Reference no: EM133803897 , Length: 17 pages
Assignment:
OVERVIEW
All theorie and policies are subject to criticism, improvement, and change. Critical perspectives on restorative justice highlight pitfalls like net-widening, justice avoidance, and blurred visions of reconciliation. Some critics argue that restorative justice interventions are not applicable or safe for victims, offenders, or communities in certain harm situations, such as crimes of sexual violence. Furthermore, critics note that some of the structural components of restorative justice interventions favor the victim or offender rather than addressing needs and harms equally.
Criminal justice practitioners using restorative justice interventions in their community can expect that many of these criticisms will come from community members and even members within their own organizations or organizations they collaborate with. Because restorative justice practices are based on the principle of voluntary participation, criminal justice practitioners will need to be ready to respond to these criticisms in order to maintain buy-in and support for the interventions.
INSTRUCTIONS
For this assignment, you will watch a series of videos depicting a mock victim-offender mediation (conference) process. The videos include a victim post-incident interview, an offender post-incident interview, a pre-conference meeting with the offender, and the restorative justice conference. The YouTube Video Links can be found under the Critical Examination of a Restorative Justice Intervention Assignment Resources located on the Assignment page.
Reassuming the role of a criminal justice practitioner in either a law enforcement organization, community corrections or institutional corrections organization, or judicial organization, imagine you have received a phone call from a local politician asking you to address the limitations, pitfalls, and common criticisms with respect to your victim-offender mediation program. You will use the videos as an example of one of your victim-offender mediation interventions.
Video One Victim Post-Incident Interview
Video Two Offender Post-Incident Interview
Video Three Pre Conference Meeting with Offender
Video Four Restorative Justice Conference
In a 15 to 17 page (excluding the title page and reference page) app formatted paper, write about the following:
1. Describe the background of the criminal situation that was portrayed in the videos.
a. What were the circumstances?
b. Who was involved?
c. What was the harm caused?
2. Describe the restorative justice intervention that was used.
a. What processes occurred before the intervention?
b. What practices occurred during the intervention?
c. How did the intervention align with restorative justice principles and values?
3. Critically analyze how the victim-offender mediation (VOM) addressed or failed to address the following limitations, pitfalls, and criticisms of restorative justice:
a. How did the VOM address or fail to address the pitfall of net-widening?
b. How did the VOM address or fail to address the pitfall of avoiding justice?
c. How did the VOM address or fail to address the pitfall of blurred vision of reconciliation?
d. How did the VOM address or fail to address the limitations to the use of peacemaking alternatives?
e. How did the VOM address or fail to address limitations to using restorative justice when it is not right for victims or offenders?
f. How did the VOM address or fail to address criticisms that restorative justice is not victim centered, but offender centered?
g. How did the VOM address or fail to address criticisms that expectations of offenders in restorative justice are ambiguous, making it difficult for offenders tocomply?
4. Develop a plan for how you will address the pitfalls, limitations, and criticisms that were not addressed in the VOM. For example, if you were unable to determine if the VOM process was right for the victims, what plans can you put in place or changes can you make to ensure that any future victims that may participate are right for the process?
a. What pitfall, limitation, or criticism did you not see addressed in the VOM?
b. How would you improve, add, and/or delete policies or practices to make sure they were addressed before the next VOM?