Although the function of a circle is to provide the support and help for the offenders, it does not solely based on this alone. The circle in the program also functions as the “talking circle”( ) that provides the opportunity for the offenders to be placed in the center of attention, so they can connected to one another with the volunteers. Accodring to Höing et al, the engagement factor inclusively measure the “exchange of personal information by volunteers” give the core members “sense of belonging”(Höing et al, 2013). Thus, members of the circle consistently have communications about offense(directly or indircetly), but also personal issues and general interests(Höing et al, 2013). In this regard, the question of whether the participants
…show more content…
One of the significant limitation in evaluating the restorative justice is the fact that there are no clear guidelines in terms of defining the “success”. For examples, does low-recidivism rates among participants of CoSA really represent the success of the program? or does positive personal report from the core members of CoSA can clearly explain the success of the program? As these examples illustrate, there are many different measures that can be used to construct or define “success” of the program. In addition, these evidence-based studies conducted by many professionals do not contribute to the development and understanding of restorative justice and explain the success of CoSA. Many factors measured by the authors from the studies, such as the recidivism rates, competition rates, or personal reports are only the indicators. These Indicators cannot be used to exclusively conclude the successfulness of the program. As an example, low-reoffending rates can be due to the offenders’ personal behavioral change after the release, rather than the influence by the program. Thus, we cannot simply determine the success of the program by just examining these scientific or evidence-based research studies. More surrounding factors should be considered and observed before conclusively conclude the success or unsuccessfulness of the restorative practice, in this case
One of the significant limitation in evaluating the restorative justice is the fact that there are no clear guidelines in terms of defining the “success”. For examples, does low-recidivism rates among participants of CoSA really represent the success of the program? or does positive personal report from the core members of CoSA can clearly explain the success of the program? As these examples illustrate, there are many different measures that can be used to construct or define “success” of the program. In addition, these evidence-based studies conducted by many professionals do not contribute to the development and understanding of restorative justice and explain the success of CoSA. Many factors measured by the authors from the studies, such as the recidivism rates, competition rates, or personal reports are only the indicators. These Indicators cannot be used to exclusively conclude the successfulness of the program. As an example, low-reoffending rates can be due to the offenders’ personal behavioral change after the release, rather than the influence by the program. Thus, we cannot simply determine the success of the program by just examining these scientific or evidence-based research studies. More surrounding factors should be considered and observed before conclusively conclude the success or unsuccessfulness of the restorative practice, in this case