Restorative Justice II

According to Restorative Justice: and Overview by Tony F. Marshall (1999), there is one major weakness to Restorative Justice. It is voluntary. If an offender does not take responsibility for a crime, there is little that can be done in a Restorative Justice setting. Also, if the victim does not want to participate, there is little that can be done.  For Restorative Justice to work several key elements have to come together. The offender has to take responsibility for his crime and the victim has to be willing to sit down with the offender (and a mediator) to work out an agreement to repair the damage that has been done. Another possible weakness is insincerity. If the offender is going through a Restorative process merely to avoid a harsher punishment, it is unlikely any real transformation will take place. The offender may feel he got off easier for his crime and have little to no reason to change the behavior. In some cases, it is completely inappropriate to bring an offender and victim together. In a case of extreme violence bringing the offender and victim together could cause even further harm to the victim by causing fear and stress. This is known as ‘revictimization”. While the current legal system is far from perfect, it does have built in safeguards to protect offenders’ rights such as presumption of innocence and right to professional legal counsel. In a restorative setting it is possible an accused offender may be coersed into participation for a number of reasons. He may feel he will not get a fair hearing and can do mediation to get a lighter punishment. Another potential flaw in Restorative Justice is a lack of professionalism. It is reasonable to assume the lawyer appointed to defend you in a case has well documented training and hopefully experience. In Restorative Justice there are few professional standards. A mediator can be someone with a great deal of professional training or a community leader with little professional training but who is well respected such as a pastor of the local church. Before accepting Restorative Justice it is important for both victims and offenders to accept and have trust in the mediator. With out professional standards to go by this must be done on a case by case basis. Who will be the right person for the job largely depends on setting and situation. It may not always be necessary for a person to have years of professional training to be a good mediator. Selecting the right mediator is a major factor in determining a successful outcome. Without professional standards, making the selection can be more difficult but by no mean impossible. However, even with these potential drawbacks, Restorative Justice shows a lot of promise as a way the offender, the victim and the community can strive for a more satisfactory justice system.

            Restorative Justice comes in many forms and can work in many different settings. Many Native American groups have been using Restorative Justice exclusively for all types of crimes involving not just the victim and offender but the whole community as well. Together, they decide how the offender will restore both the victim and the community. By no means is Restorative Justice an American phenomenon. Many different indigenous groups from all over the world have been using this concept. Within the last thirty or so years has western culture picked up on the idea and brought it into widespread use. There are many different applications of Restorative Justice. To get a sense of the different ways it can be used we will consider its application in schools, juvenile justice and with adult offenders.