Effectiveness of Restorative Justice in the Juvenile and Adult Systems
Respond to at least two colleagues:
Choose a response that is different from your own.
Respectfully agree or disagree with your colleague’s arguments regarding the effectiveness of restorative justice in the juvenile and adult systems.
1st Reply
One of the main differences and determining factors for such differences between adult and juvenile crimes is the fact that when legal punishment is involved, you are deal with a minor. Because most juveniles involved in crimes are considered "children", there becomes a grey area in how a "child" can be prosecuted and subject to the same legal penalties as and adult offender. When juveniles commit crimes, the terminology of the crime and their actions are called into question. Far different terminology is used with juvenile offenders than adults. Some of these terminologies include,
Delinquent Acts v. Crimes: Juveniles are not classified as “criminals,” or considered to have committed “crimes,” but rather, “delinquent acts.”
Complaint v. Petition: A complaint is filed in an adult criminal case, but a petition is filed in a juvenile offender case.
Adjudication v. Conviction: An offender who is tried as an adult for a crime, and whom a judge or jury determines to be guilty, is convicted of that crime. A juvenile, however, is “adjudicated delinquent.”
Disposition v. Sentence: A convicted adults receives a sentence as punishment, whereas a juvenile receives a “disposition,” or outcome of their hearing" (LaMance, K. 2020).
I think that the approach between adult offenders and juvenile offenders is so vastly different, that it would appear to the public with no prior knowledge of restorative justice, that minors that commit crimes face far less punishment than adults simply because they are minors.
According to Bouffard the most effect ways restorative justice has reduced juvenile recidivism is, "...face-to-face mediation between victims and offenders, indirect communication between victims and offenders, community panels who stand in for the victim, and even minimal RJ (restorative justice) interventions that simply educate offenders about the restorative justice process" (Bouffard, J., Cooper, M., & Bergseth, K, 2017).
Bouffard admits that similar type's of treatment within the restorative justice program do work to reduce furth offenses amongst adult offenders, but not to the same extent as that with juvenile offenders. The suggested cause of this is public and criminal opinion differences between adult offenders and juvenile offenders.
I would absolutely advocate for the continuation of restorative justice programs for juveniles and adults alike. It is obvious (by evidence we have seen) that restorative justice has indeed helped to reduced further crimes amongst both adults and juvenile offenders. As well as help the victims/community involved in said crimes to heal and move on with peace at mind. There are concerns and questions on rather adult restorative justice is as effective as what it is with juvenile's. One must remember though, even if it doesn't have the same effective rate with adults as it does with juveniles, it is still working to give adult offenders a chance to wright their wrongs. Which is one of the main purposes of restorative justice.
References
Bouffard, J., Cooper, M., & Bergseth, K. (2017). The effectiveness of various restorative justice interventions on recidivism outcomes among juvenile offendersLinks to an external site.. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 15(4), 465–480.
LaMance, K. (2020, January 15). Juvenile vs. adult criminal system. LegalMatch Law Library.
2nd
The juvenile justice system is primarily focused on rehabilitation, and the adult system is focused on punishment. The adult criminal justice system is more suitable for restorative justice than the juveniles because of maturity and development. Juvenile offenders and victims face difficulty during the practice of restorative justice. Juvenile victims tend to have difficulty appropriately expressing themselves, which hinders the juvenile offender from grasping the severity of the offense’s impact Suzuki, M., & Wood, W. R. (2018). Youth are limited by their immaturity and inability to convey emotions effectively; therefore, without clarity, restorative justice is not beneficial for the victim or offender.
Restorative justice is effective for reducing recidivism in the juvenile system when the balanced approach is used. The balanced approach gives equal attention to the affected parties, victims, offenders, and the community. This approach helps the juvenile offender to develop in many areas of life while also ensuring their accountability for the offense and the safety of the community (U.S. Department of Justice. n.d.). In the adult system, restorative justice is most effective when all parties are willing to participate, and the offender accepts responsibility (Centre for Justice and Reconciliation. 2019c).
I would advocate for the continued use of restorative justice in the adult and juvenile systems because, in both instances, offenders are provided with resources to better themselves. Access to resources can be beneficial in reducing recidivism.
Centre for Justice and Reconciliation. (2019c). Lesson 5: Implementation issues.Links to an external site. In Tutorial: Introduction to restorative justice.
Suzuki, M., & Wood, W. R. (2018). Is restorative justice conferencing appropriate for youth offenders? Criminology & Criminal Justice, 18Links to an external site.Links to an external site.(4), 450–467.
U.S. Department of Justice. (n.d.). Balanced and restorative justice links to an external site.Links to an external site.
Learning Resources :
Bouffard, J., Cooper, M., & Bergseth, K. (2017). The effectiveness of various restorative justice interventions on recidivism outcomes among juvenile offendersLinks to an external site.. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 15(4), 465–480.
Centre for Justice and Reconciliation. (2019c). Lesson 5: Implementation issues.Links to an external site. In Tutorial: Introduction to restorative justice.
Gerkin, P., Walsh, J., Kuilema, J., & Borton, I. (2017). Implementing restorative justice under the retributive paradigm: A pilot program case studyLinks to an external site.. SAGE Open, 7(1), 1–10.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (n.d.-e). Case studies that demonstrate change toward a balanced and restorative justice model.Links to an external site. In Guide for implementing the balanced and restorative justice model
Suzuki, M., & Wood, W. R. (2018). Is restorative justice conferencing appropriate for youth offenders? Criminology & Criminal Justice, 18Links to an external site.(4), 450–467.
U.S. Department of Justice. (n.d.). Balanced and restorative justiceLinks to an external site..
Restorative Justice W5 Discussion Reply
Author’s Name:
Institution of Affiliation:
Course Name:
Instructor’s Name:
Date:
Restorative Justice W5 Discussion Reply
Reply 1
Your discussion of the effectiveness of restorative justice (RJ) for juvenile and adult criminal justice systems is excellent. I agree that the two systems are completely different. One evident difference between the juvenile and adult systems is that since the juveniles are viewed as children, there is a difference in how they are prosecuted, contrary to what happens to the adults subjected to penalties. I also agree that the two system differs in terms of terminologies used. For example, "delinquent acts" is used in juvenile systems, while "crimes" are utilized in the adult system. An adjudication hearing is a trial when a juvenile pleads "not true" for their crime, while a conviction involves an offender who is tried as an adult criminal. I second your view on how restorative justice has led to a decline in juvenile recidivism. For example, face-to-face arbitration among criminals and victims, secondary communication between the victims and offenders, and negligible restorative justice intervention teach wrongdoers about the process of RJ (Bouffard et al., 2016).