Comparing Restorative Justice and Non-Restorative Systems

This assignment compares and contrasts restorative justice with non-restorative systems, focusing on the key aspects of each approach. Restorative justice is highlighted as a more productive and satisfying method for addressing crimes, involving all affected parties in the process. The advantages of restorative justice are emphasized, including its ability to promote community peace and reconciliation. In contrast, non-restorative justice systems focus primarily on punishment and public safety. The assignment draws on various references to support its arguments, providing a comprehensive understanding of the two approaches.

Running head: RESTORING JUSTICE AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE 1
RESTORING JUSTICE AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
Student’s Name
Course
Professor
City
Date

RESTORING JUSTICE AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
2
Restoring Justice and Restorative justice
Restorative justice is a theory of justice which accepts the effects of criminal behavior.
The three principles surrounding restorative justice are that justice should focus on repairing
harm because crime causes harm, people affected by crime should participate in the resolution
process and that the government's responsibility is to build peace to maintain order in the
community (Beck, Kropf, & Leonard, 2010). Certain Acts are criminalized because they cause
harm to the society. Restorative justice requires that the justice process should focus on repairing
the harm caused by criminal acts. Mostly in the non-restorative system, those who cause harm
should pay back by harm being caused to them in return. In restorative justice, the focus is on the
accountability of the offender hence repairing harm other than creating more harm (Morris,
2011).
This piece will focus an article on The Conversation titled In Historic Times, Punishment
alone is not Always the Best Response. The article by Brian Stout (Stout, 2017) focuses on the
issue of sentencing offenders who committed a crime many years in the past and what the
punishment aims to achieve. According to the author, in historic cases, the courts have not been
focused on the importance of restoration and rehabilitation, but the focus has mainly been on
retribution. The author then asks what are sentences for, and attempts to answer (Stout, 2017). In
New South Wales, Robert John Hall was convicted for five years without a parole period of 12
months for crimes he had committed in 1990. The accused had been charged with rape offenses,
and the leniency of the judge led to a lot of criticism. While deciding the case, the judge
considered several factors, but the decision was mostly based on Hall's character in the past 27
years. Hall had in the past years showed good character in the way he dealt with his family and
his involvement with community work for the benefit of the society. When sentencing an

RESTORING JUSTICE AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
3
accused, the factor that the judges usually consider is incapacitation; in that, the society is
protected from the offender. Brian asserts that incapacitation becomes less relevant in historic
cases because a person spends many years living in the society, and when they have not
committed any offense, incapacitation becomes irrelevant (Stout, 2017). Many crimes are usually
perceived on the possible effects on the society and the effect on the offender. There are no
provisions which require that if a person has not committed an offense for a considerable period
should be given a lesser sentence. However, argument of deterrence makes a lot of sense in such
situations.
According to this article (Stout, 2017), the details of a particular sentence is not what is
likely to deter the accused, but by the likelihood of an offense being detected. This, therefore,
leaves the retributive purpose of a sentence questioning the sentence which can be appropriate
for a particular crime. An offense should attract retributions; this is not questionable. However,
in practice, it is hard to achieve the proportionate punishment for a crime. In Hall's case, the
lenient punishment attracted a lot of criticism. This shows how the society still has a desire to see
accused persons punished severely for the crimes they commit. When the rates of sexual assault
remain high, and the conviction rates are still low, it is understandable when the public is
outraged by the lenient sentencing. On the other hand, it is also important that the justice system
sends a message that the society does not entertain such violent acts and that they stand with the
victim. However, imposing punishment does not necessarily mean that they send the message of
their sentiments to the criminals and the society. The author suggests that as much as punishment
has a key role in the deterrent of bad behaviors and building the society, it should not be the only
approach or the primary approach (Stout, 2017). If the justice systems only acknowledge a crime

RESTORING JUSTICE AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
4
and do not do much to remedy it, then that will be too little done to restorative justice
(Bazemore, 2013).
In the article, the decisions made are made to promote restoration. Restoration is
considered when sentencing. We do not see parties participating, but the behavior of the accused
is taken into account (Furio, 2007). Retributive justice required that all the parties participate in
the resolution including the offender, victim and everyone affected. Most of the time, an act of
remorse or steps taken to appease the victim are usually taken into account. Most of the time, the
victim and those affected would not believe a person has been rehabilitated unless the accused
takes a step to show an act of remorse to the victim. Sometimes compensation or an apology can
be helpful to show that the harm caused is understood and that the accused feels sorry about it
and it can now be a part of the past (Alarid, 2016). In the case of Hill, if the court considered
summoning all the parties involved and perhaps recommending that they go through the process
maybe there would not have been the much public outcry on the decision made to give a lenient
sentence. Most of the time parties act as enemies, but from what is said about Hill, if the victim
and the family together with all those affected could have participated, perhaps with Hill's
change in behavior, and his work for the community they would have considered forgiving him.
Also, if Hill were given a chance to participate, they would see Hill was remorseful and since he
has not done any crime since 1990's they would still feel that justice is served. This would also
bring satisfaction to the victim and all the aggrieved parties.
The article does not also consider the accountability of the offender. In Restorative
Justice, the accountability of the offender should focus on repairing the harm and not to cause
more harm (Jacobs, 2016). In this case, Hill has changed and when he would be made
accountable for his actions the outcome might have been different. The process of restorative

RESTORING JUSTICE AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
5
justice involves both the victims and the offenders; the victims also include friends and family
members of those affected by the crime (Furio 2007). They should all be involved in the process;
sometimes government official representatives can also be invited. The parties should be invited
to participate on their own volition; even offenders only participate so that they do not go
through the court process (Van Ness, & Johnstone, 2013). In restorative justice, the role of the
government is to maintain law and order when necessary. They should protect the interests of all
parties, as they decide how they are going to make things right. The role of the government when
maintaining peace should not only focus on absence conflicts but respectful relations.
The article does not tell us more about non-restorative justice and the advantages of
restorative justice against the no-restorative system, and probably what exactly is wrong with
non-restorative justice. In non-restorative justice, the party involved is usually the offender and
the government. In the non-restorative system, breaking the law is a crime. Accountability is
achieved when the offender accepts to be inflicted by the crime. Also, public safety is the most
important aspect so that the accused is incapacitated and cannot continue to commit the said
offense. In restorative justice, crime is not breaking the law, but it causes harm (Alarid, 2016).
Restorative justice looks more into the social impact of a crime. In restorative justice, all the
affected parties participate, and community peace is more important than the order of the
government and law.
Conclusion
To conclude we see that restorative justice is not easy but can provide the society with a
lot of hope. Importantly, restoration is more satisfying and productive than punishment (Yuan,

RESTORING JUSTICE AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
6
2017). However, the society and the government should take necessary steps to ensure that
people are appreciative or restorative justice.

RESTORING JUSTICE AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
7
References
Alarid, L. F. (2016). Community based corrections. Cengage Learning.
Bazemore, G., & Schiff, M. (2013). Juvenile justice reform and restorative justice. Routledge.
Beck, E., Kropf, N. P., & Leonard, P. B. (Eds.). (2010). Social work and restorative justice: Skills for dialogue,
peacemaking, and reconciliation. Oxford University Press.
Furio, J. (2007). Restorative justice: prison as Hell or a chance for redemption?. Algora Publishing.
Hansen, P. (2014). Social Work and Restorative Justice: Skills for Dialogue, Peacemaking, and Reconciliation.
Jacobs, D. (Ed.). (2016). Research Handbook on Transitional Justice. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Morris, A., & Maxwell, G. (Eds.). (2011). Restorative justice for juveniles: Conferencing, mediation and circles.
Bloomsbury Publishing.
Stout B. (2017). In Historic Cases, Punishment Alone Is Not Always the Best Response To
Violent Crime.
Van Ness, D. W., & Johnstone, G. (2013). The meaning of restorative Justice. In Handbook of Restorative
Justice (pp. 27-45). Willan
Yuan, X. (2017). Restorative Justice in China: Comparing Theory and Practice. Springer.