Restorative Justice for Young Female Offenders: A Critical Evaluation

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