|
Abstract
|
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The purpose of this article by Bazemore and Umbreit was to explore the limitations of juvenile punishment policy based upon individual treatment and retribution, and to examine the potential of a restorative model of sanctions.
METHODOLOGY:
The authors employed a non-experimental examination of juvenile justice policy founded upon individual treatment and retributive ideology.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
According to the authors, states have recently initiated mandatory sentencing laws for juvenile offenders. These laws suggest the juvenile justice system is moving away from its longtime goal of treatment, and toward a more punitive, retributive, punishment policy. Retributive policy is popular, the authors stated, because it expresses and confirms community outrage over proscribed behavior, and has visible, painful consequences for offenders. The treatment model of punishment, on the other hand, is unsatisfying to communities because the sanction has little to do with the crime, according to the authors, and requires very little cognitive participation from the offender. Communities are convinced, according to the authors, that treatment models are beneficial to the offender in the sense that juvenile offenders do not "pay for" their crime. Similarly, the retributive model is not completely successful because, while it may satisfy the punitive itch, it weakens the offender's self-concept and fractures community bonds. As an alternative to treatment and retributive models of sanctioning, the authors explored the possibilities of restoration, a new punitive model involving victims, offenders and the community.
The restorative model emerged in the 1980s and grew out of alternate sentencing policies, such as victim-offender reconciliation and mediation programs, the victim's rights movement, and dispute resolution programs. Under a restorative paradigm, crime is an act against a specific person and community rather than the (abstract) state. Crime control lies with the community in this model, and accountability is defined as the offender taking responsibility for the act, rather than accepting punishment. Retributive punishment, according to the restorative model, is disruptive to the community, and victims are placed on the periphery of an impersonal, rational-technical punishment process. The restorative model, on the other hand, focuses on healing victims and the community by involving both in the processes of sanctioning offenders. Also, rather than focusing on victims rights, restorative justice focuses on victim needs. Success for victims under the restorative model is measured, according to the authors, by the degree of reparation, and the level of satisfaction felt by victims. For offenders, success means an understanding and empathy for what the crime means to the victim and community, and feelings of remorse. For the community, success means the proper distribution of justice, and a restored sense of community solidarity. Restorative justice has a deterrent goal too by sending symbolic messages to victims, offenders, and communities. To the offender, messages of responsibility and liability are sent. Victims are to understand that the criminal justice system and the community care about them and will do their best to make sure offenders are held accountable for their actions. The restorative model also tells the community it has an invaluable role in the sanctioning process.
AUTHORS' RECOMMENDATIONS:
The authors warn that initiating new restorative programs will not make radical, lasting, positive changes unless systemic changes take place. If the restorative program is evaluated under a retributive paradigm, failure is imminent. If, however, restorative values are viewed as primary and not merely add-ons to existing treatment and retributive policy, reparative sanctions may become increasingly successful at holding offenders accountable to victim and community. To be successful, the restorative model of juvenile justice must be brought into mainstream of punitive culture. The authors also said that policymakers interested in setting up restorative justice programs could begin by examining the potential of programs such as victim-restitution, restorative community service, and victim- offender mediation. In Australia and New Zealand, such programs have already shown promising success, according to the authors.
(CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
Juvenile Crime
Juvenile Offender
Juvenile Treatment
Offender Rehabilitation
Offender Treatment
Crime Treatment
Correctional Decision Making
Offender Punishment
Juvenile Justice System
Juvenile Court
Restorative Justice
09-03 |