criminal

The Problems with Restorative Approaches Restorative justice approaches suffer from several problems. This section identifies the more significant problems, and the first—the fact of the diversity of restorative practices —has already been stated above. Punitive Restoration and Restorative Justice 125 Perhaps commonality of most restora- tive approaches lies in what they are not: they are […]

Punitive Restoration and Restorative Justice 123 enabling both understanding and healing.6 Perhaps the best-known working definition of restorative justice approaches is offered by T. F. Marshall: “Restorative justice is a process whereby all parties with a stake in a particular offence come together to resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of the offence

The Diversity of Restorative Justice The term restorative justice refers to a range of approaches and not any single practice.1 It is more an orien- tation than a practice favoring the informal over the formal, aiming at providing victims and offenders alike with a voice. Furthermore, “there is no agreement on the actual nature of

SPECIAL TOPIC ARTICLE Punitive Restoration and Restorative Justice THOM BROOKS∗ Criminaljusticepolicyfacesthetwinchallengesofimprovingourcrimereductioneffortswhile increasing public confidence. These challenges are exacerbated by the fact that at least some measures popular with the public are counterproductive to greater crime reduction. How to achieve greater crime reduction without sacrificing public confidence? While restorative justice approaches offer a promising alternative to

Further Insights:Punitive Damages Punitive damages serve as a civil parallel to criminal deterrence. The idea is that behavior that causes civil liability, and is “reprehensible” in nature can incur damage awards. The punitive award is both a punishment for the behavior, and deterrence (both specific and general) against future action. In 1989, the United States

Criminal Justice System Another factor to consider when trying understanding why specific deterrence does not seem to be effective is the role that interaction with the criminal justice system itself might play. After experiencing arrest, prosecution, conviction and incarceration, the offender’s opportunities in the field of white collar work might well be quite restricted. Without

Incarceration Incarceration has been the central strategy in the United States for crime reduction since 1980. In 1980, just fewer than 2 million people were in the criminal justice system—probation, incarcerated, or paroled. By 2004, the number exceeded 7 million; this equaled 2.3% of the population. The theory behind incarceration is that it “takes a

Types of Deterrence Generally, deterrence is understood to operate in two distinct ways. General deterrence works on the population at large; the punishment of one wrongdoer serves as an example to all of society about the cost of misbehavior. Specific deterrence is aimed at the individual; once the law has been violated, and the consequence

  Subjective Utility Theory Economists have long used the subjective utility theory, which assumes that individuals work toward their own self-interests, and attempt to maximize opportunities. Other social scientists have seen the usefulness of this theory for disciplines beyond economics. It can be applied to the study of deterrence: [I]ndividuals assess the net utility of

Deterrence Theory A prime purpose of punishment has long been to deter future illicit behavior. Deterrence works on two levels. Specific deterrence occurs when an individual is punished for wrongdoing, and learns the price of misbehavior. General deterrence affects the population at large who observes the fact that misbehavior leads to punishment. Another possible result