Restorative Justice System

Introduction In the adversary system, crimes are seen as on offense committed against the state. It views the offender as a completely free and rational individual who volunteers to engage in criminal activity. Therefore, the focus of this system is punishment and control; which, should be tough enough to promote specific and general deterrence. Unfortunately, though being tough on crime and the offender, is assumed to reduce future crime through deterrence; it fails to do so. It also minimizes the involvement of the victim within an offense. However, an alternative form of justice known as restorative justice, does the opposite by not focusing on punishment but, on therapy and restoration.

Restorative justice is defined as a “series
of strategies to restore justice when wrong has been committed” (Van Wormer & Bartollas 2014). Forms of restorative justice include practices such as conferences, sentencing circles, victim offender mediation processes (Daly & Stubbs 2006) and community reparation (e.g. compensation) (Van Wormer & Bartollas 2014). It aims to promote the “restoration of safe communities for victims and offenders who have solved their conflicts (Hudson 2003). Furthermore, it is seen as an innovative approach that empowers, centralizes and emphasizes the importance of the victim when dealing with the crime. It allows the victims open up about the harms they have experience and what they need to be readdressed in order for restoration to occur (Miller & Iovanni 2013). In short, it promotes the reintegration of offenders, along with focusing on harms done to to victims and restoring the relationships between the offenders, victims and the community. Restorative justice can be beneficial for female offenders because it incorporates a feminist approach which promotes empowerment and offers a gender responsive approach; however, it does not necessarily apply to specific offenses such as gendered violence. Restorative justice ultimately finds itself more applicable to property crimes than to cases of gendered violence.

Empowerment Feminist criminologists have argued that restorative justice practices are valuable to specifically females offenders due to the gendered pathways which they derive from. Females are susceptible to gender, race, and class inequalities through their daily lives; in which, shapes their possible vulnerabilities to issues such as poverty, sexual and physical abuse, violence, unsafe neighbourhoods, etc. (Gaarder & Hesselton 2012). Restorative justice is viewed as empowering because offers women choice, treatment and support. In other words, it gives women a voice to express their feelings on an incident. It allows the offender to address their previous trauma through the use of strength based approach which allows these women to talk about their problems. By opening up an opportunity for the victim and offender to communicate with each other, it gives the feelings of the victim validation along with helping them begin their healing process; and, emphasizes the responsibility of the offender. It also can prevent recidivism rates and reduce the possibility of continuous isolation generated by being incarcerated (Van Wormer & Bartollas 2014); and instead promotes the development of relationships. Furthermore, it establishes a communicative and flexible environment in which relationships can possibly be repaired (Daly & Stubbs 2006). O’Hara (1998) argues that restorative justice provides offender accountability, community protection and competency development. In the case of a woman who shoplifted, she had the opportunity to talk and apologized to the store owner which she stole from. The store owner was included in the process of making the decision as to how she could repay for what she took; whether it was paying the store owner for the items she stole or to do community service (O’Hara 1998). This woman had experienced victimization in her life through a “dysfunctional family and disorganized community” (O’Hara 1998:86); so, by giving her the opportunity to communicate with the person which she had committed an offense against, she could acknowledge her accountability. Thus, the elicitation of accountability, allows these women to “reclaim their identity as participant within their community” (O’Hara 1998:99). In other words, despite her history of victimization which led her into the juvenile system that excluded her from society, she was given a chance to be included back into the society by making contributions to the community.

Gender Responsive Approach By being gender responsive, the system begins to understand and acknowledge the pathways in which these women have came from.
Due to their victimization, they may have committed certain offenses as coping and survival mechanisms. These women could have been subjected to commit these crimes because they have run away from their homes as a result of being subjected to violence; whether it may have been sexual, physical, mental, or emotional or have experienced early childhood trauma due to similar events. Through consideration for the gender-specific nature of these pathways, gender responsive approaches are beneficial. Restorative justice arguably assists with the development of juvenile females by functioning as a therapeutic and healing mechanism (Van Wormer & Bartollas 2014). Since intimacy and the development of relationships are important and necessary for adolescent development, strategies implemented by restorative justice, create the opportunity for these females to so; despite their previous actions. Through communication and listening, it simulates restoration for these juvenile female offenders to restore their own broken relationships which they may have faced in their background of victimization. Restorative strategies which address a young female offenders background of victimization could help her realize her own history of victimization and how her actions have affected another individual. Thus, by participating in these restorative strategies, the
offender will begin to realize that she cannot excuse her behaviour because of her past victimization but is required to move beyond it in order to successfully feel empathetic towards their victims and apologetic for any of the offenses they have committed.

Inapplicable/Limited to Gendered Violence Despite restorative justice promoting empowerment, offering a gender responsive approach and, recognizing victims and offenders without pushing for reconciliation or erasing victimization (Daly & Stubbs 2006), it does not necessarily function similarly for all offenses. In cases such as gendered violence, the actions of the offenders can be “incomprehensible” (Daly & Stubbs 2006). Some victims have felt unsafe, manipulated and pressured when participating in these conferences; and sometimes felt worse after their conference (Daly & Stubbs 2006). Thus, in cases which involve gendered violence, restorative justice is considered as being “soft on crime” which minimizes the harms that were committed. In some cases, offenders were allowed to escape sentencing because they chose the restorative justice route instead. Hence, to avoid situations such as this, there must also be harsh punishment when dealing with gendered violence in order for offenders to realize that their actions were unacceptable and they must face the consequences. Additionally, this allows some offenders to believe that they can manipulate and intimidate their victims during this process due to its informal nature (Miller & Iovanni 2013).

The offender successfully manipulates the process by placing the blame on the victim by claiming that it was their fault (e.g “she made me angry”), causing the victim to experience re-victimization. This leads the victims to have to re-live their incidents and leading them to feel worse after the conference. Therefore, to ensure that the victim benefits out of the process, they must firstly be protected and feel comfortable/ready to confront and communicate with their abuser; so, incorporation of a increased formal process would be valuable. However, in other cases, a part of the healing process for victims may be their abusers being incarcerated and held accountable for the harms they have done against them. Along with this, some victims also need to express any feelings they may have on the issue to release the burden the abuser forced upon them.

Conclusion Restorative justice is arguably to be considered as the innovative alternative to the adversary system/punitive justice.
It serves as a therapeutic mechanism that is beneficial for not only the offender but the victim as well. It allows both parties to express their feelings on situations and come to a collective understanding on how the offense may have affected them. Additionally, it allows the victim and the offender to come to a collective agreement on how things can be restored. More specifically, it succeeds greatly with female offenders as an option for them to have their history of victimization acknowledged to understand the context behind why they may have offended and how their actions have victimized others. However, it fails to be successful for all offenses (i.e. gendered violence) due to the possibility of manipulation, re-victimization, etc. To prevent issues such as these from occurring, it would
be