Restorative Justice Pt. 2
“Restorative Jusice: those with a stake in a crime (typically a victim, an offender, and their supporters) come together to discuss the offence and its impact, and they decide what to do to 'repair the harm' to the victim and perhaps also to a larger collectivity.”
She starts her introduction by explaining that while there are four myths to restorative justice, her definition of myth (provided by Engel) is that of partial truth. Currently, restorative systems could be technically applied after prison release only, and are actually in use right now.
The three parts of restorative justice are: victim reparation, offender responsibility, and communities of care reconciliation. Kathleen Daly, the author, claims that these things are important and at the core of Restorative Justice but can and through her research, should be mixed with Retributive Justice. The main cause for this being that the essential step of accountability of the offense is lost in the process of pure Restorative Justice.
Retribution can be interpreted as either a form- a form of harm, or a justification for punishment- to cause the same harm of the crime which was committed. Daly believes that as Retributive is seen as the old form of Justice, it is to be expected to still be included in the newer form of Restorative Jusice. Some claim that the ideal intention of Retributive Jusice is to bring about better behavior, too. The empirical evidence of results is against, however.
This is interesting so far, the above focus was on myth 1 (refer to Restorative Justice Pt. 1) mostly. It makes a bit of sense but I think Thomas Moore would have plenty to say on the matter. I’ve yet to read Utopia but I’ve seen some quotes that sum up a few of my beliefs and his basic Philosophy is my favorite thing.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/file/0015/50352/kdpaper12.rtf&hl=en&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm35BC5d6EA1XV1ufyOetonTwDx4ww&nossl=1&oi=scholarr
