Tuesday, August 6, 2019
Economic control Essay Example for Free
Economic control Essay Traditionally the reasons of the rules and regulations were to control human relations in an effort to make the behaviors of other individuals known (Pennell, pp3). rules are also employed to provide other purposes, these includes punishing offenders, providing social economic control, banishing private retribution, deterring criminal acts and reflecting public opinions (Pennell, pp3). Conventionally prevention of crime was intended provide advice on defensive behaviors and security. On the other hand laws are supposed to be malleable and should serve as a tool of social engineering (Pennell, pp4). They are supposed to be transformed with arrival of new thoughts and societal changes. The human rights and needs of victims of crime are essential aspects of criminal justice systems, especially currently, as the issues of victims have emerged since 1970s. Since 1970s, legal and emotional reactions of the nation have changed dramatically and currently more attention is being paid on restorative justice. There are many activities that are involved in restorative justice (Pennell, pp6). In order to give an insight of the various forms that restorative justice is taking and the activities that are involved this paper will focus on practices, origin context and limitations of restorative justice (Pennell, pp6). Victims Rights The current legal codes in federal government evolved from the conventional codes and attempts to define and deal with criminal behaviors. The aim of the codes is to focus on the deviant behaviors of the criminals and they rarely focus on the victims and their needs. The primary focus of the law is to deter the criminal activities (Aldana-Pindell, pp45). Several decades ago within the federal government when reconciliation for victim offenders was being set restorative justice did not exist within the criminal justice system (Brown Bunnell, pp87). Restorative justice has evolved currently within the criminal justice system in recent years following philosophical writings of van ness and others. Various debates which have been held have facilitated the emergence of processes within the restorative justice such as impact panels, conferences, sentencing circle etc (Aldana-Pindell, pp45). Since 1970s several practices and programs have assisted to develop the restorative justice moments. Early practices for restorative justice were focusing on the moderated meetings involving the offenders and the victims (Aldana-Pindell, pp46). As time went by the meetings were expanded and included friends and family members from the two parties. The meetings also included professionals and other individuals who had access of public resources. In recent years the system has paid much attention on the participation and involvement of members of the community (Normandeau, pp34). In 1970s some practitioners and scholars believed that offenders are victims of social neglect, poor societies and racial, ethnic and gender discrimination. As a result the advocates of restorative justice focused to change the conditions in the prison, reduce incarceration use and eliminate prison and jails as institutions (Normandeau, pp34). In this regard there are some individuals who were seeking to make a caring society instead of prisons and jails that would address the issues of victimizers and victims (Brown Bunnell, pp92). The activists of caring communities brought the issue of interests of the victims in the criminal justice system in a progressive manner rather than focusing on the right of the victims (Meister, pp54). In 1970s and 1980s the population of people in the prisons in United States was becoming progressively overcrowded and contributed to the use and popularity of intermediary sanctions (Aldana-Pindell, pp47). However, during this time restorative justice and mediation of victim offenders were not common within the criminal justice systems as alternatives. The establishment of boards of societal justice and centers for neighborhood justice in the federal government reflected their wishing to achieve more justice and this was characterized by public participation and casualness (Aldana-Pindell, pp49). These were new forms of resolution of conflicts in the late 1970s and they showed a developing disenchantment which involved trial procedures of adjudication and finding facts in accordance to adherence to strict legal principles. On the other hand the systems in resolution of conflicts placed much importance on negotiation, agreements between the disputants and placed less importance on the role of legal professionals (Aldana-Pindell, pp49). In mid 1970s reconciliation programs in the United States were introduced for victim offenders. These programs were based on the principles of Mennonite that focuses on dialogue and exchange (Marshall, pp20). Reconciliation programs involved offenders and crime victims meetings after being sentenced and included impartial third party. Reconciliation programs for offenders and victims aimed at restoring good relationship that is supposed to exist between the parties. The proponents of these programs were focusing to establish a good working relationship and use of principles of religious institutions and also as an option to incarceration (Marshall, pp21). In the rate 1970s advocates and the victims increasingly focused on mediation rather than reconciliation programs for offenders and victimsÃ¢â¬â¢ interactions. However, the model of the mediation program was similar to models of reconciliation program, although additional individuals affected by the differences would be involved in the meeting, especially when addressing serious crimes (Meister, pp57). Mediation programs for offenders and victims were developed in western part of Europe, Scandinavia and England in the end of 1970s and early 1980s, and were use primarily to handle justice cases for the youths. Since 1980s the programs have shown a significant growth in the United States and other nations (Marshall, pp22). Progressive voices and conservatives suggest that victims of crimes do not have the voice in the criminal justice system. In late 1970s and early 1980s activists of feminists and social scholars of legal doctrines paid more attention on making courts and law enforcement officers to be accountable to children and women who may be physically or sexually abused (Marshall, pp22). The groups that advocated for victims right focused on compensation for crime in the processes of courts, using formal voice and on safety of the society. In early 1980s Reagan organization released a report of task force on victims of crimes that facilitated the development of groups that advocated for the rights of the victims. Since 1990s there is a tremendous growth of alliances between groups that focuses on the reforms of criminal justice and victim support. This tremendous growth has been as a result of realizing the common interests among the offenders and victims based groups (Anwander, pp71). In 1980s New Zealand government started reassessing Waitangi treaty focusing on the implications of the relationship between the whites i. e. Pakeha and indigenous people the Maori. In 1986 a report that was prepared by ministers recommended for structural changes in the practices and policies of the government towards the indigenous people (Marshall, pp24). In 1989 the administration had great structural changes in the way matters regarding family welfare and justice for the youths was handled. Before introduction of these changes indigenous people were overrepresented in prisons and jails and decision making processes were dominated by the whites (Meister, pp58). These structural changes employed in youth justice can be used in various juvenile offenses, but mostly they are used in serious cases and minor cases solved trough diversions of police. Family welfare and youth justice programs are different from offenders and victim reconciliation and mediation programs since they involve more community members in the discussion of the offense, pay more attention on participation of the family and recognize more victimized individuals. Family welfare and youth justice programs also reduce the intervention of the state and changes the roles of professionals in problem solving (Marshall, pp26). Youth justice and family welfare programs were introduced first in Australia in late 1991 and formed part of law enforcement operations that focused on one jurisdiction. Conferences run by the police were also introduced in the capital city of Australia and later on the northern states (Meister, pp59). In late 1993 and early 1994, conferences for handling juvenile cases were introduced in the southern and western part of Australia and they were involving non professional police to run the conference. In Queensland and south wale conferences to handle juvenile cases, have been recently introduced and they are mostly employed in Queensland schools (Meister, pp59). Circles of sentencing were established in Canada in 1980s, and were the fist groups of the nation to respond to offenders (Marshall, pp26). The aim and objectives of circles of sentencing are resolution of conflicts, restoring harmony and order, and healing of offenders, victims and family (Anwander, pp73). Circles of sentencing involves processes of consensus and includes all the victims of crimes and families of the victims, their next of kin, and community members in order to respond to the behavior and formulate sanctions that addresses all the needs of those involved. Circles of sentencing are currently being used in United States and in Canada by non indigenous groups that include blacks in Minnesota. Since 1980s, there are other practices which have emerged and use the principles of restorative justice (Marshall, pp27). Compensation boards in Vermont involve the members of the community and design penalties for offenders of juvenile. These penalties involve service of the community and rarely involve offender and victim mediation. The meetings do not involve the victims (Anwander, pp76). Panels of victim impact have also been introduced by mothers and focuses on drunk driving. The panels give a room for the victims and the members of the family to give their suggestions about the impact of driving when drunkard to the offenders who have been ordered by the court to attend. However, these panels for victims are different from most of the processes of restorative justice, since they do not employ voluntary attendance (Marshall, pp29). On the other hand they have an important element of bringing contact of offenders and victims in the process, which lacks in traditional proceedings of criminal justice. These panels are employed extensively across the United States. On the other hand research and theories have contributed to the development of restorative justice. In 1970s scholars of social and legal doctrines developed several theories focusing on formal and informal justice. Theoretical and empirical studies of formal and indformal justice which have been conducted in industrialized countries and in less developed countries suggest that, it took less one decade to change optimism for pessimism. With emergence of theories and research disillusionment had already set in by 1990s (Marshall, pp30). In late 1970s and early 1980s there were arguments from the criminologists in Netherlands, Norway and from elsewhere to abolish prisons. During this time the activists paid more attention on decarceration and alternatives to jails and prisons. However, currently there are few individuals who would argue for complete abolition of prisons although few people argue for their minimal use (Marshall, pp31). In 1996 there was an international conference to address penal abolition held in New Zealand and supported resolutions and discussions to facilitate restorative justice. Scholars have also attempted to focus on the merits of informal methods that can be applied in social set ups to regulate order in the society (Marshall, pp31). This involves reintegrative shaming in response to a crime that may be integrative and not stigmatizing. These ideas have been employed in conferencing models such as in wagga, in Australia. Before the wagga conference these ideas were not included in youth justice and family welfare programs and they did not form part of many conference held across the globe. The united states are currently employing the wagga model, although there are some arguments on the issue of shame and whether it should be the central issue in processes of conferencing (Marshall, pp32).