Restorative Justice: An Informal Alternative

Restorative justice is an informal alternative; where the victim and offender talk about the offense together, addressing the problem and deciding what steps are next, with the intent of healing both parties in the process. Unlike criminal trials, the restorative justice model does not have established procedures or outcomes.
Restorative justice offers a less-formal “solution” between the two parties and includes proponents that aren’t practiced in criminal trial. Questions can be asked and answered without formal consequences of law, and the model takes the victims and offenders opinions and desires into account, not just the fact that the law was broken and punishment should therefore follow. Their opinions carry the weight of law, and can
reduce recidivism- because the victim contributed to the decision and is pressured to abide by the terms. Punishment isn’t always enacted, and this model can be said to mimic the victim’s wishes, making it a process that acknowledges humanity. It supports the belief that people are more than their crime; they could be victim of circumstance or lapse in judgment, and resolutions under this system can prove to be beneficial to both parties. The address of human nature in this model and mobility given to the offender to influence the outcome, can accommodate the needs of both the victim that are neglected throughout the criminal trial. Offenders are a puppet under the control of their lawyers, and the goal is to be found innocent, which can mean an offender won’t acknowledge the damage done for fear of self-incrimination.
A problem with restorative justice, as a replacement to the criminal justice system, is the idealistic process can skew reality.
It ignores the possibility of unremorseful offenders and unwilling victims, challenges the criminal justice system operation, undermines the law- that define crimes and send offenders to prison, as well as outline the rights that protect citizens from the government. Crime can ruin lives, destroy relationships, and a mediated conversation can’t heal every wound, or address the problem at large. It reduces the legitimacy of law, which citizens are required to abide by, and believe in. The lack of established process results in discrepancies in outcomes; refuting the idea of equality before the law. Objectivity is essential to due process, and working with the victim eliminates the possibility of legitimate and fair consequences. This includes both extremes, harsh punishment for a minor crime and or no punishment for a harsher crime. The decision rests in the hands of a common citizen, who is usually virtually uneducated of the process of law as compared to appointed justices. Justices are appointed to fairly evaluate the situation and proceed in accordance with the law, and restorative justice can give too much power in the hands of those in the
discussion.
Restorative justice should be able to operate in conjunction of the criminal trial, but should not be implemented alone. Besides the fact that no concrete evidence has been found to support the belief that is could be successful in criminal situations, restorative justice undermines the legitimacy of law and provisions Americans have put in place to ensure equality before the law. Definite sentences provide some degree of uniformity, while restorative justice is based on subjectivity; causing a wide variety of outcomes. The law operates as a transparent agency made to enforce and maintain order, and the uncertainty of the restorative justice creates a problem, citizens already question law’s ability to produce uniform sentences. The idea itself isn’t bad, but in our current society, I don’t believe its’s plausible. As it’s still developing, it should be confined to community and informal problems.