The term “restorative justice” has appeared in written sources since the first half of the nineteenth century. [11] The modern use of the term was introduced by Albert Eglash, who described three different approaches to justice in 1977: 12 For I know how great are your transgressions and how great are your sins—you who afflict the righteous, who accept bribes, and push the needy into the door. 13 Wherefore, the wise man will be silent at this time; because it`s a bad time. 14 Seek good, not evil, that you may live; and so the Lord the God of hosts will be with you, as you have said. 15 Hate evil and love good, and create justice in the door; it may be that Jehovah, the God of hosts, is merciful to the rest of Joseph. While lawyers can play a minor role in facilitating the restorative justice process, it is citizens who must shoulder the majority of the responsibility for healing the pain caused by crime. [5] The restorative justice process thus transfers responsibility for fighting crime. Jesus and the New Testament spent little time studying government structures. Instead, Jesus encouraged us to learn simple equations of justice such as “Righteous.” An eye for an eye, a tooth and a tooth for a tooth.
Jesus taught us to love our enemies, which includes respect for their property and health. If this ethic were widespread, there would be no theft or violence, and no corrective action would be necessary. When Jesus met Zacchaeus, Zacchaeus immediately seemed to understand that if he wanted to follow Jesus, he had to make amends for what he had stolen. When Jesus announced his ministry in Nazareth, he announced the Jubilee; The ultimate economic remedy to prevent permanent economic servitude. Restorative justice also distinguishes between resulting injuries (caused by the crime itself or its consequences) and contributing injuries (those that existed before the crime was committed and may have caused the crime). The resulting injuries can be physical, such as an injury, or emotional, such as embarrassment or shame. Contributing injuries may include cases where victims of child abuse become victims themselves, or where substance abuse leads to criminal behavior to support addiction. These situations are not an excuse for criminal behavior, but must be addressed in healing attempts. The potential of restorative justice to reduce recidivism is one of the strongest and most promising arguments for its use in prisons.
However, there are theoretical and practical limitations that may make restorative justice impossible in prisons. These include difficulties in engaging perpetrators and victims in mediation; controversial influence from family, friends and the community; and the prevalence of mental illness among inmates. [37] Other restorative justice programs include community-based services for offenders, often with the participation of victims of crime; comprehensive victim services; and Community Crime Advisory Councils that address situations that contribute to crime. The concept of circles, which has long existed among Native Americans in the United States and Canada, has become more appealing. The victim and perpetrator agree to attend a group meeting where community members share advice and perspectives. “Healing circles” allow the abuser to express repentance while giving the victim and the community the opportunity to accept repentance. In “penal circles,” the community helps determine the right response to crime. The concept of the circle has worked within Native American cultures in part because they tend to be closely related and circles require the participation of community members. The conferences, which originated with the Maori of New Zealand, are used with young offenders. Conferences involve discussion and mediation, but they involve community members (families, support groups, police, lawyers) as well as the victim and perpetrator.
In addition, restorative justice aims to include those most directly affected by a crime, namely victims and survivors. Instead of a perpetrator-centred trial, restorative justice focuses on those who have suffered harm and the harm they have suffered. In the restorative justice process, victims are able to participate more fully than in the traditional system. Similarly, the community plays an important role in the recovery process by setting standards of conduct, helping to hold the perpetrator accountable, and providing support and opportunities to affected parties to repair the damage that has occurred. The ability to express the harm suffered by a victim, full participation in decision-making, and community support help heal after a serious crime. Victim-perpetrator (VOD) dialogue (also known as victim-perpetrator mediation, victim-aggressor conference, victim-perpetrator reconciliation or restorative judicial dialogue) is generally a meeting between victim and perpetrator in the presence of one or two trained facilitators. This system usually involves only a few participants and is often the only option available to incarcerated offenders. The victim-offender dialogue originated in Canada as part of another judicial sanction in a 1974 case in Kitchener, Ontario, involving two accused vandals who met face-to-face with their many victims. [48] One of the first victim-perpetrator mediation projects in the United Kingdom was run by the South Yorkshire Probation Service from 1983 to 1986. [49] . restorative justice undermines legal rights; Restorative justice leads to network expansion; restorative justice trivializes crime (especially men`s violence against women); restorative justice fails to “restore” victims and perpetrators; restorative justice does not bring about real change and prevent recidivism; Restorative justice leads to discriminatory outcomes; restorative justice expands police powers; Restorative justice does not touch on power imbalances; Restorative justice leads to vigilant justice; restorative justice lacks legitimacy; And restorative justice fails to create “justice.” [72] A meta-analysis by Bonta et al.
from 1998. noted that restorative justice programs have resulted in a slight reduction in recidivism rates. [70] Latimer, Dowden and Muise conducted a meta-analysis that provided a more precise definition. [70] conducted the second meta-analysis on the effectiveness of RJ. This study is important because it addresses the problem of file drawers. In addition, some of the studies analysed implemented a randomised controlled trial (a gold standard in research methods), although this does not represent the majority of the included studies. This meta-analysis provides empirical support for the effectiveness of restorative justice in reducing recidivism rates and increasing compliance and satisfaction rates. However, the authors caution that self-selection bias is prevalent in most restorative justice studies. They cite authors of one study[71] who found no evidence that restorative justice has a therapeutic effect on recidivism beyond a self-selection effect. Restorative justice, a response to criminal behaviour that focuses on repairing offenders and resolving problems arising from a crime that brings victims, perpetrators and the community together to restore harmony between the parties. Restorative justice involves direct mediation and conflict resolution between the abuser, victims, their families and the community.
It holds the abuser accountable to the other parties while providing learning experiences that provide a law-abiding lifestyle as realistic alternatives to crime. American psychologist Albert Eglash is generally credited with first adopting the term “restorative justice” in his 1959 article “Creative Restitution: Its Roots in Psychiatry, Religion and Law,” which was later discussed in his 1977 article “Beyond Restitution: Creative Restitution” with the perspectives of retributive justice (punitive justice) and restorative justice (justice emphasizing personal reform). was compared and contrasted.