Rehabilitative justice

Angered and embarrassed by Mohammed, John loses his cool and hits Mohammed on the side of the head with his cricket bat, causing a temporary concussion, extensive bruising on the side of the head and a black eye. Restorative Justice: Introduction Restorative justice can only be described as a new movement in the fields of both victimology and criminology. This approach to justice acknowledges that crime potentially causes injury to people and communities and insists that justice repairs those injuries and that both parties, the victim and the perpetrator have to be a part of the process (Bazemore & Walgrave, 1999). Processes in restorative justice therefore require and often involve the victim, the offender and the surrounding community to be involved in responding to the crime.

In addition, all these three parties become elemental components to the criminal justice process, while the government and other legal professionals serve as facilitators of the system which offers the offender a means of being accountable and reparation to the victim. The final major difference to this approach is that it measures the success of the process differently. This means that rather than taking into account the punishment that is inflicted, it also considers the harm that has been repaired and or prevented throughout the process. Application of restorative Justice in the case of John and Mohammed The case between John and Mohammed is perfect for application of the restorative approach to justice. The reason for this is because all the parties involved, the offender, the victim and the associated community, can contribute to the restoration of justice in this case.

This is because there are nuances in this case that need serious consideration before a resolution is reached, the harm caused by the crime is repaired, restitution for the victim is achieved and the community has played its part (Hammilton, Hammilton and Pittman, 2004). The process also allows for the victim to obtain restitution which can either be symbolic but in this case could only be symbolic, since both the victim and the offender are underage (Hammilton, Hammilton and Pittman, 2004). Mohammed can get the opportunity to address some of his past behavior that could have provoked the offender to the point of violence and this could be beneficial to the reintegration process. Finally, the victims, through this process is able to have some semblance of control over the process and the outcome.

Using this approach to justice the offender also gets opportunities that are advantages to them in the recounting of their side of the narrative. The offender is able to take accountability for the offence, meet face to face with the victim, tell their side of the narrative to both the community and the victim so that the necessary repair to the harm can be done. This is especially pertinent in this case considering how Mohammed has always offended John in the past. The community also gets the opportunity to build on the sense of community as well as mutual accountability that in this case is so necessary considering the school setting. Limitation and Challenges to Implementation There are limitations and challenges to restorative justice that should be taken into consideration.

One of the limits that should be considered before the application of this approach to justice is the lack of consensus as to the practices that should be included within the approach and the limits to which they should reach. For example, a major cause of concern is whether reformative justice should be considered a process or whether it should be taken as an outcome. There are numerous benefits of adopting the rehabilitative approach in the case of John and Mohammed. The first benefit is the practicability of the approach. Rehabilitating the offender is practical because most of the rehabilitative approaches specifically address the personal needs of the juvenile and gives them realistic options that can and would help them when they rejoin the community without necessarily having to recidivate.

This approach hinges on the goals and means model and this makes it vital for the offender, and more so if the offender is a juvenile. This is because it teaches the offender the necessary steps needed to be taken in order to obtain certain goals in a legitimate way. In such a case, no lasting effects can be achieved from putting offenders through this approach since they go through them as a result of being coerced (National Research Council, 2013). Ensuring that the offender who has undergone these approach and its various programs has actually benefitted and will rejoin the society as a better individual is impossible. Provisions for Pursuing Restorative Justice for Juvenile Cases in the UK In the UK correctional justice system, there are indeed provisions for pursuing restorative justice.

Restorative justice in the UK can take any of a number of forms of victim offender mediation such as the direct contact between the offender and the victim or indirect communication which always has third party involvement. The aims of restorative justice include; victim satisfaction, entailing reducing fear of the victim and ensuring that are paid back for the harm that is inflicted on them, engagement with the perpetrator so as to ensure that are aware of the effects of their action and they can take responsibility for the same, and finally, the creation of community capital, meant to increase public confidence and trust in the criminal justice system. Such processes are allowed for in learning institutions in the UK in the form of an extension of the Acceptable Behavior Contract that is used when it comes to resolving offenses in schools and children environments.

Youth conditional cautions which are part of restorative justice processes also has a provision in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act of 2008, and allows for another approach for the criminal justice system to employ restorative approach. Criminal Behaviour and Restorative Justice There are three major theories on crime. These are classicism, individual positivism and conservatism. Looking deeper into these theories on crime, it is possible to determine whether they support or challenge restorative justice and an approach to addressing victims and offenders. This theory also looks to appraising the seriousness of the offence and matching the same with the punishment to be allocated and in order to ascertain this, the state is given the sole responsibility to judge and administer the punishment to the offender (Smith, 1995).