1019LHS Essay: Restorative Justice and Recidivism in Australia

This essay examines the principles and efficacy of restorative justice, contrasting it with traditional punitive approaches like incarceration. It argues that restorative justice, which emphasizes reconciliation between victims and offenders, can effectively reduce recidivism rates. The essay uses data from Australian and international institutes to support its claims, highlighting the limitations of solely focusing on punishment and the stigmatization caused by imprisonment. It further explores the economic feasibility of restorative justice, comparing the costs of incarceration with community corrections and social programs. The essay also discusses the importance of considering the context of crime, socioeconomic factors, and the need for rehabilitation, arguing that restorative justice can address these issues more effectively than punitive measures. It advocates for a multifaceted approach, considering recidivism rates, public perception, and economic benefits to make a clear case for restorative justice, particularly for first-time offenders, while acknowledging its complexities in high-severity cases.

1019LHS (17279) Foundations of Academic Writing

In contemporary society, the traditional view is that justice occurs only when the convicted
receive punishment proportional to their wrongdoing—traditional justice champions
incarceration above all else as a deterrent to recidivism. Restorative justice has gained
significant traction in both domestic and international judicial systems. Restorative justice Is
a program whereby victims and offenders of an offence participate in a mediation style
meeting to diminish the damage caused. It seeks to challenge the widespread views on
recidivism deterrence and rehabilitation. However, while certain crimes are not worthy of
such attempts, restorative justice is applicable in most instances. Restorative justice offers a
solution that effectively reduces recidivism without undermining the punishment of
incarceration. Data explored from both Australian and international institutes as findings
illustrate this.
The restorative model attempts to approach the issue innovatively regarding both the victim
and offender by integrating reconciliation. Traditional punishment, i.e. incarceration, causes a
dynamic of stigmatization between the perpetrator and society. Stigmatization is the kind of
shaming that creates outcasts; it is disrespectful, humiliating. Stigmatization means treating
criminals as evil people who have done evil acts. (Braithwaite, 1996) Stigmatization of the
individual rather than the crime results in a structure that seeks to demonize the individual in
all aspects of society. The Effects of Prison Sentences on Recidivism (Gendreau, P. and
Goggin, C., 2000) presents empirical data for the efficacy of imprisonment.Based on the data
presented, a clear case is made for the lack of efficacy for punitive punishment. Regardless of
the assumed risk level of the offender, prison sentences did not reduce recidivism. Findings
are not isolated to one individual analysis, twelve-month program evaluation: Restorative
Justice Project demonstrates a 77% reduction in recidivism for all youth offenders within the
case study. However, the line of argumentation must not be restricted to its efficacy.
Recidivism as a sole indicator to evaluate the success of a program is not indicative of the
feasibility to implement. There are, for instance, outcomes other than recidivism that may be
of interest to the state or prison itself. To be a valid alternative, the economic feasibility of
restorative justice must unambiguous.
In Australia state primarily operates the current prison system, unlike countries such as the
United States, which utilize a private model. Prisons requireexpenditureto maintain
conditions, provide a wage for staff and contain the convicted. Everyone incarcerated incurs a
net cost to the state both upfront and recurring for each additional year within the prison
system. "In 2014–15, the net expenditure and capital costs for imprisonment in Victoria were
$837 million, while the total for community corrections was $109 million. "(Anthony, M.,
2018). Although private prisons operate on an incentive to hold the maximum number of
prisoners, arguments can be made as to the reduction of private prison systems in favour of
restorative programs. From a cost-efficiency framework, the decision to transition from
punitive justice for applicable crimes is unambiguous.
The ability to construct hierarchies to isolate individuals into groups is a fundamental quality
of human cognition, but the process sometimes goes too far, and the categories become a
fixation. Within the judicial system exists a social hierarchy of the perceived severity of the
offence. These are Murders, Sex offenders’, Violent offenders, the mentally ill, and drug
dealers. However, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2021) report that only 21% of criminal
acts undertaken have intentto or have caused harm. As a result, reconsideration as to the case
for imprisonment must occur. For instance, if seventy nine percent of crimes have no intent

for harm restorative justice would significantly diminish the quantity of individuals who fall
into the categories. For this reason,the value of rehabilitation must not be understated.
The case for restorative attempts for high severity crimes is complicated. It is crucial to
reduce the rate of recidivism. However, it is also important to instil a sense of justice in the
victim of the crime. It becomes morally convoluted. Is it moral to rehabilitate and eventually
free the offender despite the potential adverse lifelong effects experienced by the victim?
Only on case-by-case basis factors the level of harm caused against the scenario that leads to
the crime should this question be answered. Regardless, there is a compelling argument to be
made for restorative justice attempts forhigh-severity offences. Empirical data demonstrate
high efficacy if the incarcerated are. The primary goal should be to persuade the incarcerated
that citizenship is superior to becoming a criminal and that the freedoms of citizenship are
preferable. If reintegration of felons into society with significantly lower recidivism rates is
possible, it is preferable to incarceration without a continual drag on state resources.
Denunciation of a felony has a vital symbolic role in conveying society's rejection of the
offence. Incarceration for minor crimes diminishes such rejection, creating a scenario in
which murder and a drug offence receive similar punitive sentences despite differing moral
equivalence. Incarceration of first-time offenders impugns the importance of the prison
system. If a drug offender and a murderer share the same cell, it is an expression of societies
view that they are morally equal despite the sheer difference in the level of harm created by
their actions. An effective prison system cannot exist under such circumstances Warner et al.
(2009) suggests that public attitudes to sentencing matter because of the contribution these
attitudes make to public confidence in the judicial system. Such faith cannot exist in a system
that equalizes the punishment of crimes regardless of public perceived severity of the crime.
Often punitive justice disregards the context of the crime. Criminality is a biproduct of
socioeconomic factors which strip portions of moral culpability from the offender. 'The
relationship between poverty and violence holds across different sorts of violent crimes
including murder, assault and domestic violence (Kelly, 2000; Martinez, 1996; Parker, 1989).
As a result of reduced state expenditure from the implementation of restorative justice, this
new capital then can be allocated towards social programs that aim to solve the
socioeconomic factors that lead to crime. Social development and inclusion programs are
demonstrated to affect recidivism and prevent crime from initially occurring positively.
Through a multifaceted approach of rates of recidivism, public perception of the judicial
system, and the inherit economical benefits. A clear case exists for restorative justice for first
time offenders.
Justice cannot be given on the basis of biasness it should be faire in nature and also judges is
require to seek that all the elements that is used within the case is been justified with more
efficiency. Justice is required to be served upon those aspects which is been covered with
more effectiveness. In judicial system various kinds of developments has taken place which
has lead upon making development of all aspects covered with more effectiveness. These
development has lead upon making court system which has lead upon serving of justice in

more effective manner. Also justice is been studied in relation over civil and criminal crimes
which made development of various legislation possible which made justice achieved in
discipline manner. Offenders seeking for justice and victims are treated separately which
makes justice to be clarified upon making
[1] Wilson, D., Olaghere, A. and Kimbrell, C., 2017. Effectiveness of Restorative Justice
Principles in Juvenile Justice: A Meta-Analysis. 1st ed. [ebook] Fairfax, Virginia:
Department of Criminology, Law and Society George Mason University, pp.2-7.
[2]Youthjustice.qld.gov.au.2021.[online]Available at:
<https://www.youthjustice.qld.gov.au/resources/youthjustice/program-eval/restorative-
justice-case-studies.pdf> [Accessed 3 May 2021].
[3] Youthjustice.qld.gov.au. 2018. Twelve month program evaluation: Restorative Justice
Project. [online] Available at:
<https://www.youthjustice.qld.gov.au/resources/youthjustice/program-eval/restorative-
justice-evaluation-report.pdf> [Accessed 3 May 2021].
[4] Gendreau, P. and Goggin, C., 2000. The Effects of Prison Sentences on Recidivism.
[online] Publicsafety.gc.ca.
Availableat:<https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ffcts-prsn-sntncs-rcdvsm/
index-en.aspx#:~:text=Prisons%20as%20punishment%3A%20prisons%20reduce
%20recidivism.&text=Lower%20risk%20offenders%20may%20be%20more%20readily
%20deterred%20and%20prisons,increase%20recidivism%20for%20all%20offenders.>
[Accessed 4 May 2021].
[5] ex, S., 2002. Measuring the Impact of Imprisonment: papers from a roundtable held in
London on 9 November 2001.. [online] Prisonstudies.org. Available at:

<https://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/
measuring_the_impact.pdf> [Accessed 4 May 2021].
Anthony, M., 2018. How much does prison really cost? Comparing the costs of imprisonment
with community corrections. [online] Australian Institute of Criminology. Available at:
<https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/rr/rr5> [Accessed 4 May 2021].
Braithwaite, J., 1996. Restorative Justice and a Better Future. [online] Iirp.edu. Available at:
<https://www.iirp.edu/news/restorative-justice-and-a-better-future> [Accessed 4 May 2021].
Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2021. Recorded Crime - Offenders, 2019-20 financial year.
[online] Available at: <https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/recorded-
crime-offenders/2019-20> [Accessed 5 May 2021].
Parker, R. N. (1989). Poverty, Subculture of Violence, and Type of Homicide. Social Forces,
67(4): 983‐1007.
Martinez, R. (1996) Latinos and Lethal Violence: The Impact of Poverty and Inequality,
Social Problems, 43(2): 131‐146.
Kelly, M. (2000). Inequality and Crime. Review of Economics and Statistics, 82(4): 530‐539.
Bartels, L., Fitzgerald, R., & Freiberg, A. (2018). Public opinion on sentencing and parole in
Australia. Probation Journal, 65(3), 269–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264550518776763
Warner, K. (2009) Gauging public opinion on sentencing: Can asking jurors help? Trends &
Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice No 371. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
ALLOCATING RESOURCES AMONG PRISONS AND SOCIAL PROGRAMS IN THE BATTLE AGAINST CRIME
JOHN J. DONOHUE 111 and PETER SIEGELMAN*