Restorative Justice Wilkinson (1997) traces the origins of restorative justice to the earliest criminal justice systems, such as the Code of Hammurabi, wherein the victims were given duress in the implementation of punitive measures. However, the motivation for such measures was not for the process of rehabilitation but rather to prevent revenge or retaliation of offended parties. Today, restorative justice has become the byword of criminal justice.
The focus of today’s restorative justice programs is to develop collaborative competencies between offenders, their victims and society to support rehabilitation and develop social support systems (Canada Department of Justice, 2001).There is evidence that one of the primary reasons for crime is the sense of exclusion or disassociation of an individual from society (Weisner et al, 2003). There is no social consequence from the offender’s perspective: either that he is able to justify his actions in his interest, there is limited understanding of the consequences of his action either to himself or others or there is deliberate and conscious rejection of the impact of his actions (pp. 327-330).
However, there should be realization the restorative justice has its limitations. According to Wilikinson (1997), the optimum scenario is when offenders express regret or be repentant of the crime they committed but is the scenario is otherwise, interactions with victims may only increase the impact of the crime. A review done by Canada’s Department of Justice (2001), one of the primary proponents of restorative justice, indicates that though there has been significant participation in the programs, satisfaction in participation is not conclusive.In conclusion, as much as restorative justice programs maximize the involvement of society in the criminal justice system, there should be caution in the development of programs and the selection of participants.
In involving the offender in restorative justice programs, these conditions are to be addressed by creating allowing victims to communicate to their offenders the impact of the crime. At the same time, victims become involved in the criminal justice system beyond their victimization allowing for closure. ReferencesCanada Department of Justice (2001). The Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Practices: A Meta-Analysis.
Ontario: Canada Department of Justice – Research and Statistics Division Methodological Series. Weisner, M., Capaldi, D. M.
& Paterson, G. ( 2003). Development of ant-social behavior and crime across the life-span from a social interactionist perspective: The coercion model. In R.
L. Akers & G. F. Jensen (Eds.
). Social Learning and the Explanation of Crime: New Directions for a New Century. pp. 317-337.
Wilkinson, Reginald A. (1997). A Shifting Paradigm: Modern Restorative Justice Principles Have Their Roots in Ancient Cultures, Corrections Today, December 1997. Zolotor, Adam J.
and Runyan, Desmond K. (2006). Social Capital, Family Violence, and Neglect. Pediatrics, June 117: e1124 – e1131.
Media, Public Information and CrimeIn today’s context, many consider media as an independent social force. One of the primary advocacies of the media is freedom of expression and the public’s right for information. On the other hand, there criminal justice systems often have limitation on disclosure to preserve the evidence, proceedings and other operations. Thus, there has been conflicts regarding what should be disclosed to the public through the media and what can be considered a prerogative for censorship.
The trial of O. J. Simpson was one of the most sensationalized proceedings and illustrates effectively the conflicts that media and criminal justice systems can develop. From the selection of the jury alone was significantly prolonged because of consideration regarding media exposure of the case.
As the case progressed, an assortment of issues have come under the scrutiny of the media including the personal history of jurors, court officers and even some government officers underwent media scrutiny and discussion to the point that issues were not all related to the trial (Grochowski, 2006). Olson (2004) points out that the media operates as an enterprise and as such, needs to garner the attention of the public. Competition between outfits for the public’s attention can then motivates sensationalism, among other marketing strategies, often superseding the objective of informing the public.This is not invalidate the media’s role in ensuring the transparency in criminal justice, however, there should be understanding that there are some information that can not be disclosed at present or even at all in the interest of persevering the justice system or the privacy and welfare of individuals (Robinson, 2004).
Undeniably, the media has been instrumental in creating awareness regarding not only the incidence of crime but also its detection and prevention. The media has to establish itself as a social institution foremost and not as an enterprise. References Grochowski, Thomas (2006). Running in Cyberspace: O.
J. Simpson Web Sites and the (De)Construction of Crime Knowledge. Television New Media, 7. pp.
361 – 382. Olson, Cheryl K. (2004). Media Violence Research and Youth Violence Data: Why Do They Conflict?.
Acad Psychiatry, 28. pp 144 – 150. Robinson, Matthew (2000). The Construction and Reinforcement of Myths of Race and Crime.
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 16. pp 133 – 156 Balancing Personal FreedomsThere is no denying that there are still threats to the security of the United States, however, just as much, there is the need to preserve personal freedom not only as provided for the by the constitution. More importantly, this is to preserve the ideological and philosophical standpoint from which the United States has been built on. This entails a significant level of compromise between parties, a challenge that becomes critical amidst the concerns regarding the reality of homeland threats and the impact of security measure son industries, commerce and social development.
According to Nance (2001), there should be compromises between security needs and the interest of businesses. If businesses are not able to justify the cost of the required security measures or do not have the means of doing so, then this will impede competition in the aviation industry and encourage operations undermining the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA’s) monitoring. Another perspective that should be considered has been regarding the privacy of information and monitoring of individuals that have been associated with suspected and known threats.Lochner (2005) points out that there is greater realization of how the Patriot Act and other legislation directly responding to 9-11 can be used to justify infringements on human rights.
Currently there is a need to develop contingency measures when there are issues of civil or criminal violation of personal rights (Raiford, 1999). Therefore, there is a need to ensure that homeland security does not override fundamental constitutional and human rights. Yes, there is a need to compromise personal rights in the interest of security but not to the point that security measures become a threat to the freedoms they seek to protectReferences Lochner, Todd (2005) Freedom of Information Act, Personal Privacy, and Litigants. The Justice System Journal.
Retrieved October 19, 2007 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4043/is_200501/ai_n14905582 Nance, J.J. (2001).
Terrorism’s Impact on Aviation. Retrieved October 19, 2007 from http://www.johnjnance.com/aviation/terrorst_updte_10-04.
htm;Raiford, Regina (1999). An Ounce of Prevention. Buildings (93) 3. pp.
64-70.;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;Incarceration and RehabilitationZolotora and Runyan (2006) point out that criminal justice system are not just to apprehend and punish offenders, there is also a need to create effective programs for rehabilitation. This view is supported by research suggesting that the prevalence criminal behavior is greatly influenced by social experience and orientation (Weisner et al, 2003). Furthermore, there is a realization of the dynamism of criminal justice.
Thus, there is a challenge of not only understanding the principles of criminal justice but also the issues being raised in its interest.Thus, if incarceration is combined with rehabilitation, it will be able to address issues are critical to ensure correction, preventing against proclivity to crime and be a means of developing competencies to become productivity in society (Zolotora ; Runyan, 2006). Prisons are now realizing that inmates’ incarceration is not only for punitive and corrective measure but seeks to make him a productive member of society again. Thus, incarceration should be supported by therapy and counseling to ensure rehabilitation social productivity and reintegration.
Shulman (2006) points out that it is in these efforts that incarcerated individuals can develop competencies that improve social integration. Incarceration provides the opportunity to address the issues that motivate offenders to commit crime, the social conditions contributing to its prevalence and the effective prevention and intervention programs. Without the combination of incarceration with rehabilitation, then efforts to control the incidence of crime are only punitive in nature and do not address the need for effective correction and long-term prevention of criminal activities.;;;References;Shulman, L.
(2006). The Skills Of Helping Individuals, Family, Groups And Communities (5th ed). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Thomson Learning;Weisner, M., Capaldi, D.
M. ; Paterson, G. ( 2003). Development of ant-social behavior and crime across the life-span from a social interactionist perspective: The coercion model.
In R. L. Akers ; G. F.
Jensen (Eds.). Social Learning and the Explanation of Crime: New Directions for a New Century. pp.
317-337.;Zolotor, Adam J. and Runyan, Desmond K. (2006).
Social Capital, Family Violence, and Neglect. Pediatrics, June 117: e1124 – e1131.;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;Intermediate SanctionsThe establishment of intermediate sanctions programs has gained attention in criminal justice management and administration because of its potential in alleviating the scarcity in accommodation in penal institutions and because of its potentials in rehabilitation. Ideologically, intermediate sanctions support the idea that first or non-habitual offenders can be rehabilitated better if they are given the opportunity for rehabilitation, are monitored effectively and allowed to continue their social and individual activities (Ulmer, 2001).
At the same time, they are not exposed to hardcore offenders or career criminals or activities that may deter their rehabilitation (Marlee et al, 2006).However, there have been concerns raised regarding the qualifications or standards of application. Caputo (2004) points out that aside from the fundamental legal equalitarian issues, standards may vary from state to state which may further distort who qualifies for the programs. Caputo’s review of current efforts indicates that there has been positive results in the programs but also recognizes the lack of nationwide empirical studies to establish the validity of success (p.
13). Ulmer’s (2001) study further indicates that the variety of programs designed as intermediate sanctions tend to differ also, not only in terms of methodology but also the agencies in charge of them. Some of these efforts have come under harsh criticism because of the utilization of shock therapy and the circumvention of monitoring measures for offenders (Marlee et al, 2006).Regardless of these challenges, there should also be realization that any effort the can improve the level of rehabilitation, correction or improve criminal justice programs in general should not be dismissed out of hand.
As pointed out by Caputo (2004) though there is still a need to validate through the evidence of intermediate sanctions, there is significant enthusiasm and effort given to the efforts.;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;References;Caputo Gail A. (2004). Intermediate Sanctions in Corrections.
North Texas Crime and Criminal Justice Series, 4. Denton: University of North Texas Press;Marlee E. Moore, Hiday, Virginia Aldig, et al. (2006) Mental Health Court Outcomes: A Comparison of Re-Arrest and Re-Arrest Severity Between Mental Health Court and Traditional Court Participants.
Law and Human Behavior 30:6. p. 659;Ulmer, Jeffery T. (2001).
Intermediate Sanctions: A Comparative Analysis of the Probability and Severity of Recidivism. Sociological Inquiry 71 (2). pp 164–193.;
