Answer To: UNIT OUTLINE SWSP6143: Public Policy and Civil Society Discipline of Social Work Some Social Work...
Dr. Saloni answered on Jul 15 2022
1
Sociology: Justice Policy that takes a restorative justice approach versus
Justice policy that takes an incarceration approach
Contents
Introduction 3
Policy Debate 4
Victim–Offender Mediation 5
The Policy Objectives of the Approach 6
The Key Theory of Government/Governance 6
The Social Values or Philosophies/Ideologies 6
Strength of Victim-Offender Mediation 7
Limitation of Victim-Offender Mediation 7
Serious Offenders Act 2018 8
The Policy Objectives of the Approach 9
The Key Theory of Government/Governance 9
The Social Values or Philosophies/Ideologies 9
Strength of Serious Offenders Act 2018 10
Limitations of Serious Offenders Act 2018 10
Responding to Social Inequality 11
Strategies 12
Conclusion 13
References 15
Introduction
It is commonly assumed that justice is served in the aftermath of culpability if the perpetrator suffers pain proportional to the gravity of his or her criminal conduct. Social inequality is a major consequence of punitive measures. The social inequality created by incarceration is significant and long-lasting. In modern society, it is also believed that the government bears ultimate responsibility for inflicting such suffering in the aftermath of the alleged conduct (Armstrong, 2021). Such beliefs are challenged by restorative justice. One of its core themes is that justice in the immediate wake of wrongdoing necessitates the restoration of the damage intended to relationships and people; it is not sufficient — and may not be essential — for the perpetrator to feel pain. Another cornerstone is that immediate survivors of criminal conduct and those connected to them, as well as perpetrators and those connected to them, must be handed major roles in determining whatever to do about the offenses (Arrow & Forrest, 2020).
One implication appears evident: restorative justice, by calling into question a fundamental belief underpinning the practise of imprisonment, strengthens serious concerns regarding the practice's legitimacy. Restorative justice proponents, on the other hand, have lately become more focused on restructuring the practise of imprisonment under restorative justice doctrines. This development has sparked debate within the restorative justice practices, with many supporters asserting that restorative justice should be undertaken "never as a policy of detention or prison reform, but rather as a substitute to prison" (Gang et al., 2019). Mass prison sentences are increasingly recognised as a significant source of inequality and violations of human rights. According to research, the majority of prisoners have been victims of abuse and violence. Restorative justice activists are quickly shifting to it as a conceivable way to address survivors' needs whilst also minimising reliance on correctional facilities, detention centres, or prisons (Hansen & Umbreit, 2018).
This paper emphasises the two justice policy approaches based on restorative justice and incarceration, their key concepts, strengths, limitations, relevant social values and philosophies, individual positions concerning human rights conventions, and the strategies to advance the claim on implementing the best approach.
Policy Debate
Justice policy that takes a restorative justice approach is Victim–Offender Mediation. The goal of victim-offender mediation and discourse is to deliver a restorative conflict settlement practice that actively engages victims and survivors in fixing (to the greatest extent practicable) the material and emotional damage that occurred by the crime; a chance for both offenders and victims to communicate offences and share their emotions; and a chance for offenders and victims to develop common ground restitution. The Victim-Offender Mediation Unit facilitates communication between offenders and victims (Jeffries et al., 2021). This approach is provided to both juvenile and adult offenders, as well as their survivors. The mediation is impartial, free, and confidential. Individuals will not obtain a criminal record if they follow the plan of action. The Restorative Justice Facility enables a variety of restorative processes, with a focus on victim-offender meetings, which occur after an adult perpetrator is imprisoned and involved in a wide spectrum of wrongdoings. A victim-offender meeting will occur only if the perpetrator accepts accountability for the wrongdoing and both the survivor and the perpetrator agree to participate (Jonas-van Dijk et al., 2019).
Moreover, a justice policy that takes an incarceration approach is the Serious Offenders Act 2018. The Serious Offenders Act 2018 establishes a framework for the persistent supervision or incarceration of serious violent and serious sex offenders who confront an unconscionable chance of re-offending if released into the community with no supervision (Wood et al., 2021). The prime objective of the 2018 Policy is to safeguard the general public by mandating that perpetrators who have served prison terms for certain violent or violent offences and pose an abhorrent risk of repeated wrongdoings be subject to imprisonment or close monitoring upon closure of their prison sentence. The Policy also focuses on making care and rehabilitative services for such perpetrators easier. The Supreme Court can issue detention orders of up to three years under this approach. It also enables the Supreme Court to issue urgent detention orders for seven days in the situation of a surging risk offender (Gill et al., 2017).
Victim–Offender Mediation
Victim-offender mediation is an assisted conversation between the offender and victim about the allegation, its repercussions, and potential ways to mend the harm done. VOM systems are delivered in Queensland, New South Wales, the Northern Territory, Tasmania, and Western Australia. 19 VOM typically entails a skilled mediator, the offender, support individuals, and the victim. In comparison to communication (in which survivor participation is usually optional), VOM requires victim engagement. Mediation may be facilitated by the perpetrator, the survivor, or, in the situation of NT and WA, the judge, corrections officers, or prosecutor based on the jurisdiction (Arrow & Forrest, 2020).
The Policy Objectives of the Approach
The District Court may issue the preparatory work of a meditational document as a component of the justice system, which is a document about an arbitration process or intended intervention between a perpetrator and a survivor. This report has been ordered under Sentencing Act 1995Part 3 Div 5. The VMU, which is an element of the Corrective Services, Department of Justice, performs victim-offender mediations (Blagg & Anthony, 2019).
The Key Theory of Government/Governance
Victim-Offender Mediation is frequently placed within the context of a contemporaneous progression toward emotional intelligence equality. Its advocates claim that it tends to participate and recover the traumas caused by crime, whereas the judicial system simply administers the policy. VOM proponents claim that by invoking the concept of a substitute resolution framework that rejects the spiritually antagonising abstraction and formalism of the conventional adversarial judicial system, they can provide a more superlative form of justice (Gang et al., 2019).
The Social Values or Philosophies/Ideologies
The relationship between the social...