RJ has effectively found its way into processes dealing with youth. The Children, Young Persons and Their Families act 1989 is a landmark act that through the adoption of the family group conferencing (FGC) model has affectively integrated the current criminal justice system within New Zealand. FGC brings together the victim, offender, their families, members of the community and a facilitator. The police act as gatekeepers and are responsible for the divisionary actions taken such as to arrest, give warning or recommend FGC, of which 75% of young offenders are recommended by the police to FGC (Maxwell & Liu, 2007). FGC is based on Māori dispute resolution and can be both court mandated and directed by the police. Within New Zealand FGC can
…show more content…
Community conferencing has the potential to reduce fear, disruption and reciprocal aggression for signal crimes, crimes which influence the communities perception of safety (Cunneen & Hoyle, 2010). Conferencing especially community conferences emphasize the community and deals with how to reintegrate the offender with greater community representation. The adult RJ system deals largely with victim offender mediations (VOM). VOM allow for parties to come together and discuss the harm caused while holding the perpetrator accountable the entire time. Victims feel more powerful and confident while offenders recognize the positive aspects of the system and are likely to respond more wholesomely and positively to decisions. However there are some setbacks to VOM. Other than the disadvantage of participation from both groups being necessary Arrigo (2006) notes that VOM can have averse effects on the offender, suggesting they may find themselves not only intimidated by the state and the victim but also by this new entity representing the community. Offenders may become more hostile and in an attempt to stay secure they may act intimidatingly. VOM ultimately may increase community cohesion and unity through the direct involvement of the parties in the process (Ministry of Justice, …show more content…
Sometimes RJ has backfired and led to increased humiliation, re-victimisation and other negative outcome for one or all parties involved. RJ also has been criticised for its lack of exploration of the etiology or causes of crime such as poverty, racism, cultural/social values and individualism (Takagi & Shank, 2004). Another large criticism is that RJ does not affect sentencing at least not in the context of New Zealand, offenders will still face state punishment and as such RJ is just a waste of time. Though RJ and its processes are not free for limitations, RJ can act as a good alternative to other practices within the traditional justice system. Leverton (2008) suggests 4 principles which help strengthen RJ processes; 1. facilitator competence and impartiality 2. voluntary participation 3. physical , psychological and legal safety and 4. confidentiality. Although New Zealand like many countries is growing with different communities RJ processes can help in finding consensus and agreed reparation with the support of individual communities. RJ offers better prospects to victims and their needs it also allows the offender to experience the results of their actions and if remorseful being able to express it in a meaningful dialogue. The advantages on family and community include being able to express their wishes and for the offender to properly understand the harm they have caused and refrain from doing it
Community conferencing has the potential to reduce fear, disruption and reciprocal aggression for signal crimes, crimes which influence the communities perception of safety (Cunneen & Hoyle, 2010). Conferencing especially community conferences emphasize the community and deals with how to reintegrate the offender with greater community representation. The adult RJ system deals largely with victim offender mediations (VOM). VOM allow for parties to come together and discuss the harm caused while holding the perpetrator accountable the entire time. Victims feel more powerful and confident while offenders recognize the positive aspects of the system and are likely to respond more wholesomely and positively to decisions. However there are some setbacks to VOM. Other than the disadvantage of participation from both groups being necessary Arrigo (2006) notes that VOM can have averse effects on the offender, suggesting they may find themselves not only intimidated by the state and the victim but also by this new entity representing the community. Offenders may become more hostile and in an attempt to stay secure they may act intimidatingly. VOM ultimately may increase community cohesion and unity through the direct involvement of the parties in the process (Ministry of Justice, …show more content…
Sometimes RJ has backfired and led to increased humiliation, re-victimisation and other negative outcome for one or all parties involved. RJ also has been criticised for its lack of exploration of the etiology or causes of crime such as poverty, racism, cultural/social values and individualism (Takagi & Shank, 2004). Another large criticism is that RJ does not affect sentencing at least not in the context of New Zealand, offenders will still face state punishment and as such RJ is just a waste of time. Though RJ and its processes are not free for limitations, RJ can act as a good alternative to other practices within the traditional justice system. Leverton (2008) suggests 4 principles which help strengthen RJ processes; 1. facilitator competence and impartiality 2. voluntary participation 3. physical , psychological and legal safety and 4. confidentiality. Although New Zealand like many countries is growing with different communities RJ processes can help in finding consensus and agreed reparation with the support of individual communities. RJ offers better prospects to victims and their needs it also allows the offender to experience the results of their actions and if remorseful being able to express it in a meaningful dialogue. The advantages on family and community include being able to express their wishes and for the offender to properly understand the harm they have caused and refrain from doing it