Paper Example on Restorative Justice: Model for Victoria

Introduction

Restorative justice refers to the process whereby all parties that are involved in a given conflict for a particular offense collectively resolve the manner of dealing with the aftermath of the assault as well as its future impact to both parties. Restorative justice represents the kind of truth which depends on the principle which portrays crime as a major conflict between people which leads to injuries of the victims. Restorative justice is based on the idea which indicates that the system of criminal justice is aimed at reconciling all the parties that are involved while repairing for the injuries which are caused by crime through facilitating of active participation of victims, offenders as well as their communities. This paper will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of courts, restorative justice, MDCs, and law & order elements of criminal justice.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

There are three primary restorative justice processes. These processes include restorative conferencing, victim-offender mediation, and restorative conferencing. In a case which is considered as a restorative circle, all the parties may discuss the concerns or issues which are connected to the case. Working together, the group mainly concentrates on the path which is towards reasonable outcome affecting the community and victim (Bergseth & Bouffard, 2007). The group also addresses the obligations which the offender owes to the community and victim. The group members usually establish a plan and evaluate ways in which it will be administered and who will be the one monitoring it. Restorative conferencing usually involves the victim, and the offender has to come together with the aim to discuss crime as well as how the offense has impacted the offender and the victim. At the time of the conference, there is the presence of a trained professional like a therapist or counselor who takes the role of the mediator and offers support to both the victim and the offender at the time of their discussion (Jeffries, 2005). The mediator is responsible for providing assistance and guidance while maintaining their conversation in a civilized manner and concentrating on the impact of the crime and what requires being done as a way of resolving issues. The restorative conference is mainly divided into three major segments; pre-conference preparation, actual meeting, and follow-up conference (Daly, 2002). The end objective of the restorative conference makes sure that both the offender and the victim are prepared emotionally and mentally when re-entering the community's care.

On the other hand, victim-offender mediation is a type of restorative justice which offers a comforting and safe environment which allows therapeutic conversation taking place. Although this process is based on voluntary bases, the offenders are usually encouraged that they need to participate. In a case where the offenders are found declining to participate, they may be subjected to given serving time in prison or jail. One of the major strengths of the restorative justice is that, when a given crime is committed and there is a violation of law, this system frequently emphasizes on the offense while the victim is only viewed as the witness to the offense which is committed against the state. According to Bergseth & Bouffard, (2013), restorative justice challenges the assumption typically by the society that truth is only served through the punishing of the offenders. The perspective that is employed by restorative justice is that crime need to be viewed as an action which harms relationships and people and not regarded as an action which is against the laws and the state. Other systems of criminal justice fail considering the emotions of the individuals who are the most affected by crime.

The ideology behind restorative justice acknowledges the suffering of the victims and provides them a voice during the process of decision making. There is the need of having a dialogue between the offenders, the victim, and the community. According to Choi, Bazemore,& Gilbert, (2012), restorative justice benefits the victims as it helps them in recovering through exoneration, healing, and indemnification while the offenders participate in a direct way in the creation of a development plan required for their rehabilitation following fair treatment.

There are several challenges that restorative justice faces. One of the significant weaknesses of restorative justice is that there are difficulties in identifying ways in which the processes, objectives, and concept of restorative justice should be integrated within the criminal justice system. Restorative justice creates the idea of a confrontation between the victims and offenders under the protection of the society typically. There are several questions if the processes of restorative justice hold the offenders as sufficiently accountable for the crimes that they have committed.

Multidisciplinary center (MDC) aims at responding to adult and child survivors or victims of sexual assault in an interdisciplinary, integrated environment and context that offers support, access, and safety to justice. Although MDC services usually respond to the requirements of children and adults, child protection is only included where the young person or child can be in need of the security. MDCs have been created to enhance the responses to child sexual harassment and sexual offenses. The centers usually co-locate the practitioners offering child protection with the specialist police investigators and the sexual assault advocates as well as the forensic medical personnel. The specialist professionals typically work in collaboration with the aim of providing the victims or survivors a specialist, integrated, centered and holistic response to the sexual abuse victims from one significant location. Better co-location and integration of different agencies have the capacity of significantly enhancing the answer to the survivors or victims. MDCs offer services to any individual who has either experienced or stands at the risk of sexual abuse (Day et al., 2014). The principal objective of MDC is responding to attaining of the needs f the survivors or victims through addressing their well-being, safety, and the ability to regain control of their circumstances and offering access to information, justice, support, and services which are appropriate to meet their needs. T

he complexity of responding to the child victims recovering from sexual abuse can be compounded by their vulnerability, conflicted relationships of their family and dividing of loyalties which may surround the abused (Baffour, 2006). MDCs offer s holistic strategy which centers on encouraging the child while attending to the needs of the family through an approach which is highly coordinated to forensic investigation and counseling and support. These responses are guided strictly by only the best principles of interest.

One of the main strengths of MDCs is that it offers a multidisciplinary approach which supports skilled and timely response to cases involving sexual abuse for the children as well as the non-offending members of the family. The practitioners of child protection, members of the police force, and the sexual assault advocates or counselors join hands in developing of the interventions which best attain the requirements of the support and children. Hence, making it easier to understand the experience of the children who have faced abuse such that they may at the end become better positioned to enhance the child's support and offer safety (Forgays & DeMilio, 2005). Furthermore, MDCs assist the child and their families in managing the implication of sexual abuse and managing of further disclosures that can emerge later. This results in the provision of the children and their families with easy access to counseling and support throughout the process f disclosure.

One weakness that MDCs are faced with is that their success dramatically depends on cooperation and coordination of families, agencies, children and the programs of divisional child protection. Interagency collaboration is mainly recognized as the significant defining benefit of the co-location of the services offered by MDCs. Additionally, MDCs may not be successful given that the partners fail to proactively share the specialist skills and knowledge with all their professional collaborators.

According to a study by Casey & Mohr, (2005), the current trend revolving around the politics of law and order is that the establishment of unstable economies has weakened the topic. In many locations, crime has been rendered as a useful foil at the time of battle against the rising budget deficits and unemployment (Mack & Anleu, 2011). The justification for the harsh practices of sentencing is typically found in the standard rationale that indicates the punitive public as being fed up with the crimes facing them and the rise f dissatisfaction with the system of criminal justice by the public.

One primary strength of law and order system of the criminal justice is that it advocates for mandatory penalties become graduated, relatively short and only be posted in connection with the system that provides every first offender with suspended sentence and be offered appropriate probation period having exception for given heinous offenses like premeditated murder as well as consumer poisoning. The system contemplates that the victims associated with committing fewer crimes such as drug abuse, non-organized prostitution, and alcoholism become removed from the operation of criminal justice and be replaced with the treatment system (Fulkerson, 2009). One main weakness that law and order system of the criminal faces is that the system has limited effectiveness since the society has not yet been committed to providing the necessary resources for ameliorating all social conditions which lead to breeding of criminal conduct and rehabilitating or habilitating primary law violators.

The court system of the criminal system helps typically in providing the victims with crucial steps which they should take with the aim of accessing justice. The courts are expected that they establish the systems which allow the victims in testifying in the proceedings of the court in a manner which protects their confidentiality and privacy, making sure that the victims' safety is observed before and after transactions which prevent re-victimization (Blagg, 2013). The courts ensure that the victims respect the trained advocates dealing with crimes when navigating the process of criminal justice. One major strength of court as a system of the criminal prosecution is that they are generally free from external pressures such as political pressure hence they make law on the controversial areas with no fear of voter backlash. They can make law fast after a given case arises with no pressure from the interested parties (Kalich & Evans, 2006).

One main weakness of the court system of criminal justice is that courts should always wait for new cases to arise so that they may make law. These cases are often rare. For any claim to be brought before the court systems, a given party should have legal standing and have the will to spend the needed money and time.

References

Baffour, T. D. (2006). Ethnic and gender differences in offending patterns: Examining family group conferencing interventions among at-risk adolescents. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 23(5-6), 557-578.

Bergseth, K. J., & Bouffard, J. A. (2007). The long-term impact of restorative justice programming for juvenile offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(4), 433-451.

Bergseth, K. J., & Bouffard, J. A. (2013). Examining the effectiveness of a restorative justice program for various types of juvenile of...