- Law and justice are not synonymous terms.
- Restorative justice requires a balanced focus on the needs of offenders, victims and community.
- Ownership of the restorative process must belong to the community.
- There is no such thing as a victimless crime. Every crime has at least one victim - the offender.
- Offenders, victims and community members must reach consensus on what needs to be done to heal the harm of crime.
- Offender and victim participation in the restorative process must be voluntary.
- The restorative process must be culturally sensitive.
- Opportunities for healing offenders, victims and community must occur at four levels: physical, psychological, emotional and spiritual.
- Success is full reintegration into the community for offenders and victims upon completion of the restorative contract.
- Offenders and victims work together to find that of God in each other, for the benefit of the common good of the community.
Principles of Restorative Justice
1. Law and justice are not synonymous terms.
I don't think that most of us would disagree with this one. There have been (and currently are) many unjust laws on the books. Of course, I suppose it depends on "whose ox is being gored."
2. Restorative justice requires a balanced focus on the needs of offenders, victims and community.
Whoa there Nellie! The order should be 1) Victims and 2) Community. The focus on the offender should be in making sure that the offender doesn't do it again!
3. Ownership of the restorative process must belong to the community.
I have to agree with this to some extent: However, the victim should be "restored" as well. And the victim should be querried on how the acts of the offender affected his or her life, or the lives of the victim's survivors.
4.There is no such thing as a victimless crime. Every crime has at least one victim - the offender.
I strongly disagree here in the vast majority of cases, but I do agree in some specific cases. First, the disagreements. Classifing "offenders" as victims is demeaning to the REAL victims. What you've got here is moral relativism, and an attempt to keep from assessing blame, i.e. that a person is responsible for their actions! It's sort of like saying that the lady who was just convicted of murdering her husband (by running him over multiple times) was a victim of her husband. SHE WAS NOT A VICTIM!!!!! Her husband may have really pissed her off by having an affair, but she made the decision to run him over, and then turn the car around and do it again! Or like saying the Menendez brothers are victims of child abuse (never proven), and now they're really victims, since they're orphans!
On the other hand, there two classes of "victimless crime," where the offender can be a victim. In illegal possession and use of drugs, if the offender has no dependants, and is putting nobody in direct peril (or indirect, for that matter), when he or she is busted, then they can become a victim of the WOD. In the second case, when it comes to prostitution, many of the ladies are very much victims of both their johns, as well as the legal system. I can't think of other cases where I agree with this item...
4. Offenders, victims and community members must reach consensus on what needs to be done to heal the harm of crime.
WRONG!!!! The offender should NOT be consulted on their punishment! That's up to the community (i.e. the courts) with input from the victims!
5. Offender and victim participation in the restorative process must be voluntary.
Yeah, right... "Excuse me, convicted murderer, but would you mind spending the next 50 years in prison?" I remember when I got into trouble for some acts of "juvinile delinquency." I committed some property crimes, and nobody asked me what I thought that felt I should do. I was punnished severely, in addition to paying restitution for the damage I caused. That's how it should have been. I should have known better than to do what I did, but I guess there was a "lapse of judgement." Well, that punnishment made sure that there were never any other lapses.
6. The restorative process must be culturally sensitive.
Just what the hell does that mean? Does this mean that certain groups should have different punnishments? What sort of nonsense is this?
7. Opportunities for healing offenders, victims and community must occur at four levels: physical, psychological, emotional and spiritual.
Yeah, right... See the comment for #6!
8. Success is full reintegration into the community for offenders and victims upon completion of the restorative contract.
More nonsense... What the hell does this mean? At what point is the victim no longer a part of the community? Of course, in a murder case, I guess I can support that... "When the victim is no longer dead, we'll let you (the offender) out of jail." More "new age" nonsense!
9. Offenders and victims work together to find that of G-d in each other, for the benefit of the common good of the community.
Wait a minute, they used the "G" word! They can't do that, not in a governmental sense! [/Sarcasm]. Of course, I suppose that if they use the word "G-d" in the "traditional, Judeo-Christian sense, there would be quite an outcry, but if they use it in a new age, touchy-feely sense, it would be OK. As long as the "G-d" they're refering to doesn't have any hard and fast rules.
Grrrrrr... This stuff really pisses me off!
Mark