Nurturing Pillars of Society: Understanding and Working with the Young Generation in Hong Kong

16 - Juvenile Justice Issues(4): Restorative Justice (RJ) for Young Offenders

16 Juvenile Justice Issues(4): Restorative Justice (RJ) for Young Offenders As the last of our juvenile justice issues, we now come to the sixth model of criminal justice, the restorative justice (RJ) model. In the retributive model, we shall recall at the outset, offenders are punished for having wronged. Thus, they are sentenced either to imprisonment or capital punishment (Anderson, 1997; Hart, 1963). But with an increasing emphasis on human rights, retributive types of correction are now de-emphasised. Allen and Latessa (1997) and van Ness (1996) state that rehabilitative measures for offenders have been developed to provide specific and tailor-made treatments. The thought is that rehabilitation will provide offenders with sufficient training and education to reintegrate into society. But we find the same declining faith in rehabilitative approaches as we do in those based on retribution. The RJ model of criminal justice is, therefore, the preferred alternative (Bazemore, 1998; Johnstone, 2002, 2003; Maxwell et al., 2000; Morris and Young, 2000; Sullivan and Tifft, 2001). An ideal RJ measure for treating an offender will take into account the input of the victim, the offender, their family members, the community, and other stakeholders in the criminal justice system. Most countries that have adopted the RJ model apply it primarily to juvenile offenders (Bazemore, 1996; Crawford and Newburn, 2003). While the reasons for this have not been identified, it appears to reflect the belief that young offenders are more capable of change and more open to correction (Lo et. al., 2005; Muncie, 1999; Omaji, 2003). Equally, their crimes are presumed to be more impulsive and situational, making RJ a more promising criminal justice alternative. But among RJ’s advocates, the model is believed to be applicable to offenders of all ages. Most countries that have employed the RJ model in the criminal justice system are non-Asian. It is more commonly found in Australia, New 162 Nurturing Pillars of Society Zealand, the United States, and Europe. Western criminological studies (Palmer, 2003; Wikstrom and Butterworth, 2006) have challenged accepted beliefs as to an individual’s responsibility in committing a crime. This may be one reason for RJ’s popularity in the West. Differences between East and West in culture, sociology, history, and politics may also explain RJ’s rapid acceptance in the West. The possibility of applying RJ in the Asian context has rarely been studied (Chen, 2002). How the RJ model can be adopted in juvenile justice systems in Asian societies such as Hong Kong is therefore worth exploring. ■ The Concept of RJ RJ has been defined as a “process whereby the parties with a stake in a particular offence come together to resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future” (Marshall, 1996:37). A central feature of the model is shame (Braithwaite, 1995; Miller and Blackler, 2000). Braithwaite proposes that to treat the offender with an element of “reintegrative shaming” can induce remorse and discourage further crimes (Braithwaite, 1989). RJ involves methods that create opportunities for the stakeholders as listed above to meet and share their feelings and views on the impact of a crime and to discuss how to deal with both the crime and the offender. The intent is to look forward and prevent similar crimes from happening in future (Johnstone, 2002 & 2003). Victim (V) Offender (O) Victim’s Family Members (VFM) Offender’s Family Members (OFM) Representatives of Criminal Justice System (CJS) Community/Society (C/S) Legends: Input Output 1. Handling of the crime 2. Justice for offender (Reparative + Reintegrative) Diagram 7 The dynamics of the RJ process a. Sharing on the impacts of the crime b. Discussing on measures to be taken for handling the crime c. Discussing on measures to be taken for handling the offender(s) Restorative Justice (RJ) for Young Offenders 163 ■ The Practice of RJ Various programmes are used to put the RJ model into practice. These include peacemaking, family group conferencing,1 sentencing circles, and victim-offender reconciliation programmes (Bald, 2001; Braswell et al., 2001; Carlson et al., 1989; Galaway and Hudson, 1996; Maxwell and Morris, 2000; Sullivan and Tifft, 2001; Walgrave, 2001). Here we will briefly review some of these practices. Navajo peacemaking The Navajo, a Native American tribe, practice formal peacemaking as a communal response to help people in need, such as those who batter their spouses or are alcoholics. The Navajo believes that those who do harm...