Samuel Gallardo 1

Samuel Gallardo
Professor Fiore
ENGL. 220.011
February 7, 2013
On Restorative Justice
Restorative Justice is defined by the Collins English Dictionary as a method of dealing
with convicted criminals in which they are urged to accept responsibility for their offences
through meeting victims, making amends to victims or the community, etc. Plainly put it is a
new idea on how to deal with criminals to reintegrate them into society and not let them just rot
away in prison. There are some arguments against integrating Restorative Justice into society and
the court systems, but none that justify a sanction on the idea. Restorative Justice has too many
prospects for us not to start implementing it as an alternative to jailor prison time. While there
are understandable complaints about implementing Restorative Justice, the benefits it offers
outweigh the criticisms and Restorative Justice should be used more.
Restorative Justice is a difficult concept to explain, especially when trying to describe
how it is used or applied in reality because there are many different forms of Restorative Justice.
Arguably the most popular is having an offender who has committed a crime decide if the
offender wants to correct his offence by doing an activity that is agreed upon by the victim of his
crime, the offender, and the community that was impacted by the crime. This can be things such
as community service, paying for the damage done, or trying to make amends with the victim if
possible. While these ideas may sound familiar to some, the difference is that these options are
alternatives to imprisonment instead of additions. As David Milward points out in his article
Making the circle stronger: an effort to buttress aboriginal use of restorative justice in Canada

Samuel Gallardo 2
against recent criticisms, the object of Restorative Justice is to reintegrate the offender into the
community as he corrects his behaviour, and strengthens his relationships with those around him
and those he has affected with his behaviour (Milward).
While Restorative Justice seems like an ideal sentence for many crimes, there are still
people who feel it is not as effective as it seems. Michael S. King writes in his article
Restorative justice, therapeutic jurisprudence and the rise of emotionally intelligent justice that
the complaints of Restorative Justice are that it puts pressure on victims to participate (King).
King points out that its also possible that the victim is emotionally unstable or the offender
enjoys seeing the victim in pain. Offenders may also use Restorative Justice as a means to get out
of incarceration and cheat the system by just playing along and fooling their overseers. One of
the most popular problems with Restorative Justice is that it is seen by many as too soft on
offenders and doesnt teach them a lesson.
While some of these criticisms of Restorative Justice have some merit, most do not.
When it comes to possible pressure being put on victims to participate, King points out that it is
up to the victim if they want to participate or not, and that they also have a support group to
ensure that the experience is productive and beneficial. To the next point about the emotional
instability of the victim or offender, King shows that proper screening and preparation for the
encounter or proper facilitation by the mediator are needed (King). This would ensure that
awkward or uncontrollable situations would not arise and that the experience would maintain
productive. Well trained mediators and proper guidelines are Kings recommendations to ensure
that the process goes well and helps all the people involved. King also argues against those that
think Restorative Justice is too soft on offenders by saying it can be challenging and painful to
deal with the consequences of one's behaviour and to address underlying causes (King).

Samuel Gallardo 3
There are other arguments against Restorative Justice that Milward talks about in his
article. One that King did not mention was that the victim may not want to participate in the
experience and therefore making the whole thing null. Also it could be against the victims
welfare to go ahead with the experience, especially in cases of violence and sexual assault
towards the victim. Another argument is that it is almost against the law in the sense that
Restorative Justice fights for taking away the justice system punishing the offender and allowing
others to decide on the proper sentence. Also as Milward points out, there is an argument that
people for Restorative Justice want more broader societal contexts and mitigating circumstances
in offenders' lives to argue for greater flexibility and individualization in sentencing. The last
argument made is that the offender may not be able to pay for his crimes if that is what the
victim wants.
To argue the first point, if the victim does not want to participate in the experience, then
the victim does not have to. Especially in cases where the victim may be in emotional danger in
participating, it is up to the mediators to decide if the experience will be productive and if it
seems that it will not, and then they must not go on. The argument that allowing others to decide
someones sentence is taking away power from the justice system is weak especially if it is made
so that the justice system decides the sentence and oversees it. The idea that looking at criminals
in a more individual level instead of looking at them based by their crimes is a bad thing is
absurd. The more we individualization criminals, the better the chances are that those criminals
can reintegrate into society and will do so. To argue the last point, the whole idea of Restorative
Justice is to prescribe a sentence other than incarceration that will provide justice to the victim
and the community. Therefore if the criminal cannot pay monetarily for his crime, then another
method to pay for his crime must be found.

Samuel Gallardo 4
While Restorative Justice may have some flaws that need to be worked on and looked at
more in depth, there is still no reason why we cannot begin to integrate its ideas into our justice
system. It is possible that Restorative Justice should not be used when it comes to more violent
cases, even though it has been well documented that it works even in those difficult cases. For
the time being Restorative Justice should be used and applied to our court systems as an
alternative to incarceration especially in nonviolent cases such as burglary, drug crimes, and
juvenile charges, and many other cases. The solution to many of our problems could be solved if
we learned how to reintegrate criminals into our society instead of abandoning them in the abyss
that is the justice system. While there are some valid worries about Restorative Justice, King said
it best when arguing against deterrence by saying In any event, there is no evidence that
restorative justice undermines deterrence.

Samuel Gallardo 5

Works Cited

King, Michael S. "Restorative justice, therapeutic jurisprudence and the rise of emotionally
intelligent justice." Melbourne University Law Review Dec. 2008: 1096+. Academic
OneFile. Web. 7 Feb. 2013.
Document URL
http://go.galegroup.com.libproxy.unm.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA201711546&v=2.1&u=albu7
8484&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w

Milward, David. "Making the circle stronger: an effort to buttress aboriginal use of restorative
justice in Canada against recent criticisms." International Journal of Punishment and
Sentencing Oct. 2008: 124+. Academic OneFile. Web. 7 Feb. 2013.
Document URL
http://go.galegroup.com.libproxy.unm.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA189958090&v=2.1&u=albu7
8484&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w