Principles of Restorative System and the Issues Arising from Crimes Against Humanity (Term Paper Sample)

Principles of Restorative System and the Issues Arising from Crimes Against Humanity
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Introduction
Restorative justice has taken over the mechanism of administering justice as opposed to the traditional rehabilitation and retributive methods. Over the years, the criminal proceedings has faced several flaws rendering the system unjust with little concern for the victims, offenders and community representation. Cases of offender intimidation, racial profiling, discrimination have characterized many judicial proceedings and policing departments. The victim’s responsibility being mere evidence provision to the authorities and punitive judgment on the offender underlying the rulings. Such incidences led to the constant incremental rate of imprisonment and crime among the Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia (Australian Institute of Criminology, 2015). Hence, this paper discusses the responsiveness of restorative justice principles in the address of issues that emerge from cases against humanity. Largely, the involvement of restorative justice in crimes against humanity has eased such crime rates. The essay looks at the restorative justice, its principles and the application of the principles in crimes committed against humanity.
Restorative Justice System
Restorative justice is the use of peaceful approaches to conflict resolution and violation of social order. It differs with the retributive processes of justice as it seeks to create just and balance in the justice department. The justice resolution mechanism involves all parties to an offence who collectively get involved in the determination of punishment and restoration of the victim and the offender back to society. Latimer et al. (2005) indicate that restorative justice encompasses truth telling, voluntariness and face-to-face encounter offering the afflicted parties time to solve their conflicts. Therefore, the process helps the victim recover through redress and vindication as the offender gets fair treatment, reparation and habilitation for his/her offence. Contrarily, the traditional justice system has been enforcing incarceration over petty crimes with high incarceration rates and the unfulfilling adversarial court system. Through restorative justice, healing and transformation of the wrongdoers and fatalities take place.
Principles of Restorative Justice
* The community, through a shared responsibility, should aim at resolving the crime consequences and reduce any additional harm resulting from such crime. Hence, the offenders should not suffer for the damage caused but rather be held liable for their actions (Ness & Strong, 2014).
* Crime being a violation of law and offence against humanity and social relationship, the inclusion of relevant parties is essential. The parties may include the offender, victim and the community.
* There should be informed consent to the participants. In most cases, the victims tend to be apprehensive to restorative mechanism compared to the offenders who often prefer this system than the court. Therefore, participation should be done on a voluntary basis and outcomes of the system should reflect the agreed views of the offender and victim (Ness & Strong, 2014).
* Adherence to the restorative justice framework of all the participants inclusive of the judicial personnel with keen emphasis on values such as fairness, balance, voluntariness, respect, dignity and transparency. Further, the process should safeguard the victim’s and offender’s rights amidst participant empowerment.
* The identity of cultural conventions in the system where applicable and as agreed by the participants (Latimer et al., 2005).
* The restorative interventions focus on the emotional and physical security of the victim and acknowledge of the offender of the harm caused. Therefore, the offender is held accountable for the offense and the resultant agreement should be communicated to the court CITATION Yal12 \l 1033 (Yalincak, 2012).
* The undertaking of restorative processes in judicially viable cases.
Restorative Principles and Crimes against Humanity
In most cases, ordinary crimes result from individual conduct that contradicts a state’s domestic criminal law. However, the victims and the community experience the harm caused by crimes against humanity. The crimes include sexual assaults, murder, assassinations and many more violent offences. The theories of punishment attribute punishment to justice. Contrary, restorative system indicates that with punishment, recidivism increases. Many scholars argue against the application of restorative justice in crimes against humanity. They state recuperative mechanism offer unfair punishment equitable to the magnitude of the offence committed. Hence, the victim receives an unjust hearing. For instance, many Australian states rejected the use of restorative justice in juvenile sex crimes arguing that such processes gave the offender a loophole to recommit the crime (Australian Institute of Criminology, 2015). Thus, the restorative methodology applied to petty crimes.
Proponents of the retributive mechanism such as the Durkheim as forwarded by his punishment theory stipulate that sentence maintains social cohesion. Punishment prevents the disintegration of social solidarity and the collapse of moral order arising from criminality. Unfortunately, different castigations reciprocate distinct outcomes (Ritzer & Stepnisky, 2013). The restorative justice processes look at the security and safety of both the victim and offender despite the crime committed. In an adversarial system, the offender gets convicted while the victim is left unattended implying the service of justice. For instance, sexually assaulted victims require to get back to their normal lives in a society which may not happen without assistance after prosecution. In the human rights perspective, victim empowerment is of great essence. Thus, harsh punishment is never the solution to end violence, wars, terrorism and sexual assaults in the world.
The voluntary principle of participation of the parties to a crime in the restorative system has enhanced the healing process of individuals of victimization. Unlike the judicial processes where the officials have control over the case, this model gives a voice and role to the victim. Such an initiate aid in the restoration of the victim to society after the victimization process. Often, the adversarial methodology convicts delinquents whether they accept or deny their wrongdoing. Failure to agree to a crime renders the victim vulnerable to such act and actor even after the offender serves the sentence. For example, the 1994 Rwandan Genocide highlights on the application of convalescent justice to the current peaceful coexist in Rwanda. During the era, the establishment of international trials took place to impose sentence expeditiously on the suspects of such inhuman acts that left massive deaths (Latimer, 2005). However, the retaliatory justice failed to combat the harm and the rampant violence experienced. The initiation of the local restorative systems led to the healing, restoration and fairness to the genocide victims. Further, the offenders were able to reconcile with the community members despite them serving some punitive sentence.
Crimes against humanity exhibit the selfishness and cruel nature of the offender towards others. It shows the delinquency aspect of the person creating social unrest, division and conflict. Mostly, such individuals deserve to get harsh punishments like life incarceration. Opponents to recuperative methodology argue that lack of heavy punishment would lead to recidivism. The principle goal of re-integrative approaches is reconciliation between reprobates and victims and the reintegration of the criminals in society CITATION Yal12 \l 1033 (Yalincak, 2012). The victim-offender mediation and victim-offender dialogue eliminate aspects of enmity between the two parties leading to an aftermath of a harmonious community. In such a scenario, crimes against humanity will be rare as reconciliation heals wounded souls and enables acceptance of offenders in society. Punitive approaches make it difficult for lawbreakers’ re-entry to society as animosity still exist. Rejection and profiling lead the offender to engage in criminal activities so as to get back to jail or as a source of survival. The realization from family group conferencing, circle sentencing and reconciliation panels uphold restorative principles that aim at making society a viable dwelling place for victims and offenders.
Restoration requires an act of willingness to acknowledge the violation of the social order and participation in the process. The community gets involved and re-adjusts itself to the impact of the standard violations. For example, the process has been viable in reconciliation ventures in violence waves and mass torture experienced in South Africa. The penal systems would not build peaceful relationship among the victims and the wrongdoers of such inhuman acts as would, the restorative justice. Involvement of the community, offenders and victims creates oneness in creating social order in a prior-destroyed social relationship (Ness & Strong, 2014). Additionally, the issues of unjust implications in restorative systems due to lenient-offender punishment has been overshadowed with the enactment of this mechanism by the Northern Ireland government. The country faced paramilitary violence that adversarial models would not restore the country back to order. Also, after such convicts serve their jail term they are expected to go back to the community where they committed the crimes and more often, would not be accepted. The U. S is also mitigating the recidivism by offenders thro...