Restorative practice brings those affected by conflict or crime into communication. This enables everyone’s involved in a situation to play a part in repairing the harm and finding a positive way forward. Nonviolent communicationis an important element towards evaluation when observing. When mixing evaluation with observation we decrease the likelihood that the others will listen to the intended message. Non-violent communication (NVC) guides us to reframe how we express one another and to listen to others. Our words become more conscious responses in relation to awareness of what we are perceiving, feeling, and wanting. Restorative justice promotes such values as healing for the offender and the victim, community input, respectful dialogue between the parties involved, forgiveness, accountability and fraternity. It is presented as an alternative to the adversarial system of justice and an antidote to punitive policies (Roach, 2000).The aim of restorative justice is to give victims a bigger role; meet their need for information about the reasons for and circumstances of the offence; allow them to be heard and to obtain tangible or symbolic compensation; and regain the independence and power that the crime took away from them (Law Commission of Canada, 1999,2003; Roach, 2000). In task 3 I will be demonstrating my use of understanding through restorative practices. Restorative justice does not eliminate denunciation and reaffirmation of social norms, but it does tend to make justice more compassionate and more sensitive to the suffering of the individuals and communities affected by crime (Roach, 2000; Cario, 2003).
In this talk, I will investigate some of the strengths and drawbacks of working restoratively and why I think it is an important and invaluable tool that can have lifelong effects on inter and intrapersonal development.So, how do we approach the question of whether a move towards restorative justice would make things significantly better or worse than they currently are? First, it is necessary to recognize that, for all its troubling features, in its current form the institution of judicial punishment does perform certain essential functions tolerably well. It provides most of us, regardless of our means, with some degree of protection from predatory and harmful behaviour, without making us pay the price of oppressive conformity. Moreover, it meets some of our criteria of fairness to some extent and gives some degree of recognition and protection to the rights of those accused of a crime. It even provides some offenders with some protection from vengeful victims and angry members of the public. Further, under certain conditions, it can help disseminate efficiently progressive ideas of what is right and what is wrong. This is not to deny the charges of those who accuse judicial punishment of being cruel, unjust and ineffective and of often creating or at least exacerbating the very problems it purports to solve (Bianchi 1994). Nor is it to deny that there may be something much better than judicial punishment. Rather, it is simply to acknowledge that –for all its faults –the institution of judicial punishment does have certain merits and those who would replace it with something else –either as a general policy or in any particular case –need to be sure that they do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We need to ask of proponents of restorative justice how careful and balanced is their critique of judicial punishment, and how they will ensure that the essential tasks which judicial punishment does perform tolerably well continue to be performed at least as well. In addition to tangible compensation, restorative justice advocates rebuilding the relationship between the victim and the offender. In sharp contrast to the traditional model of justice, restorative justice aims to resolve conflict and restore dialogue between the parties where possible. Is such dialogue desired or desirable in all cases? There are many fine distinctions to be made.Several studies show that many victims would be willing to meet with the offender if given the opportunity. Getting an explanation of the crime and insight into the person who committed it, being compensated, describing how they were hurt, and making sure that their testimony helps the offender realize what was done and thus helps prevent more offences: these are among the reasons often given to justify the desire to take part in such a meeting (Reeves, 1989; Law Commission of Canada, 2003; Daly, 2003).Restorativeness requires a degree of empathic concern and perspective-taking; and as measured by psychologists’ scales, these qualities are more frequently evinced for adults than adolescents. For example, within the interviews of youthful offenders, the SAJJ project had found out that over half had not thought at all about what they would say to the victim. Most did not think in terms of what they might offer victims, but rather what they would be made to do by others. It is possible that many adolescents may not yet have the capacity to think empathetically, to take the role of the other (Frankenberger, 2000); they may be expected to be as if they had the moral reasoning of adults when they do not (Van Voorhis, 1995). And, at the same time, as we shall see in limits (4) and (5), victims may have high expectations for an offender’s behaviour in the conference process, which cannot be realized, or victims’ distress may be so great that the conference process can do little to aid in their recovery.Why is fairness easier to achieve than restorativeness? Fairness is large, although not exclusively, a measure of the behaviour of the professional(s) (the facilitator and, depending on the jurisdiction, a police officer). In comparison to the professionals, they are polite, listen attentively, and they also establish ground rules of respect for others and respect in the conference process. Although justice is established within the relationship between the professionals and participants, the restorative practice than rises within the relationships between a victim, the offender, and their supporters. By being polite, it is easier to do than saying you are sorry; listening to an individual telling their story of victimization is easier to do when you are not the offender. Certainly, understanding or taking the perspective of the other can be easier when you are not the actual victim or the offender in the justice encounter. However, I disagree with restorative justice because Restorative justice has not yet changed the basic course of the criminal justice system. It has proven to be a more effective alternative to prison or other forms of punishment but has produced mitigated results in terms of victim participation and reparation for injury (Bonta, 1998, in Griffiths, 1999). Despite the high level of satisfaction among victims indicated by the research, particularly studies that focused on mediation, we have to be cautious still and refrain from overstating the benefits of restorative justice. Victims’ problems are not resolved once andfor all by the solutions made available to them. The objectives of reparation and healing put forward in these
Emotive and body language, for example, facial expressions can be a strong indicator of the power of the meeting. Through a common understanding of the basic teaching levels of Tomkins‘Affect Theory’ (2008), he states that this is based around what is caused and can be triggered by the environment and can also be biological. Through my perception, there were neutral and positive effects which were explored withinthe meetings carried out. For example, when harmed or harmer was able to express or tell their feelings to each other, the damaging connotation was affected i.e. the shame was shifted. This resulting in how restorative process helped reveal a more thorough understanding of the underlying factors which causes a behaviour that encourages real solutions without the need of adding more shame or guilt (Kelly, 2014). To highlight on the outward and visible responses which were touched through the earlier, such as body language, as fora couple of situations, a smile or even a hug was an acknowledgment of transformation occurring. Consistently incorporating high-quality cooperative learning methods which enable people to have a voice (Ladson-Billings, 1994).In addition, until this point, there has been good practice proceeded by those directly affected. It was clear that the groups and facilitators have met up before the role play to discuss their meetings and how to carry out them. Clear structures and ground rules were explained which is important to set the tone for success (Lawrence, 2000). Each of the facilitators managed to minimize the certain risks prior to the gathering which highlighted the profession. Although, this was all up to standard, the process of facilitation was complex to an extent. There were times of risk factors which were not clearly broached through the start of the meeting as well as the progression. This showed that it was either forgotten or hastily not used within the meeting.
In summary, the limitations exceed the positives of restorative justice. Through recognising the limits of this process, it sets up to fail with unrealistic and too high expectations. Restorative justice has great potential for the parties involved and for the community. However, it is not the magic solution to all evils. It remains an option for some crimes in some circumstances and under some conditions. It must not be considered a cheap form of justice or pretend justice. Nor must it trivialize the valid demands of victims.The restorative justice model will gain legitimacy if victims’ needs are placed in the forefront and it succeeds in mobilizing all of the players in the justice system, victim support groups in particular (Bazemore, 1999; Roach, 2000; Miers, 2001). Support groups must be actively involved in the design, implementation and evaluation of restorative justice programs. Finally, discussion of the restorative justice approach must not be confined to a small circle of experts. The community will never embrace and participate in restorative justice unless it understands its purpose and its aims.