Restorative Justice for Young Female Offenders: A Critical Evaluation

This paper critically evaluates the use of restorative justice as an alternative to the traditional criminal justice system for young female offenders. It examines the theory behind restorative justice and its application to youth offending, with a focus on female perpetrators. The paper summarizes the benefits and challenges of restorative justice and discusses its implications for future policy-making. The use of restorative justice is shown to have positive benefits for young female offenders, but further research is needed to fully assess its effectiveness.

Running head: OPTION 3: RESTORATIVE JUSTICE FOR YOUNG FEMALE OFFENDERS:
A CRITICAL EVALUATION 1
Option 3: Restorative Justice for Young Female Offenders: A Critical Evaluation
Name
Institution

OPTION 3: RESTORATIVE JUSTICE FOR YOUNG FEMALE OFFENDERS: A CRITICAL
EVALUATION 2
Option 3: Restorative Justice for Young Female Offenders: A Critical Evaluation
Traditionally, the criminal justice system has focused on committing and detaining
offenders instead of examining the real causes of their problems and giving community-oriented
services which efficiently tackle them. Unfortunately, crimes have soared under the current
system and the search stays ever stronger for effective solutions to address the increasing
population in prisons, rising high costs, poor conditions and overcrowding, coupled with
growingly alarming disproportionate increase in the female jail population connected to “one-
size-fits-all” harsh sentencing. This paper presents an examination of the “restorative justice” in
practice both as alternative for and a compliment to the current failing system. It emphasizes,
specifically, on how theory is applied to the youths offending and primarily, where perpetrator is
female. It further summarizes the benefit intended to be accomplished by RJ system and weighs
these the challenges witnessed and envisaged. The finding’s implication for future policy-making
in the field is subsequently deliberated.
RJ calls for an alteration in the manner we think in regards to crime and justice. RJ, as set
of values, provides a solution which promotes as well as strengthens bonds in the community, by
tackling the harm inflicted to the survivors and communities at large. RJ is believed to be deeply
rooted in native cultures, building on the early practices of resolving conflict in non-state
societies. Albeit RJ receiving certain criticism of this argument being utilized to give RJ
credibility, there is absolutely unique parallel between Maori justices procedures of cumulative
responsibility and the manner RJ is currently operating. The two concepts both seek to tackle the
needs of both victims and family and also both examine the lack of balance of offenders in the
family and social setting. An identical approach can hence be observed in Christianity and

OPTION 3: RESTORATIVE JUSTICE FOR YOUNG FEMALE OFFENDERS: A CRITICAL
EVALUATION 3
several other global religions- the “confessions, forgiveness, repentances, hating the sin rather
then the sinner” remain values with close parallel to the ones rooted in RJ (Daly, 2016).
When tackling crimes, RJ emphasizes on harm done by offense, come together to deal
with repairing such harm. This is accomplished when the individual engaged or haven been
affected by offense, join hands to attempt to get the issue resolved. Restorative Justice is all
about balance restoration and placing things rightly (Marchetti & Daly, 2017). The intention is to
make amends to survivors instead of punishing the perpetrators. The perpetrator is held
responsible for offending in constructive and meaningful manner, and provided a chance to “put
something back in” for harm repairing they have inflicted instead of merely experiencing penalty
for the harm. Closely linked to abolitionism, is the principle that survivors need to receive
material and status reward for their agony, and in essence, abolitionists have played a central role
in RJ development (Bazemore & Schiff, 2015).
An instance of this approach is observed in family group conferencing. This is usually
held in local setting or community hall. Following welcome and introductions, the law
enforcement officer, highlights the aspects of offense succeeded by the admission or denial by
the offender of the set out facts. Upon the establishment of a basis for agreed summary of facts,
the survivor has the chance to communicate that is two-fold intentions, in making the perpetrator
aware of harm which he has inflicted, and engaging and empowering the survivor. The family
member of the victim might as well have the chance to communicate relating to how offense has
impacted them. The purpose is to motivate the offender to accept accountability for his actions,
and to provide a genuine apology. Nevertheless, this is never anticipated or compelled and
wherever feasible, perpetrators remain urged to volunteer their partake and apology. Moreover,
the perpetrator is assisted and urged to provide a real, practical solution for making amends-this

OPTION 3: RESTORATIVE JUSTICE FOR YOUNG FEMALE OFFENDERS: A CRITICAL
EVALUATION 4
might encompass replacing or repairing damaged asset, or provision of services to the survivor in
recompense (Johnson et al., 2015). The harm might be to a broader society-for instance,
vandalism alongside damage to public asset, and the survivor might be urged to offer an identical
practical solution for repairing and “pay back” to the society as a whole (Maruna & LeBel,
2015).
The RJ process has been applied in many contexts and utilizing various models. Family
group conferencing is utilized for all juvenile perpetrators apart from people who have
committed manslaughter or murder. Additional schemes encompass victim-offender mediation, a
course that urges respectful, open dialogue mainly between victim and perpetrator whereby there
is no particular “agendas” or “scripts” as can occasionally be utilized in family group
conferencing. Others include circle/healing circles whereby all group members are accorded an
opportunity to converse as they holders feathers or “speaking stick”.
In conventional justice system, the state has always taken over from the victims’ role and
defines the offenders’ obligations as anchored in law. The “fight” which proceeds is done
between professionals and could narrow down to technicalities in law or even individual
attorney’s ability, remote from the pain and suffering of the survivor (Bouffard, Cooper &
Bergseth, 2017). In comparison, RJ empowers the survivors, providing them a chance to
converse about their offenses and the manner it has impacted them, and hence it is the victims
who define the offenders’ obligations, which need to be commensurate to the offence.
Consequently, offender is accorded an opportunity to tell “his side of the story” and for his
supporters to converse on his behalf. All the parties equally are assisted and the needs of each
party is taken into account. Such factor as the background of offenders, education, health,
general social welfare and employment prospects could be discoursed with offender-in fact, the

OPTION 3: RESTORATIVE JUSTICE FOR YOUNG FEMALE OFFENDERS: A CRITICAL
EVALUATION 5
entire course reinstates that it is the offense rather than offender which is under condemnation; a
value that peacekeeping criminologists are promoting. The offender can herself have witnessed
harm in her life hence triggering the offense, and support staff outline potential solutions to bar
reoffending through the reintegration of the offender back into the society. The course is,
nonetheless, on of healing for offender and for victim, and where the survivor shows her
forgiveness, this can have a powerful impact on offender and her future conduct.
Regardless of the differences in the RJ field, it is a consensus that RJ shifts justice
process from courtrooms and places it back into the society (Snow & Sanger, 2015). The
community has the sole responsibility to support and enable all members, victims and offenders
alike, and for both healing and reinstating everyone. The resources of the community are drawn
on, however, the course leads to building as well as strengthening of community at large.
Nevertheless, not everyone views this as good concept. Some believe that shifting responsibility
for outcomes into the family and victims’ hands from state is adversarial. Some matters are civil
with the concern being between involved parties-and a criminal activity exists, these are in the
broader interest of the pubic-and the pubic consents to obey laws in exchange of such interests’
safeguard (Willis, 2016). Thus, the state primarily owes it the victims “whose wrong it shares”
and to perpetrators in exercising power to identical degree in similar instances, giving certainty
and consistency. Whereas we might counter this opposition to RJ, it must be noted that a
consideration with regards to future policy making stays an inevitability. Both certainty and
consistency are essential values in regards to crime prevention and control-most sensible
individuals don’t breach the law since they stay aware of the likely consequences of any
particular behavior-and with this emerges the need to guarantee certainty and consistency,
disadvantaged cohorts might find themselves on the side of specific local perspectives and

OPTION 3: RESTORATIVE JUSTICE FOR YOUNG FEMALE OFFENDERS: A CRITICAL
EVALUATION 6
responses (for instance, young female perpetrators manifesting “unsuitable conduct) (Mika &
Zehr, 2017).
Despite the many criticism meant to water down the potential of RJ, the system has
positive benefits for young females. The services offered by RJ calls for promotion to enhance
and allow young women to lead “safe, secure alongside standalone lives” to assist them
accomplish economic self-reliance and secure long-term accommodation, and to provide them
educational alternatives with the aim of a career (Frias-Armenta, Rodríguez-Macías, Corral-
Verdugo, Caso-Niebla & García-Arizmendi, 2018). This will then provide them “legitimate
identities, for the attainment of a meaningful role in the society and to have certain choice
regarding form and direction of lives”. This implies acknowledging that young female offenders
have unique experiences and reactions to men, and effecting alterations to practices that have in
essence isolated them from much desired support to date. In the formulation of RJ policies, it has
to be appreciated that young women offenders required access to the “continuum of alternatives
whereby their safety can be guaranteed” as they are assisted to tackle the issues that led them
into contact with the CJS and given the services they require to vacate it (Strang & Braithwaite,
2017).
The present justice system stays “daunting, impersonal and rigid”, both for offenders and
victims alike. The victims barely get the opportunity to speak reading their losses and in cases
they get such chances they are confined to speak (for instance, in providing evidence) it stays
channeled as well as scripted in accordance with the procedure as professional substitute them
and define the harm based on breached rules and set penalties (Österman & Masson, 2018). The
“wrangle” is done between the professionals and outcome could narrow to technicalities in law
or particular abilities of attorney, in disregard to bearing on the suffering and pain of the victims.

OPTION 3: RESTORATIVE JUSTICE FOR YOUNG FEMALE OFFENDERS: A CRITICAL
EVALUATION 7
The procedure is consequently remote and cold for young women offenders and seldom are their
full conditions considered (Van Ness & Strong, 2014)
RJ is thus sold as a promising mechanism forward in fight against crime and it is self-
selling as a solution capable of rebuilding pubic confidence in CJS, decrease rates of reoffending,
boost satisfaction and confidence among victims, and modernize/fully abolish the CJS. However,
the question is; “is there any proof that RJ is working?” Despite the difficulty in assessing this,
rates of reoffending do not show a full image and possibly never shall as offender might be
arrested in a different nation or could even be caught the next time round. In regards to the
satisfaction among victims, research are few with vague outcomes (Rafter, 2017). The
challenging factor when assessing the operation of the RJ would appear to be the inadequacy of
data. While RJ has been “well executed” there have been promising outcomes-whereby RJ has
been “executed wrongly” adverse results have been observed. It is a consensus that RJ
monitoring stays poor, and follow ups are also ineffective and it would thus appear extremely
adverse feedback arises from poor practice, not any particular loophole in the RJ itself.
Standalone rigorous study is essential without necessarily having a vested interest in process
working (Zehr, 2015).
It must be, however, stressed that RJ movements’ advocates are good at promoting
themselves and the present practices alongside guidelines stay far from completion. In fact it said
that it might be a mistake to replace care/response strategy or the right/justice one this way, in
the current system of things as it is never desirable to trust that interest of “less influential” might
be safeguarded in the rules’ absentia. RJ is never, hence, able practically to substitute the current
system at the present, however, it avails a desired way forward in the task to get a more full
vision of the justice (Archie, 2015).

OPTION 3: RESTORATIVE JUSTICE FOR YOUNG FEMALE OFFENDERS: A CRITICAL
EVALUATION 8
With additional studies and cautious considerate into the matters which affect the
experience of women in justice system, RJ additionally provide a feasibly more meaningful and
constructive solution for young female offender and one which might never come any soon. A
record number of female committing suicide was observed in year 2003 in prisons, several of
whom were “young female, non-violent, drug takers, and primary carers of kids and known
vulnerable to suicide” Undoubtedly, the current justice system has collapsed and failed these
young female offenders and key figures are presently recognizing that these problems might be
better addressed-in the society/community.

OPTION 3: RESTORATIVE JUSTICE FOR YOUNG FEMALE OFFENDERS: A CRITICAL
EVALUATION 9
References
Archie, J. A. (2015). The impact of restorative justice on re-arrest of young offenders: A
secondary data analysis (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University).
Bazemore, G., & Schiff, M. (2015). Restorative community justice: Repairing harm and
transforming communities. Routledge.
Bouffard, J., Cooper, M., & Bergseth, K. (2017). The effectiveness of various restorative justice
interventions on recidivism outcomes among juvenile offenders. Youth Violence and
Juvenile Justice, 15(4), 465-480.
Daly, K. (2016). What is restorative justice? Fresh answers to a vexed question. Victims &
Offenders, 11(1), 9-29.
Frias-Armenta, M., Rodríguez-Macías, J. C., Corral-Verdugo, V., Caso-Niebla, J., & García-
Arizmendi, V. (2018). Restorative Justice: A Model of School Violence
Prevention. Science, 6(1), 39-45.
Johnson, T., Quintana, E., Kelly, D., Graves, C., Schub, O., Newman, P., & Casas, C. (2015).
Restorative Justice Hubs Concept Paper. Revista de Mediación, 8(5).
Marchetti, E., & Daly, K. (2017). Indigenous partner violence, Indigenous sentencing courts, and
pathways to desistance. Violence against women, 23(12), 1513-1535.
Maruna, S., & LeBel, T. P. (2015). Strengths-based restorative approaches to reentry: the
evolution of creative restitution, reintegration and destigmitization. In Positive
criminology (pp. 89-108). Routledge.
Mika, H., & Zehr, H. (2017). Fundamental concepts of restorative justice. In Restorative
Justice (pp. 73-81). Routledge.

OPTION 3: RESTORATIVE JUSTICE FOR YOUNG FEMALE OFFENDERS: A CRITICAL
EVALUATION 10
Österman, L., & Masson, I. (2018). Restorative justice with female offenders: the neglected role
of gender in restorative conferencing. Feminist Criminology, 13(1), 3-27.
Rafter, N. (2017). Partial justice: Women, prisons and social control. Routledge.
Snow, P. C., & Sanger, D. D. (2015). Restorative justice conferencing and the youth offender:
Exploring the role of oral language competence. International journal of language &
communication disorders, 1-10.
Strang, H., & Braithwaite, J. (Eds.). (2017). Restorative justice: Philosophy to practice.
Routledge.
Van Ness, D. W., & Strong, K. H. (2014). Restoring justice: An introduction to restorative
justice. Routledge.
Willis, R. (2016). Three approaches to community in restorative justice, explored through a
young person’s experiences of a youth offender team in England. Restorative
Justice, 4(2), 168-194.
Zehr, H. (2015). The little book of restorative justice: revised and updated. Skyhorse Publishing,
Inc.