Fluent Essays

PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHMENTSTUDENT REPLY #1 Kyle Ragland The difference between the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems in terms of correcting behavior is that for Juvenile, it is more rehabilitative, and for adults, it is ultimately just “serving” your time. The reason I say that is that usually, in the juvenile systems, they are on more of a schedule. They must get up at a certain time, still go to school, and more programs/privileges are implemented due to behavioral status, which motivates some juvenile offenders to behave. While in the adult system, there are schedules and timelines, productivity is optional. What I mean by that is that whatever program, school, or job you are interested in is not forced upon you. You can sleep all your time away. No one will come and bang on your cell to self-improve. If the most productive thing you do all day is play cards, that is on you. I think the restorative justice program works better in the juvenile atmosphere. As I mentioned, even though they are offenders, they are still children, which means even though things are met with resistance at times, they ultimately cannot make logical decisions for themselves at times due to lacking maturity and rationale. An adolescent mind is more pliable. As Frederick Douglas once said, “It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.” I am not saying that restorative justice does not work for adults, but I think the success rate for juveniles would be higher. As the author writes, “Among these 15 studies, that included approximately 9,200 juveniles, concluded that participation in VOM accounted for a 34\% decrease in juvenile recidivism relative to those who did not participate in these programs.” (Bouffard, J., Cooper, M., & Bergseth, K. 2007) As you can see, when the Victim Offender Mediation program was used, an almost 40\% decrease in recidivism occurred. That shows that a well-groomed program within restorative justice is the key to limiting juvenile recidivism. I know my post has leaned more towards the success of juveniles in restorative justice, but that does not change the fact that both juveniles and adults will benefit from justice. As I mentioned in previous posts and assignments, it is not to commit a crime and go to jail. The real work and reward come in when you can take an offender, have them stand before themselves and be accountable for the crime or crimes they committed, face their demons, and begin to grow. Both juveniles and adults can benefit from that. References Bouffard, J., Cooper, M., & Bergseth, K. (2007) The Effectiveness of Various Restorative Justice Interventions on Recidivism Outcomes Among Juvenile Offenders STUDENT REPLY #2 Skeye Soll There are many differences between juvenile and adult criminal justice systems. I think the juvenile system focuses more on rehabilitating, while the adult systems aim more to punish. I feel, at least in my area, those in the justice system don’t think that adults can be rehabilitated. ItAssignment: Application of Restorative Justice to Juvenile and Adult Crimes Have you ever learned about a sentence given for a specific crime and questioned whether it would propel the offender further into a life of crime rather than rehabilitate him or her? If so, you are not alone. There is a significant “decarceration” movement in the United States that aims to end mass incarceration, particularly for those offenders who have committed nonviolent crimes. Using a restorative justice approach is one viable alternative to incarceration and other harsh punishments. For this Assignment, you identify a local crime committed by a juvenile and a local crime committed by an adult for which a punitive approach was used. Then you consider how a restorative justice approach could have been more effective instead. Write a 1,500-word paper that includes the following: Juvenile Justice System (500 words) Identify one well-publicized crime committed by a juvenile in your community for which a restorative justice approach would have been more appropriate than the punitive approach that was used. Explain why. Explain how you would apply a restorative justice approach to the case. Be sure to include the following: Strategies to ensure that the offender provides accountability to the victim and the community Programs and services to rehabilitate the offender Adult Justice System (500 words) Identify one well-publicized crime committed by an adult in your community for which a restorative justice approach would have been more appropriate than the punitive approach that was used. Explain why. Explain how you would apply a restorative justice approach to the case. Be sure to include the following: Strategies to ensure that the offender provides accountability to the victim and the community Programs and services to rehabilitate the offender Conclusion (500 words) Describe challenges you would encounter when implementing a restorative justice approach in the juvenile and adult cases you addressed. Then explain how you would overcome the challenges. Explain the degree to which the application of a restorative justice approach is similar or different in the juvenile and adult justice systems. Explain the benefits of restorative justice in the juvenile and adult cases compared to the punitive approach that was used. Be sure to reference the course readings to support your responses. PLEASE READ AND FOLLOW ALL DIRECTIONS ABOVE I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED ITEMS THAT NEEDS EXTRA ATTENTION I HAVE ADDED READING MATERIAL FOR YOU TO READ AND IT WILL HELP YOU PUT THE PAPER TOGETHER. ALSO LOOK UP AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE THERE IS READING THAT WILL ALSO BE HELPFUL. SO PLEASE LOOK AND READ ALL ATTACHMENTS. AND MAKE SURE YOU REFERENCE YOUR WORK AND YOU CAN USE OUTSIDE REFERENCES AS WELL THIS PAPER IS A 1500 WORD COUNT OR MORE AND IF YOU SHOULD HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS JUST MESSAGE ME, I WILL ANSWER BACK IN A TIMELY MANNER THANK YOU……………Article The Effectiveness of Various Restorative Justice Interventions on Recidivism Outcomes Among Juvenile Offenders Jeff Bouffard 1 , Maisha Cooper 1 , and Kathleen Bergseth 2 Abstract Research has generally supported the effectiveness of restorative justice (RJ) programs on a number of outcomes; however, little research has examined the effectiveness of variations in the inter- vention. This study examined several variations of an RJ program for juvenile offenders, including direct mediation, indirect forms of victim/offender mediation accomplished without direct victim/ offender contact, the use of community panels (i.e., with community representatives when no direct victim was available), and a group who received only minimal interaction with RJ staff. Results supported the effectiveness of a number of variations in program implementation. Implications for future research and potential improvements to the RJ model are discussed. Keywords restorative justice, juvenile justice, recidivism, program evaluation, juvenile court Introduction Developing and implementing programs that can lower juvenile recidivism rates is an important policy challenge (Bradshaw, Rosenborough, & Umbreit, 2006). In recent years, there has been a shift toward a more restorative approach to juvenile delinquency and crime (Braithwaite, 2007). Within the past 30 years (Okada, 2011), the use of restorative justice (RJ) programming has been increasing in the United States and other countries in response to both low-level, and in some cases, more serious types of juvenile delinquency and adult crime (Bazemore & Umbreit, 2001; Bradshaw et al., 2006). RJ programs are typically based on a nonadversarial interaction between victims, offenders, and other individuals impacted by the criminal act in order to repair the damage caused by the crime and to encourage offender accountability (Bergseth & Bouffard, 2007). 1 Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, USA 2 North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA Corresponding Author: Jeff Bouffard, Sam Houston State University, PO Box 2296, Beto CJ Center, Huntsville, TX 77341, USA. Email: [email protected] Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 2017, Vol. 15(4) 465-480 ª The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1541204016647428 journals.sagepub.com/home/yvj In some instances, these programs have demonstrated better outcomes than traditional court procedures on almost every variable for victims and offenders, including assessing perceptions of fairness, satisfaction, opportunity to tell their story, and perceptions that their opinions were satis- factorily taken into consideration (Poulson, 2003). Widespread interest in expanding these programs is understandable (Bergseth & Bouffard, 2007) given that research has demonstrated the success of RJ programs in achieving a number of their goals. For instance, research has revealed that RJ programs can incrhttps://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017691562 SAGE Open January-March 2017: 1 –10 © The Author(s) 2017 DOI: 10.1177/2158244017691562 journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo Creative Commons CC-BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). Article This research captures something rather unique to the lit- erature on restorative justice. What follows is a detailed case study of the implementation of a victim–offender mediation pilot program. The impetus for this project, as well as the sustained effort to achieve the desired outcome was provided by the Restorative Justice Coalition of West Michigan (RJCWM). As a case study, this research offers an inside look into the process of moving restorative justice theory into practice. The authors describe the implementation process from the early stages of planning through implementation. Presented in a chronological fashion, the authors explore the many challenges faced throughout the process. Major obstacles include a lack of support from key stakeholders within the criminal justice system, misconceptions surrounding the phi- losophy of restorative justice, securing program funding, and stability of leadership among the implementation team. Although the campaign to implement a pilot program in restorative justice was ultimately successful, the final prod- uct was far removed from the original vision of RJCWM. Restorative Justice Restorative justice continues to slowly emerge as an alterna- tive to the more familiar forms of retributive justice in the United States. While restorative justice has roots in antiquity (Braithwaite, 2002), and continues to serve as one of several competing philosophies of crime and justice in numerous countries throughout the world (Van Ness & Strong, 2002), it has been adopted in the United States in a limited and at best piecemeal fashion. This landscape is largely due to the real- ity that restorative justice represents a major shift in both philosophy and practice within the United States. Under the current, retribution-based, criminal justice sys- tem, the main focus is on determining guilt and dispensing punishments. A criminal act is, by definition, a crime against the state (Lemley & Russell, 2002). Unlike the retributive model, restorative justice defines crimes by the harms cre- ated. The focus of restorative justice is to repair the harm caused by crime, making victims whole, holding offenders accountable, and preventing the occurrence of similar harms in the future (Van Ness, 1996; Van Ness & Strong, 1997; Zehr, 1990). A popular definition offered by Tony Marshall (1996) states that restorative justice i8/7/22, 12:57 PM Guide for Implementing the Balanced and Restorative Justice Model https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh176/files/pubs/implementing/case.html 1/14 header Case Studies That Demonstrate Change Toward a Balanced and Restorative Justice Model In many ways, the demonstration efforts of the BARJ Project discussed below have shown that a great deal of time is needed to implement change as complex as that prescribed by restorative justice values. Given the expectations for each site, there is room for disappointment at how slow progress has been in completing basic steps of action plans. Although significant change has occurred in awareness of the values and goals of restorative justice, even this awareness seems thin once outside the circle of senior management and those assigned to special units and programs. There are new programs and small examples of responses to cases that encompass all principles of restorative justice. However, on a given day, it might be difficult for a visitor to observe what is new and different about implementation of the BARJ Model. Part of what is new is the enthusiasm about the possibilities of a new type of juvenile justice intervention and revitalized thinking that views increased victim and community involvement as a needed shot in the arm. As a site coordinator in one jurisdiction put it, There is more, and less, here than meets the eye. There is, for example, great excitement about plans for the future about BARJ initiatives. Conversely, there is less than meets the eye in that many of the most innovative efforts are in the earliest stages of implementation, or only being talked about. The critical observer would note, for example, that a list of new programs and policies does not necessarily characterize the way most crime victims, offenders, and citizens are treated by the system at the present time. However, there is also more than meets the eye in that practitioners in individual probation units and special programs are developing innovative, restorative programs that often go undocumented and unrecognized. It is impossible, in this document, to adequately summarize the experience of these jurisdictions in implementing restorative justice. The case studies that follow illustrate aspects of the experiences of Allegheny, Dakota, and Palm Beach Counties in their journeys toward a more balanced and restorative justice system. Dakota County Community Corrections, Dakota County, MN: Organizational Change Overview of the Dakota County Restorative Justice Effort History. Dakota Countys systemic restorative justice effort began in 1993. Previously, restorative justice principles and programming had existed on a continuum among staff from those who were committed to those with little or no commitment. Restorative justice practices were seen in programs such as victim-offender mediation, restitution, and the youth repay crew. While these programs were operating, a large segment of juvenile juhttps://doi.org/10.1177/1748895817722188 Criminology & Criminal Justice 2018, Vol. 18(4) 450 –467 © The Author(s) 2017 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/1748895817722188 journals.sagepub.com/home/crj Is restorative justice conferencing appropriate for youth offenders? Masahiro Suzuki Griffith University, Australia William R Wood Griffith University, Australia Abstract While many studies on restorative justice conferencing (RJC) for youth offenders have shown favourable outcomes such as victim satisfaction and fairness, and offender accountability and perceived legitimacy, other studies have demonstrated more problematic outcomes in terms of mutual understanding, sincerity of apology and reoffending. Given the complexity of RJC as a concept and as a process, such ‘limits’ might be attributed to the capacity and characteristics of youth offenders. To date, however, there has been little examination of developmental, cognitive or environmental impediments on the part of youth offenders in terms of achieving restorative outcomes in RJC. This article discusses the potential impacts of limited developmental and cognitive capacities of youth offenders on the RJC process and outcomes. Keywords Cognitive capacity, developmental psychology, maturity, restorative justice, young offender Introduction The growth and development of restorative justice conferencing (RJC) in the last three decades has occurred largely within youth justice (Zinsstag, 2012). There are several rea- sons for this including the perceived appropriateness of RJC for youth offending (Bruce Corresponding author: Masahiro Suzuki, Doctoral candidate, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. Email: [email protected] 722188CRJ0010.1177/1748895817722188Criminology & Criminal JusticeSuzuki and Wood research-article2017 Article Suzuki and Wood 451 et al., 2012; Richards, 2012), public tolerance for rehabilitative approaches for youth offenders (Bazemore and Walgrave, 1999; Richards, 2012) and the relative amenability of youth offenders for RJC (Bazemore and Walgrave, 1999; Bottoms, 2003). It is almost axi- omatic today within RJC literature and practice that RJC is suitable and appropriate for youth offenders. Numerous evaluative studies of RJC have been conducted within the last 30 years. When compared to existing criminal justice approaches, many of these studies have demonstrated favourable outcomes for victims in terms of satisfaction, fairness and redress; and for offenders in terms of accountability and perceived legitimacy (Strang et al., 2013). However, not all evaluative studies on RJC have come to such conclusions. The South Australian Juvenile Justice (SAJJ) study found ‘limits’ in the effectiveness of RJC in the level of mutual understanding between victims and offenders, and in the perceived sin- cerity of apologies for vicProgram SummaryProgram Summary D E PA RT M EN T OF JUSTIC E O F F I C E OF J UST I C E PR O G R A M S B J A N I J OJJ DP BJ S O V C U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention A Publication of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BB alanced and Restorative Justice Research and Program Development Division develops knowledge on national trends in juvenile delinquency; supports a program for data collection and information sharing that incorporates elements of statistical and systems development; identifies how delinquency develops and the best methods for its prevention, intervention, and treatment; and analyzes practices and trends in the juvenile justice system. Training and Technical Assistance Division pro- vides juvenile justice training and technical assist- ance to Federal, State, and local governments; law enforcement, judiciary, and corrections personnel; and private agencies, educational institutions, and community organizations. Special Emphasis Division provides discretionary funds to public and private agencies, organizations, and individuals to replicate tested approaches to delinquency prevention, treatment, and control in such pertinent areas as chronic juvenile offenders, community-based sanctions, and the disproportionate representation of minorities in the juvenile justice system. State Relations and Assistance Division supports collaborative efforts by States to carry out the man- dates of the JJDP Act by providing formula grant funds to States; furnishing technical assistance to States, local governments, and private agencies; and monitoring State compliance with the JJDP Act. Information Dissemination and Planning Unit informs individuals and organizations of OJJDP initiatives; disseminates information on juvenile jus- tice, delinquency prevention, and missing children; and coordinates program planning efforts within OJJDP. The unit’s activities include publishing re- search and statistical reports, bulletins, and other documents, as well as overseeing the operations of the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. Concentration of Federal Efforts Program pro- motes interagency cooperation and coordination among Federal agencies with responsibilities in the area of juvenile justice. The program primarily carries out this responsibility through the Coordinating Coun- cil on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, an independent body within the executive branch that was established by Congress through the JJDP Act. Missing and Exploited Children Program seeks to promote effective policies and procedures for address- ing the problem of missing and exploited children. Established by the Missing Children’s Assistance Act of 1984, the program provides funds for a variety of activities to support and coordinate a network of re- sources such as the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children; training and PROFESSOR REPLY You mentioned terminology. Its interesting that the terminology differs between both systems. Delinquency v. crime, hearing v. trial, adjudicated v. found guilty, are some examples. What reason(s) come to mind for different terminology between both systems? Dr. Roberts PLEASE ANSWER BACK TO THE PROFEESOR WITH 150 TO 200 WORD COUNT USING OUTSIDE REFERENCE. ALSO BELOW IS A RECAP OF YOUR WEEK 5 CLASS DISCUSSION WHICH HE IS REFERING BACK TO