How is restorative justice a better alternative to prison?

How is restorative justice a better alternative to prison?

Abstract

This research paper will investigate and identify the various ways that restorative justice is a better alternative to prison. Restorative justice is a method of justice that includes all effected parties of a crime. These methods include victim assistance, community service, peacemaking circles, victim-offender mediation, and family group conferencing. All of these methods include the victim, the offender, and the community. Everyone gets a voice and a chance to have an opinion on the sentence the offender receives. Restorative justice gives everyone the opportunity that sending an offender directly to prison may not offer.

Keywords: Restorative justice, prison alternatives, victim, offender

How is restorative justice a better alternative to prison?

Restorative justice is a criminal justice punishment system that is used instead of prison to repair the harm that has been done by the crime. This process allows for the offender, victim, and the community to get together and agree on a proper sentence for the offender rather than having a trial and sending the offender to prison. The United States prison system is geared towards placing people in prison and “rehabilitating” them. Unfortunately, most of the time in the United States, the prisoners are locked up and the key is thrown away. The prisoners are forgotten about. Some places in the United States have started using the method of restorative justice rather than rehabilitation. Other places, such as Greenland have implemented a new prison rehabilitation system that takes a different approach to regular prison life. This paper will examine various forms of restorative justice, as well as various prison approaches. This examination will determine how restorative justice is better than prison.

Nuuk, Greenland
Greenland recently opened a maximum-security prison in the capital of Nuuk. This prison houses some of the toughest offenders in Greenland. These prisoners previously carried out their sentences in Denmark, in the regular prison model that is seen in the United States. Forty inmates were asked and selected to move from Denmark to Nuuk, Greenland to carry out their sentence in this new prison and test the new prison model of rehabilitation.

Ny Anstalt prison was featured on the Netflix series “Inside the World’s Toughest Prisons” in season 5 episode 1. This prison houses forty inmates and has an average of four guards working in different shifts. The main issue that this prison faces is that Nuuk is such a small community that everybody knows everybody. Inmates grew up with guards and their families. One inmate has a brother that is a police officer. One officer when asked what it is like to arrest a neighbor was quoted as saying “Sometimes it’s easier because they know who is coming to talk to them” (Venner & Pearson, 2021, 03:00). While sometimes it is easier to know the offender, other times it can be difficult when the offender is an inmate convicted of murder. This prison appears to be built on a mutual respect between the inmates and the staff.

Upon arrival to the prison, Caston the head of security at Ny Anstalt, shakes every inmate’s hand (Venner & Pearson, 2021, 06:21). Most inmates are not used to this type of treatment in prison. Other areas of the prison, such as the smoking areas are shared by inmates and guards where they often talk to one another. The prison provides cell phones to every inmate. The cell phone is not able to take photos, access the internet, or play games, and is monitored by the guards. These cell phones are only allowed to make and receive calls to family and friends, but the inmates are allowed to keep them at all times, at all hours, and in their room. This trust and respect give the inmate a different feel and attitude about the prison. During the episode multiple inmates stated that they “felt like it was a hotel” (Venner & Pearson, 2021). The prison is set up much differently than the average prison.

In Ny Anstalt, the inmates have a room instead of a cell. These rooms have regular locks on the doors that are locked each night at 9:00pm by the guards. The rooms have a tv, lamp, computer, window, cabinets, bunks, an emergency call button, and an individual bathroom. During the day the inmates can walk around the unit that has a communal area including a tv, couches, and a fully stocked and operational kitchen where the inmates cook for each other. This kitchen includes knives, forks, glass plates and bowels, and glass drinkware. Inmates in this prison are also allowed to have family visit them on their unit and have dinner in their individual rooms. Inmates that are on good behavior are allowed to leave the prison. These inmates don’t are being given rehabilitation skills so that they are ready to be in their community when they are released. One inmate, a former drug smuggler, is allowed to get in a car every morning, leave the prison and go to work. They are gone until around 5:00pm, and one man was even allowed to leave again at 6:00pm and go out on a date (Venner & Pearson, 2021, 23:10). This type of behavior truly meets the definition of living at a hotel for this inmate. This is unheard of in any other prison in the world. The level of trust that the prison has for these inmates is something that usually takes years to earn, if ever. Another inmate Aku, who was convicted of murder, was allowed to go out on a hunting trip with two prison guards and a hunting rifle that was left to lay on the bench of the boat while they were hunting for seals (Venner & Pearson, 2021, 40:03). This prison allows someone that has committed murder, go hunting with the guards, and a gun. These methods of rehabilitation give the inmates the trust that they feel the community will never give them. This type of treatment can give an offender the feeling that they can be good members of society once they are released from prison, and many of them want to do better when they get released. Meanwhile in the United States the prison system looks drastically different.

The United States Prison System1
The prison system in the United States was initially built to rehabilitate the offender and then release them back into the community. This rarely happens today. More often than not, offenders are locked away in prison with lengthy sentences and no hope of ever getting out. When an offender does get out, they have very limited resources to assist them with getting a job and a place to live. This often leads to the offender violating their probation or parole and being sent back to prison to complete their sentence. When an offender completes their sentence and gets out without probation or parole, they still have a difficult time finding employment and housing. They are judged by the community as criminals and looked at as though they do not deserve another chance to be a part of their community even though they have paid their debt to society. Levinson (2018) said “It seems for the present that the urge to “lock ‘em up” is alive and well in America” (p. 86). Society does not appear to care about what happens once an offender is placed in prison, why they are placed there, or why there are so many prisons in this country.

Overcrowding in the United States prison system began with President George H.W. Bush and continued with President Bill Clinton who both believed that the United States should be tougher on crime. As the country became tougher on crime, the need for more prisons became greater. The states began to them outsource the prison system to for profit prisons. Prisons for profit rely on more people going to jail and have little cares about how the inmates are treated or how money is spent caring for them. These prisons only care about their profit margin that more inmates give them. Levinson (2018) said “in 1994, when he was president, Clinton signed a bill known as the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (which was and still is the most extensive crime bill in the history of the United States). The provisions of the Act provided that the more the individual states put people in prison, the more federal money they would receive. After the bill was passed, 28 states and the District of Columbia passed stricter sentencing laws. (NB: Bill Clinton later expressed regret over portions of the Act that led to an increased prison population, e.g., the three-strikes provision.)” (p. 85). The fact that President Clinton expressed remorse over portions of the act after his presidency shows that the United States government knows that these for-profit prisons do not have the best interest of the inmate in mind.

Prisons for profit have been shown to be extremely violent, abusive, and many inmates are denied the medical care that they need. These prisons are more concerned with saving money for themselves rather than being humane and spending money on the inmates. The Equal Justice Imitative (2021) said “Millions of Americans are incarcerated in overcrowded, violent, and inhumane jails and prisons that do not provide treatment, education, or rehabilitation” (para. 1). EJI fights for inmates in these for-profit prisons to get the medical care that they need and to gain more humane conditions. Many of these prisons allow the guards to abuse the inmates, allow inmates to be violent with each other, rape each other, and ignore the mental and physical health of these inmates. They do not provide educational resources like government run prisons, and they have no desire to provide rehabilitation. These profit prisons set the inmates that they house up for failure when they are released. While government run prisons do provide education resources and mental health care, many of these inmates will fail when released back into the community as well. Using restorative justice methods for nonviolent and minor offenders can save these offenders from a life of institutionalization and failure in society.

Restorative Justice Methods.
Restorative justice is a method of the criminal justice system that allows the victim, the offender, and the community to come together and come up with a punishment that everyone involved feels is fair. Lanterman (2021) said “Restorative justice is a victim-centered response to crime that involves those most impacted by a crime, including the victim, offender, and, depending on the format of the encounter and the crime, restorative justice may also involve the victim’s and the offender’s supportive others and community members (Umbreit, 2001). It ‘endorses a collective ethos and collective responsibility…to address the offending and its consequences’ (Morris & Young, 2000:14). Restorative justice is a utilitarian process that aims to address the victim’s needs, to the extent feasible, which may also confer benefits to the offender and community” (p. 61). Restorative justice gives the victim more of a voice than they would have if the offender went to trial. Restorative justice gives the victim a say in the punishment of the offender. Not only does it give the victim a say in the punishment, but if also gives the community a say in the punishment of the offender which is usually left to a judge or a jury and the community gets no say in how the offender is punished. Restorative justice also gives the offender a voice and holds them accountable for their actions. The offender must be involved with the victim and the community for restorative justice to work properly. The offender must face both the victim and the community and does not have the protections of the Fifth Amendment to hide behind. The offender must own up to their actions and face the victim. The trick to successful restorative justice is that the offender wants to face their victims and the community and make things right. There are many methods of restorative justice used in the United States.

The four methods used in restorative justice are the victim-offender conference, restorative conference, family group conference, and the circle process. All of these methods must have three things in order for it to happen. First it must have a neutral third party to facilitate the meeting, the participation of the victim, and the participation of the offender. Voluntary participation is a key component to restorative justice and is necessary for the process to work effectively. It is not only necessary for the victims and offenders to be in agreement to participate, but it is equally important that the facilitator of any of these processes have the experience needed to conduct this type of meetings.

Necessary Education.
Criminal Justice majors, as well as law enforcement should be trained properly in restorative justice methods. Those who wish to conduct these meetings and conferences need to be trained and educated more in depth of the process and the work that is involved in getting the victim and offender to meet. Getting a victim to meet with an offender cannot be an easy task to accomplish. A person must posses the proper demeanor, education, and skills needed to be successful in getting these meetings to occur. Depending on the crime, the victim may fear their offender and may have some trauma associated with them. This neutral third party is essentially a mediator that has specific tools geared towards restorative justice practices. Once this individual gets everyone to agree, then what?

The peace keeping circle is one of the most popular restorative justice methods used to determine how the offender will make the victim whole again and repair the harm that was done. These circles are used at some universities as a way to role play through the actual process, but it also helps them to gain the practice that is needed to facilitate these meetings after graduating. Stroup (2019) said “According to Smith-Cunnien and Parilla (2001) and Pepinsky (2006, 2013), circle processes involve the students in shaping their own education as well as engaging

the facilitator/instructor in their own learning. It has been noted (and I have witnessed

this as well) that during a circle, no student can doze, text, or totally disengage in the

class session (Kithcen, 2013). In general, there are three types of circles being practiced

within most restorative justice courses. The first is simply the tier one circle (i.e. community

building, check in, or welcome circle.) In undergraduate coursework, some part

of or entire class periods are conducted in a circular fashion utilizing this community

building style (Britto & Reimund, 2013; Carson & Bussler, 2013; Kithcen, 2013). Other

courses may include the use of peace making/resolution circles that are facilitated through student role playing” (p. 337). This training and role playing is an effective way for the student to learn and get feedback from their peers before being sent out on their own to conduct these life changing meetings between offenders and victims. A facilitator without the proper experience can be the difference between the restorative justice process being successful and failing miserably. When the facilitator fails, more harm and trauma can be caused for everyone involved, but especially the victim that has already suffered the most. Occasionally, there are times when there is no human victim to a crime and restorative justice is still utilized as a punishment method.

Restorative Justice Without a Victim.
Crimes without a victim are difficult to come by. Even crimes involving theft have a victim. Victimless crimes are crimes such as texting while driving, speeding, and drunk driving. These crimes can cause victims if an accident occurs, but when there’s no car accident can still be considered a crime. In the 1990’s a process of reintegrative shaming was used as a form of restorative justice. The offenders were caught committing these crimes and were placed in a group of people that had the option of going through this process or being fined and charged. Reintegrative shaming is a method that brings family members, friends, coworkers, and bosses together where they make agreements and help to hold the offender accountable if they continue the behavior. The most specific portion of this group were drunk drivers. Edwards (2021) said “The RISE drink driving experiment was not a success: “the detected rates of drinking and

driving remained unchanged before and after assignment to court, while they doubled

after assignment to conferences” (Sherman, Strang and Woods, 2000:13). Noting that this

difference dissipated after the first-year post-experiment, Sherman et al. (ibid) suggest

that it derived from the court’s power to suspend driving licenses – for twelve months in

the case of repeat offenders – which arguably has a stronger effect on a drink-driver’s

behavior than anything a conference can order. This being the case, “drink driving

conferences have no chance of preventing drink driving more than court unless

conferences are given the same power to recommend license suspensions” (Sherman,

Strang and Woods, 2000:14). This interpretation was endorsed by Braithwaite: “perhaps

the most likely reason for the failure of the RISE drunk driving experiment is about the

incapacitative effects of license suspensions being available in court cases and not in cases

assigned to the restorative justice conferences” (p. 27). This style of restorative justice failed due to the lack of accountability and the fact that law enforcement held all of the power. This program would have been more successful if the crime had a victim or if the family and friends would have had a reason to be more involved. There is something to be said about holding someone accountable for their actions.

Accountability is a large part of restorative justice. Accountability is now more than ever necessary in real life and online. Accountability though can be a tricky thing online and is also in the end a form of public shaming. While shaming is a form of restorative justice, it is not always a good one. Shaming also labels the offender and can make people feel that they have more superiority than they actually do. Wildemann Kane (2020) said “Accountability practices are generally intended to sustain moral norms that individuals find useful and valuable.41 Shaming can be an effective means for promoting and sustaining norms, if done properly. Jennifer Jacquet has outlined seven habits for effective shaming that she contends have the highest likelihood of changing behavior positively: the transgression should (a) concern the audience, (b) deviate widely from desired behavior, and (c) not carry the expectation of formal punishment; the transgressor should (d) be part of the group doing the shaming; and the shaming should (e) come

from a respected source, (f) be directed where possible benefits are the highest, and (g) be conscientiously implemented” (p. 600). There can be small value in shaming if it keeps the offender from reoffending, but shaming is not a good form of restorative justice and should be used as little as possible. The victim-offender meetings serve restorative justice the best way. Restorative justice is meant to cause the offender to stop offending, but it is also meant to help the victim heal from the injury that the offender caused them.

The main purpose behind restorative justice is helping the victim to heal. Restorative justice is also meant to help reduce crime. Helping a victim heal is a higher priority than crime reduction. While crime reduction is important in this process, the victim getting the chance to be heard is the higher goal. Okada, Maguire, & Sardina (2018) said “How is restorative justice practice supposed to help victims heal? The answer depends on what healing is thought to consist in. In some cases, healing can be tangible, such as compensation for destroyed or stolen property or recovery from broken bones sustained during a robbery. The restitution agreements made via a restorative justice practice, if kept, thus can help in healing. Restitution can be used to replace property or to pay medical bills” (p. 415). This process of giving back to the victim can also help heal the offender which in turn then lowers the crime rates when the offender decides that they no longer want to offend. When the offender gives back and holds to the restitution agreements made in restorative justice they are also looked at in a new light by the community. The offender giving back not only helps to heal the victim and make them whole again, but it also rebuilds the community’s trust in the offender. The offender keeping their word on this agreement can also assist the offender in finding employment, when previously they may not have been able to due to how they were viewed within the community. This is an important step for everyone involved in the restorative justice process.

Giving back to the victim and the community does not always have to be financially. The offender can commit to community service hours, working at the store that they stole from, or volunteering to help a person that they may have physically harmed by doing chores for them while they are unable to do so. Financial restitution is beneficial to everyone but agreeing to preform duties that instill a better understanding of what they put the victim through, leaves a much larger impact of the offender. When the offender sees on a daily basis the harm that they have caused, it can change them in a way that writing a check cannot. In some locations in the U.S., the government has begun using a community-based payback policy. The offender is given a job and their wages are in turn placed back into the community by the employer. The offender is working off their debt and still remaining a productive member of society. Nicholson (2021) said “In practice this would mean widening the scope of community payback to include unpaid work with commercial employers, including co-operatives and other ‘purposeful’ values-based employers. The monetary value of the offender’s unpaid work would be paid direct to victims’ or other charities by the host employer as financial payback by the offender and as a charitable donation by the employer. On successful completion of their financial payback, paid employment with the employer would be made available to the offenders concerned

through the sort of ‘guaranteed interview arrangements’ recommended by HMPPS (HMPPS, 2019. Para 4.37). This mutual restitution would mean the community through the host employer would pay offenders back by providing access to the legitimate employment opportunities from which the majority of them for most of their lives have been excluded” (p. 91). This process is three-fold. The victim gets paid back, the community gets help mand assistance, and the offender has a chance at gainful employment. This scenario is a best-case solution for the restorative justice model. People in general react better when they are treated with respect and feel like they have had their voices heard.

People want to feel as though they are respected. They want their voice to be heard. Restorative justice gives people the opportunity for their voice to be heard. Even a criminal wants their voice to be heard and to feel respected. This underlying need is what gets them in trouble most of the time. People want to be heard and respected, so they act in a way that ensures that they are heard and respected. This is not always a good way to be heard but people get this need met by the concept of there is no such thing as bad attention. Gonzalez & Buth (2019) said “Embedded in this narrative is a foundation of inclusivity of all voices. For example, theorists attentive to restorative justice in educational settings support a whole-school framework of implementation grounded in honoring the wellbeing and interconnected of all members of

the community (Morrison, 2007; Morrison & Vaandering, 2012). Similarly, organizations

such as the International Institute of Restorative Practices (IIRP) define restorative practices as a social science arguing that ‘people are happier, more cooperative and productive, and more likely to make positive changes when those in authority do things with them, rather than to them or for them” (p. 245). This is the underlying need to be respected. Restorative justice provides this respect and voice for the victim, the offender, and the community.

Conclusion

In conclusion restorative justice is better than prison because it gives the victim a voice. Restorative justice also is beneficial to the community and the offender. Restorative justice keeps the offender out of jail, provides a community method of rehabilitation for the offender, reduces crime rates in the community, and helps the victim to feel a sense of closure for the harm that was caused to them by the offender. Restorative justice keeps low level criminals out of prison, helps lower the prison population, helps to save the government money by assisting the offender in getting and keeping sustainable employment, and allows the offender a second chance at life in society. Restorative justice is not a method of justice meant for violent, repeat, and unremorseful offenders. Restorative justice is meant for offenders that can be rehabilitated in the community and that would not benefit from prison. Restorative justice also allows the victim to speak to the offender and confront them without the restrictions of being in a courtroom or on a stand. The victims get to have their voices heard, they get a say in the sentence of the offender, and they get the sense of closure that is brought about with making and holding the offender accountable for the harm that they caused them.

Works Cited Edwards, P. (2021, March 25). Restorative Justice without a victim: RISE and the roads not taken. British Journal of Community Justice, 17(1), 23-41. Gonzalez, T. &. (2019). Restorative justice at the crossroads: politics, power, and language. CONTEMPORARY JUSTICE REVIEW, 22(3), 242-256. Initiave, E. J. (2021). Prison Conditions . Retrieved November 28, 2021, from Equal Justice Initiative: https://eji.org/issues/prison-conditions/ Lanterman, J. L. (2021). Models Versus Mechanisms: The Need to Crack the Black Box of Restorative Justice. British Journal of Community Justice, 17(1), 60-77. Retrieved November 28, 2021, from https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/c0b1f356/files/uploaded/BJCJ.MODELS_VERSUS_MECHANISMS.Lantermann.Final.pdf Levinson, M. H. (2018, Jan-Apr). Prison Nation . ETC.: A Review of General Semantics, 75(1-2), 83-87. Nicholson, D. (2021). ‘GIVING BACK’ BY ‘PAYING BACK’: RECASTING COMMUNITY PAYBACK AS ‘MUTUAL RESTITUTION’ THROUGH FINANCIAL PAYBACK – MAKING A RESTORATIVE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM A REALITY THROUGH CO-OPERATIVES AND VALUES-BASED PURPOSEFUL COMPANIES? British Journal of Community Justice, 17(1), 79-91. Okada, D. M. (2018). Critical Issues in Crime and Justice (3rd ed.). U.S.: SAGE Publications. Stroup, B. (2019, May 4). Conceptualizing and implementing a restorative justice. Contemporary Justice Review, 22(4), 334-350. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580.2019.1672046 Venner, E. (Producer), & Pearson, T. (Director). (2021). Inside the World’s Toughest Prisons Greenland: Prison in the Ice [Motion Picture]. Netflix. Wildemann Kane, L. (2020, August). Accountability and Community on the Internet: A Plea for Restorative Justice. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 37(4), 1-19.

Applied Sciences
Architecture and Design
Biology
Business & Finance
Chemistry
Computer Science
Geography
Geology
Education
Engineering
English
Environmental science
Spanish
Government
History
Human Resource Management
Information Systems
Law
Literature
Mathematics
Nursing
Physics
Political Science
Psychology
Reading
Science
Social Science
Liberty University
New Hampshire University
Strayer University
University Of Phoenix
Walden University
Home
Homework Answers
Blog
Archive
Tags
Reviews
Contact
twitterfacebook
Copyright © 2022 SweetStudy.com