For the purpose of this assignment I will be looking at how restorative justice can be used following specific crimes, also it will discuss the psychological and social impact of crime for a victim.
Restorative Justice connects both the victim of a crime and the perpetrator who inflicted that crime together. The implementation of this enables everyone affected by an incident to participate in repairing the harm and finding a positive way forward. It is available to victims at all stages of the criminal justice system and should not be denied no matter what offence has been committed against them. Both the Victim and Offender can make informed choices on their participation.
Restorative justice is used by allowing both parties to gain an understanding of each other and the aim is to work towards forgiveness and possible reintegration of the offender back into their community. This process can in some cases help the surrounding community to feel a sense of security as they are able to witness the offender’s completion of the program. It is important that individuals understand the objectives of restorative justice, and its intent on providing equal opportunities for victims and offenders to discuss their situation. The offender should have an equal participative role, the facilitator should be attentive and receptive, it is important to see if there is any remorse, motivation to change and an understanding of the impact of the offender’s actions.
Zehr and Mika (2003) describe the restorative justice process as a way to repair relationships and put right the wrongs, so victims are the start point. The victim are supported to take part in the process, to help reinforce the impact of the crime they fell victim to. Hoyle et al, (2002) found that victim participation can be low, although most who attended restorative meetings were said to respond positively saying that they felt different about the offender after. De Mesmaecker (2010) suggested that the influence of media in restorative justice can be perceived to only focus on the victims, with no mention of the offender which portrays this as a negative way forward.
The restorative justice process is a way to encompass key principles; these are described by Van Ness and Strong (1997) as being encounter, reparation, reintegration and participation. This opportunity enables offenders to apologise and take account for their actions. Braithwaite (1989) suggests that this process is seen to be a ‘police cautioning’ for the offender without being degrading and more of a re-integrative ceremony this is seen as their second chance.
The restorative process has been seen to be effective in response to low level youth offending, where the public interest does not require a formal criminal justice disposal. This can form part of an Acceptable Behaviour Contract and offer a resolution to reoccurrence of offending behaviour in schools and children’s homes. (CPS.gov.uk, 2019) Overall it can reduce court and imprisonment costs and for adult offenders it may be a diversion from incarceration.
As Sherman (1993) suggests in the deviance theory often criminals convince themselves they have not acted in an immoral manner and restorative justice can engage guilty parties to consider their actions, reflect and transform their own conduct. He alludes that crime may be decreased if courts and law enforcement treats all citizens with respect and an unprejudiced view with regard to punishments.
There is the potential for restorative justice to be used for a variety of crime, in some crimes this may cause potential challenges such as in sexual offences, hate crime and domestic violence although in these kind of offences it can still been seen to help. It works best when there is a personal victim although this is where challenges can be met when the perpetrator is known to the victim. For higher risk victim’s restorative justice may not be suitable as it could reflect that they are more vulnerable and could provide an opportunity potential revenge and intimidation from the offender.
Miller and Mullins (2009) advocate that there are potential hazards using restorative justice for crime such as domestic and gendered violence, as in general it can be a recurrent offence and be a combination of sexual and physical abuse. This can be seen as violation of trust by the victim and a failure perceived by the family or community failed to protect the victim. Frederick and Lizdas (2003) implied that the process does not always account for one of the main characteristics of the majority of domestic violence cases; the existence of on-going danger and can be always at risk from the perpetrator’s control and battery.
For both the offender and victim crime can also negatively impact on the social well-being. The victim may have long term issues following the impact of crime, such as being afraid to go out alone, fear of being watched, guilt or blame and even on going mental health, issues such as PTSD. PTSD has been found to be more prevalent in rape victims following rape by a stranger, use of physical force, display of weapons, and victim injury (Davis GC & Breslau N. 1994)
Controversially it has been suggested within the Victim precipitation theory that victims may initiate a crime being carried against them. Schafer (1968) describes a victim as being provocative towards an offender, with characteristics that can lead to a person choosing to commit a crime against someone. This could be seen as the way a victim was clothed or the route they were walking that night suggesting the victim is as guilty and as much responsibility to the crime as an offender. Amir (1967) suggested in a around sexual assault it is often viewed that a manner of dress or behaviour is seen as a sexual invitation. Victim advocates see this as an undermining value towards a victim whereas Schafer (1968) suggested that the victim’s part played in the crime should be addressed in relation to offender sentencing. Whereas Eigenberg et al. (2008) proposes a crime may have taken place regardless of the victim’s actions, also there are also many cases where the crime would not have occurred, if it was not for the actions of the victim. The theory and its judgements are said not to excuse the offender, more of a study of precipitation offering a full accounting of the offender’s responsibility in the crime. The theory is portrayed to help understand issues relating to offender motivation and intent.
Similarly, the Deviant Place Theory suggests that a person is more inclined to become the victim of a crime when exposed to dangerous areas. Such as a mugger is more likely to mark and target a person walking alone after dark in a bad neighbourhood. The more a person chooses to frequent into bad neighbourhoods where violent crime is common entity, the greater the risk of victimization. Another consideration is that low-income households are more likely to be located in or near dangerous areas of town. making it harder individuals from poor socioeconomic backgrounds to move away from dangerous areas.
Cohen and Felson (1979) lifestyle theory links to this as it articulates that certain people may become the victims of crimes because of their lifestyles and choices. Examples include walking alone at night or wearing expensive jewellery predisposing yourself to become a victim of crime all a common pattern that goes unchanged. They believed for a crime to occur it requires three fundamental elements, a motivated offender who will act on their criminal intentions, a victim and the absence of a responsible guardian to prevent crime from happening and deter individuals. The theory goes on to allude that crime is a normal practice and dependability on available opportunities to offend. If an unprotected target is seen and there are rewards, a highly motivated offender will commit a crime. Routine activities theory is ordinarily used to explain why youths are at a heightened risk of being involved in offending behaviour and of being victimized. The demographics of an individual will be influential on their own daily activities, such as being out at night and mixing with criminals and taking part in activities such as drug taking as a consequence their routine and lifestyle choices predispose them to victimization. Cohen and Felson (1979) suggested with this theory that for an offender carrying out a crime this may give them the lime light and acceptance they are wanting such as a gang ritual and can strengthen any negative behaviours.
These individuals have the same values, beliefs and attitudes as law abiding civilians but learn as juveniles to neutralize these values. Sykes and Matza (1976) ascertain within the Neutralization Theory that delinquents disregard any controlling influences of rules and use neutralization techniques to weaken and broke a hold on society. If society has used a bias it can go onto teach these individuals that getting ahead by any means is all that matters which becomes thrill seeking Their behaviour will negate between law abiding and breaking the law, whereas other theories suggest that individuals break the law exclusively with no committal to the law. Following a crime there is denial of any wrong doing and if no one was harmed it can be deemed as victimless (Matza, 2004)
To conclude empirical work on theories surrounding crime and restorative justice approaches are seen to be ever changing. Undoubtedly restorative justice has been seen to enhance victim satisfaction. The programmes offered give offenders the chance to take responsibility for their actions and repair harm through restitution. offenders who partake in restorative justice programs have reported moderate increases in satisfaction compared to offenders in the traditional system offering a more positive outcome. It can offer a more substantial appearance to public safety and the management of offenders.
If restorative justice is implemented correctly it can be beneficial to both the offender and the victim and give them both a way forward. A key resolution is to offer restorative justice to all criminal offences, allow restorative justice meetings to be delivered in all areas of the criminal justice system, and raise awareness among the general public and among key agencies within the criminal justice system with ongoing facilities of an environment which is favourable to restorative justice. By supporting the process, increasing the flow of cases and information it can provide opportunities for all.
References
Amir M (1967). Victim precipitated forcible rape. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science. 58 (4) 493-502
CPS (2019) Restorative Justice https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/restorative-justice
Cohen, L. E., and M. Felson. 1979. Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review 44:588–608.
Davis GC, Breslau N. (1994) Post-traumatic stress disorder in victims of civilian trauma and criminal violence. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 17(2):289-99. PMID: 7937360.
De Mesmaecker, V. (2010). Building social support for restorative justice through the media: is taking the victim perspective the most appropriate strategy? Contemporary Justice Review, 13, 239-267. doi: 10.1080/10282580.2010.498225
Eigenberg H, Garland T (2008) Victim blaming. In: Moriarty LJ (Eds), Controversies in Victimology, Anderson Publishing, USA, p. 21-36.
Frederick, L. and Lizdas K. 2003. The role of restorative justice in the battered women’s
movement. Minneapolis: [Online: Battered Women’s JUSTICE Project].
Hoyle et al (2006). Youth Crime and Justice. Liverpool: Pine forge press. pg 114.
Matza,D. (2004) . Neutralization Theory: Learning Rationalizations as motives. In M.M Lanier, Essential Criminology ,Boulder : Westview press 169-176.
Miller, J. and Mullins, C. 2009. Feminist Theories of Girls’ Delinquency in The Delinquent Girl edited by M. Zahn. Temple University Press, Philadelphia.
Restorative Justice Council (2016) About Restorative Justice https://restorativejustice.org.uk/about-restorative-justice#:~:text=Restorative%20justice%20can%20potentially%20be%20used%20for%20any,example%20sexual%20offences%2C%20hate%20crime%20and%20domestic%20violence.
Schafer S (1968) Victimology: The victim and his criminal. Reston Publishing Company, USA.
SHERMAN, L. W. (1993) ‘Defiance, Deterrence, and Irrelevance: A Theory of the Criminal Sanction’, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(4), pp. 445–473. doi: 10.1177/0022427893030004006.
Sykes,G.M and Matza,D. (1957). Techniques of Neutralization. A theory of delinquency. American Sociological R/V, 22,664-670.