This policy proposal includes a brief introduction of restorative justice particularly focuses on youth justice conferencing. This paper will explain the penoligical principles underlying in restoration, and discuss the strength and weakness of youth justice conferencing. Finally, this paper will conclude with recommendation for future practice.
Restorative justice is a framework that recognises accountability and the need to repair harm caused to victims and communities impacted by crime. It is a reform that seeks to engage all parties such as (victims, offenders, both their families or support persons, police officer and the facilitator) comes together to discuss the offence, its impact and what should be done to repair the harm, and resolve …show more content…
However, the definition of restorative justice points out what it is not retributive (Bull, 2009). Unlike the traditional criminal justice system, restorative justice seeks balance the needs of victims, wrongdoer and community through processes of creating positive relationships rather than punishment, and constructing a better society in the present and the future (Bazemore & Umbreit, 2001). Each Australian jurisdiction have differences objective for delivery of youth conferencing. The Australian Capital Territory legislation clearly focuses on restorative justice and responding to victims, while acknowledging the importance of strengthening families, other jurisdictions clearly focuses on accountability, procedural justice, rights of the child, responsibility, compensation and restitution. On the other hand, Northern Territory Act focus on ensuring the young offenders appropriate treatment, punishment and rehabilitation (Bull, 2009, p.189). Therefore, the ideal of conferences might be difficult to achieve in practice. The SAJJ project found that most victims believed that the offender’s motive for apologising were insincere, and just over half thought that the young person said sorry to get off more easily or because they were pushed into it. As Bull (2009) point out that restorativeness cannot be forced it works with emotions and feeling, with anger and …show more content…
Sometimes, the outcomes may not be feeling of mutual agreed, repair and reconciliation of the offence, in fact some offenders can remain unremorseful (Bull, 2009). It is no doubt that, not all conferences can achieve their intended aims and success because of various reason. Since conferences are focuses on harm to the victim, there might be some lack consistency and proportion especially for offenders. Offenders might come to conferences with a range of experiences and victims might come to conferences with different orientations and expectations, and not all conferences will achieve the stated aims of restoration and reintegration. For example, in murder, rape and other serious crimes, it might be too painful and hard and uncomfortable for the victim to sat across with offenders and it might make things worse (Hines & Bazemore, 2003). As a result, it might effect on the decision making and the agreed outcomes of the conference might not repair the harm caused by the
Restorative justice is a framework that recognises accountability and the need to repair harm caused to victims and communities impacted by crime. It is a reform that seeks to engage all parties such as (victims, offenders, both their families or support persons, police officer and the facilitator) comes together to discuss the offence, its impact and what should be done to repair the harm, and resolve …show more content…
However, the definition of restorative justice points out what it is not retributive (Bull, 2009). Unlike the traditional criminal justice system, restorative justice seeks balance the needs of victims, wrongdoer and community through processes of creating positive relationships rather than punishment, and constructing a better society in the present and the future (Bazemore & Umbreit, 2001). Each Australian jurisdiction have differences objective for delivery of youth conferencing. The Australian Capital Territory legislation clearly focuses on restorative justice and responding to victims, while acknowledging the importance of strengthening families, other jurisdictions clearly focuses on accountability, procedural justice, rights of the child, responsibility, compensation and restitution. On the other hand, Northern Territory Act focus on ensuring the young offenders appropriate treatment, punishment and rehabilitation (Bull, 2009, p.189). Therefore, the ideal of conferences might be difficult to achieve in practice. The SAJJ project found that most victims believed that the offender’s motive for apologising were insincere, and just over half thought that the young person said sorry to get off more easily or because they were pushed into it. As Bull (2009) point out that restorativeness cannot be forced it works with emotions and feeling, with anger and …show more content…
Sometimes, the outcomes may not be feeling of mutual agreed, repair and reconciliation of the offence, in fact some offenders can remain unremorseful (Bull, 2009). It is no doubt that, not all conferences can achieve their intended aims and success because of various reason. Since conferences are focuses on harm to the victim, there might be some lack consistency and proportion especially for offenders. Offenders might come to conferences with a range of experiences and victims might come to conferences with different orientations and expectations, and not all conferences will achieve the stated aims of restoration and reintegration. For example, in murder, rape and other serious crimes, it might be too painful and hard and uncomfortable for the victim to sat across with offenders and it might make things worse (Hines & Bazemore, 2003). As a result, it might effect on the decision making and the agreed outcomes of the conference might not repair the harm caused by the