Does Restorative Justice Have a Realistic Place in Today's Criminal Justice System?

摘要

To be clear, restorative justice cannot by itself guarantee equity, and it does not effectively substitute for the rule of law, which seeks to ensure not only safety, but also the standards that a civil society collectively reinforces for behavior that it deems right and wrong. However, the conventional system does not currently consider individual interpretations of crime and its personal effects. The sentencing process is highly generalized, which means that important details can be lost in the administration of justice. True accountability requires participation in the direct effects of crime on victims, families, offenders, and the broader community. When the institutions that investigate crimes and prosecute offenses acknowledge these local circumstances and needs, the social repercussions of the justice system may reflect more legitimacy or public confidence in the criminal justice system and, especially, in law enforcement. Put simply, public safety and criminal justice professionals do not want to compromise public trust in the very institutions that seek to protect them. While the state holds the principal power to set standards for consistent outcomes, California faces an important challenge to focus on intervention, and what criminologist David M. Kennedy calls "moral engagement." More work should be done to understand how communities can experiment with restorative justice: how it can help interested victims heal, how it can transform certain offenders, and how law enforcement can play an active and supportive role. By emphasizing public participation in the aftermath of crime and by including victims, offenders, the police, and citizen volunteers in the process, restorative justice might be said to contribute to civic criminal justice reform and to building trusting relationships in communities affected by crime.