Essay Sample on Restorative Justice

Albert Einstein once said, “In matters of truth and justice, there is no difference between large and small problems, for issues concerning the treatment of people are all the same” (“Albert Einstein Quotes”). No matter what the problem is, huge or small, people deserve to be treated the same. Regardless of the problem, restorative justice is always a great option. Restorative justice is more effective than the traditional justice system in multiple ways: it allows perpetrators to take responsibility for their actions, heals both the perpetrator and the victim, and drives down the numbers of recidivism; however, opposers think that some people are not convinced that restorative justice works—they think the traditional justice system is the way to go.

Restorative justice allows perpetrators to take responsibility for their actions. In the “Restorative Justice Interventions” article by Dr. Dennis McChurgue et al., the authors explain that restorative justice, along with other ways of punishment, is preferred because it holds the offender accountable while also helping them develop a better understanding of their involvement in their wrongdoing (21). This system not only punishes the perpetrator, but also helps them understand that what they did was wrong. This is a great approach because people cannot learn that what they are doing is wrong until they see that there is a problem. In Amitava Kumar’s article titled “Restoration of Faith,” a story is told about a girl, Ann Margaret Grosmaire, and her boyfriend, Conor McBride; they got into an argument, and Conor fatally shot Ann. Regardless of that situation, Ann’s family still visited him in prison. “Ann’s mother told Tullis [a New York Times reporter], 'Forgiveness for me was self-preservation.’ For his part, Conor told Tulis, 'With the Grosmaires’ forgiveness I could accept the responsibility and not be condemned” (qtd. in Kumar 74). This shows how the restorative justice process affected both sides, but mostly how it affected Conor, the perpetrator. It was an awful situation, but because the family chose to understand that they cannot strictly punish someone for something without that person’s understanding how what they did affects others; Conor accepted the responsibility and healed on his own.  

While it gives the perpetrators the opportunity to take responsibility, it also leads to healing for both the offenders and victims. “The Grosmaires said that they didn’t forgive Conor for his sake, but their own” (Kumar 73). Forgiveness is something that anyone can struggle with, but the family knew that Ann wanted them to forgive Conor, so they were able to do so and move on. Not only did that affect them, but Conor as well. In a CNN article written by Emma Tucker, a story is told about a St. Louis County police officer who shot a woman, but the woman drops the charges and requests a restorative justice meditation program instead (par. 1). This demonstrates how restorative justice can be used instead of harsh and negative punishments; instead of charging the officer, the lady realized that focusing on the problem rather than punishing him would help her heal faster. Sometimes all we need is to focus on the problem privately rather than create a scene about it.

Restorative justice not only heals both parties, but also minimizes the likelihood of the perpetrator committing the same crime after they have served their sentence. For example, “As of January 2014, Longmont had an 8 percent recidivism rate while employing the restorative-justice concept compared with up to 70 percent during use of the traditional punitive process” (Newton par. 3). When using the traditional justice system, the perpetrators were more likely to commit their crime again compared to the justice system; restorative justice caused a decrease in recidivism. Jonathan Aitken, author of “Restorative Justice Is More Effective Than Retribution in Preventing Recidivism” and a former member of the British Parliament who served eighteen months in prison for lying in court, argues that restorative justice is a better solution to stop criminals from reoffending than harsh punishments (par. 1). Aitken served in prison and saw first-hand the difference between the people who went through restorative justice programs and the ones who stuck with the traditional justice system. He tells stories throughout his article about how restorative justice positively affected people and changed them for the better. People would much rather see the number of crimes repeated go down, but some do not agree that restorative justice can do that.

Some people are not convinced that restorative justice works—they think the traditional justice system is the way to go. Aitken describes one of the prisoners he got to know while serving his time, and he says, “Stroker was incorrigible, firmly set in his wicked ways.” He then explained that Stoker is back in prison now, and that this pattern will probably continue for the rest of his life because he has no care for rehabilitation or the restoration of the people he has made victims (Aitken par. 3). This shows how some people do not care for restorative justice and they do not care to change. To respond to that, some people truly believe they cannot change, but that does not mean that restorative justice itself is not effective. This would be like trying to argue that people should not take medications that cure illnesses because some may react to them wrongly. You cannot cancel something if the number of people it does not help is significantly lower than the amount of people it does help. Another opposition is made in McChargue et al.’s article when it says, “Practitioners should be cautious about using RJIS [restorative justice interventions] universally because empathy training for some offenders (i.e., sec offenders) produces adverse effects, for they often use empathy to manipulate their victims for personal gain” (22). Some offenders use restorative justice to manipulate or gaslight the victims again in certain cases, which would not lead to healing. There will always be a number of people who will abuse the restorative justice system, but again, this is not a reason to not do it. Compared to the regular justice system, restorative justice has more of a positive effect. 

Whether the problem is something major, like a murder, or something small, like a school fight, restorative justice can be used to solve and repair the damage. That is just one reason restorative justice is a great alternative and more effective compared to our traditional justice system. It can solve problems by allowing offenders to take responsibility for their actions, healing both the perpetrator and the victim, and decreasing rates of recidivism. Though there are some opposers, restorative justice overall helps more people than it hurts. There will always be bad people, but as long as others are trying to help as many as we can with restorative justice, that is all that counts.