andrewducker (
andrewducker) wrote2003-07-22 12:56 pm
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Offenders to face victims
This is a fantastic idea (in certain circumstances). It should help both victims and perpetrators to move on.
People who commit crimes could avoid prosecution if they agree to face-to-face meetings with their victims and see the impact of their offences, it has been suggested.
Both victims and offenders would have to consent to taking part in the scheme with the perpetrator admitting to the offence.
Restorative justice has so far been confined largely to young offenders but will be stepped up to include more adult offenders, school bullies and anti-social hooligans.
Mr Blunkett said: "Restorative justice means victims can get an apology from their offender, but it is about more than 'saying sorry' - it provides the victim with an explanation of why the crime was committed.
"This is something a prison sentence on its own can never do and can enable victims to move on and carry on with their lives.
"It also means that for the first time offenders will be personally held to account for the crimes they have committed."
no subject
Isn't that what a prison sentence means?
Personally, I think it's an awful idea. Let me see, prison sentence or meeting with victim, as a deterant to future crime.
Apologies don't make up for a crime.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
If I were a victim, I think I would like to confront the person who offended against me, but not at the expense of them doing time.
no subject
If the point is to prevent someone from committing a crime again, bringing the victim and the criminal face-to-face can have remarkably good effects.
But it depends what you see the point of a criminal conviction as being. If it's to punish, you'll go in one direction. If it's to prevent the criminal from recividism, you'll go in another. I've been burgled and had an (attempted) mugging: I would rather prevention than punishment.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
I don't think you can make a blanket statement like "this is a good thing for criminals" or "this is a bad thing for criminals," beause "criminals" aren't homogeneous. People commit different crimes, and they commit them for different reasons.
Case 1: A starving person picks the pocket of a very wealthy man, taking the cash from his wallet and leaving the other effects behind, where it is found by police and returned to the man.
Case 2: A drunk driver on his way home from a bar strikes and kills a young girl playing in the street.
Obviously, the second case will be much more prone to having an impact if the victim meets the grieving parents face-to-face. In the first case, what kind of effect will it have?
Punishment and rehabilitation should be twin goals, not an either-or thing. In both cases, I think the criminal should spend time in jail, but I wouldn't mind if, in the second case, the driver has the chance to reduce his sentence somewhat by spending time with the girl's parents, because this will probably have a big impact on him.
By the way, I don't think you can say that prison is not a deterrence. I think that, without taking away the possibility of jail, you can't compare how life would be without it. I think many people ARE deterred from minor crimes by the possibility of spending time in jail. I just think that some people are beyond deterrence, either because they are really desperate, or really sick, or really arrogant.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
A.
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject