Restorative Justice
Restorative Justice : A necessary Evolution ?
Over the last decades, a new conception of Jutice started to rise. Regarding the evolution of mores, Justice had to adapt itself as well.
In essence, Justice intervenes to solve problems due to criminal conduct, but it has to make sure that this conduct will not occur again. However considering this fact, how can we explain that the deterrence part of Justice failed? Crime in general still exist and no matter if punishments were inflicted with severity or thought in a retributive way, we still assist nowadays at the continuance of criminal conduct.
30 years ago the question of creating a new aspect of Justice was raised. Instead of punishing isn’t it possible to educate people?
This question is not new though. Present within the Judeo Christian culture, this aspect of Justice was developped by Howard Zehr, considered as the leading visionary of the question of “Restorative Justice”.
Why do people are still committing crimes, whereas punishments are supposed to be severe enough to deter others? This question take place during the area where Human Rights are put on the line. The criminal should not be considered as an outcast of society, but as a person with rights and obligations: he will have to pay for his crime but what if we just release a criminal after his sentence without being sure that he has understood his punishment? Does justice need only to punish, or does it also have to take care of both victim and offender?
Indeed the principle of Restorative Justice is directly confronted to the principle of Retributive Justice.
Basically, even if the question of punishing the offender still exists, the main effort is put on the “healing” aspect. We have to make sure that the victim will be helped and that things will be as right as possible. It is more about repairing what has be done, reconstructing, than just punishing.
People must be treated with respect and because of that, the notion of
Over the last decades, a new conception of Jutice started to rise. Regarding the evolution of mores, Justice had to adapt itself as well.
In essence, Justice intervenes to solve problems due to criminal conduct, but it has to make sure that this conduct will not occur again. However considering this fact, how can we explain that the deterrence part of Justice failed? Crime in general still exist and no matter if punishments were inflicted with severity or thought in a retributive way, we still assist nowadays at the continuance of criminal conduct.
30 years ago the question of creating a new aspect of Justice was raised. Instead of punishing isn’t it possible to educate people?
This question is not new though. Present within the Judeo Christian culture, this aspect of Justice was developped by Howard Zehr, considered as the leading visionary of the question of “Restorative Justice”.
Why do people are still committing crimes, whereas punishments are supposed to be severe enough to deter others? This question take place during the area where Human Rights are put on the line. The criminal should not be considered as an outcast of society, but as a person with rights and obligations: he will have to pay for his crime but what if we just release a criminal after his sentence without being sure that he has understood his punishment? Does justice need only to punish, or does it also have to take care of both victim and offender?
Indeed the principle of Restorative Justice is directly confronted to the principle of Retributive Justice.
Basically, even if the question of punishing the offender still exists, the main effort is put on the “healing” aspect. We have to make sure that the victim will be helped and that things will be as right as possible. It is more about repairing what has be done, reconstructing, than just punishing.
People must be treated with respect and because of that, the notion of