not to mean that a show of remorse exempts the offenders. Although appropriate punishment is executed, the offenders see the bigger picture of their crime. Both parties understand that justice is not a ruthless means of executing punishment but a flexible way of reconciling the community (Bazemore & Griffiths, 2003). With that kind of foundation, students will continue the trend of restorative justice in social disagreements and societal misunderstandings. Students will also understand that committing a crime does not cast them into the wrong side of the law forever and that through patience and self-control, they can reform and remain an essential part of society.
To effectively apply restorative justice, society must first scrap all the misleading assumptions of the rule of law. Then, everyone should understand that imperfection is inherent in all human beings and not a defining factor. With that mentality, crime rates reduce, and it will cement understanding between members of communities.
References
Bazemore, G., & Griffiths, C. (2003). Police reform, restorative justice and restorative policing.
Police Practice and Research, 4(4), 335-346. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15614260310001631244
Johnstone, G. (2013). Restorative justice: Ideas, values, debates . Routledge.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=XGSpAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=restorative+justice&ots=-6pvnLNc4x&sig=VL_lkAXjF47jVmPhXGLdIrruzDQ
