The idea of returning self-worth to victims through restorative justice resonates well in a perfect world but realistically, this could only be accomplished on a case-by-case scenario. Depending on how harm was inflicted to the victim, it is difficult to imagine that in most scenarios, restorative justice would work since humans are not perfect and emotions such as resentment could linger long after the healing process begins.
By sitting down the victim, the offender, and a representation of the community, the restorative justice model relies on healing the victim instead of punishing the offender. Optimistically, creating a better person out of the offender is ideal since every community would presumably like to get ‘the best’ out of its citizenry but in the United States, a nation mesmerized by violence, restorative justice would be difficult to justify, especially in the most heinous of crimes which violate our cultural norms.
In Restorative Justice: an Overview, Tony F. Marshall suggests that “opportunities for norm-clarification” is a “process by whereby all the parties with a stake in a particular offence come together to resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future (Marshall).” This process would suit well in a situation where an individual was victimized by the theft of his or her jewelry but in cases concerning serial killers or pedophilia, retributive justice would be far more appropriate. After all, family and friends of serial killers and those victims of pedophilia, might exercise caution and refuse to sit down, face-to-face as Marshall suggests, with the offender in order to let the healing process begin for the victim instead of punishing the offender.
In restorative justice, the idea of healing the victim taking precedent over punishing the victim is just one of the pros of this foe of the Western, common law-style of punishment. Under this idea, the victim is given time to heal but a con of restorative justice is that the victim should not have to deal “hand-in-hand” with the victim. Rather, a representative for the victim could be delegated to set aside what the constructive punishment under restorative justice should be.
Restorative justice must exercise caution when dealing with victimless crimes. For instance, when one considers ‘drug dealing,’ an offense where there is no victim, specifically in an instance where an offender is stopped and seized under the auspices of carrying a large amount of illegal narcotics, the only victim would be the community where narcotics were dispersed by the drug dealers. Therefore, restorative justice sings a positive note since the healing process could begin with asking the question as to why the drug dealer opted to sell narcotics as a means to gain income.
Restorative justice would look for constructive punishment but it would be difficult to heal the victim, the community, especially if the reason as to why the drug dealer was selling narcotics was due to a terrible job market. Since restorative justice understands that there is conflict between the offender and the victim, and that a solution must be resolved due to an interaction between the two parties, how would restorative justice guarantee a healing process at all?
In the example given above, the idea of recognizing the ills of society leading to crimes such as drug trafficking is a pro in the sense that one would easily be able to identify a reasoning behind the crime committed. In regards to that, a con of restorative justice would be that it would be difficult to offer any type of healing in such a case.
The pros of restorative justice are rooted in showing respect for the victim by allowing this healing process to “trump” the punishment of the offender. Therefore, the entire community would be better off. Conversely, a con would be that this could only happen in a perfect world considering the wide array of offenses that occur in a community, especially the larger communities in the United States.
Another pro of restorative justice is the fact that shared values among the victim, the offender, and the community is taken into consideration. By alleviating the differences between the parties, the healing process would be undertaken and a sense of cohesiveness would ensue. This would lead to a rebuilding of everyone involved. On the other hand, a con of restorative justice lies within burden of proof. An offender might insist that the crime committed was justified due to the social environment in which he lives.
Either way, I do not think restorative justice could ever completely replace our standard, Western-version of common law and retributive justice we currently have. Instead, a combination of the two based on differences in the crimes committed would need to prevail.
Works Cited
Marshall, Tony F. “Restorative Justice: An Overview.” A report by the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate. (1999).
Michael Wenzel, Tyler G. Okimoto, Norman T. Feather, Michael J. Platow. “Retributive and Restorative Justice.” American Psychology-Law Society (2007).
