Hinckley Forums: Restorative/Therapeutic Justice – A Need for Alternatives to Traditional Prosecution
Name:
Institutional Affiliation:
The Hinkley forum was hosted by Carnol. The Hinkley institution was established by Hinkley in 1965 with the objectives of teaching practical politics and citizenship interest in National Governance and Policies. The guest, Sim Gill, Salt Lake County District Attorney, is a veteran champion of criminal justice and alternative prosecution. He was elected in November 2010 to serve as the county district attorney. Gill holds Bachelor of history and Philosophy from Utah University and PhD in Natural Resource and Environmental law from Lewis and Clark school of law (Hadley, 2001). He has a long history in fighting for the rights of the victims by focusing on communal problem-solving aspects rather than criminal indignation. Crimes that committed in the society have adverse effects not only on the victims, but to the society as a whole. Therefore, restoration of justice entails repairing all the injuries caused by criminal acts. Although the focus has been incrimination as a way of addressing these injustices, alternative approaches should be considered. The focus of this debate therefore emphasizes on restorative and therapeutic Justice as a more effective mechanism attaining criminal justice.
The “zero Tolerance” principle of the justice system emphasizes on prosecution and holding the offenders accountable for their actions and acts. This principle has dominated the society (especially the criminal and justice institutions) because it is believed to be a public policy that is effective in restoring justice. However, little attention is accorded to the most affected persons, the victims, since this policy is founded on bringing to books the offenders. Notably, the assumptions under which the “zero Tolerance to crime” operates are often ineffective (Zernova, 2007). For instance, this poor public policy assumes unlimited resources and time in the legal system. This is contrary to the economic policy of scarcity of resources. In attempting to resolve the efficiency in justice system, “smart prosecution” is preferred over the ineffective, uneconomical, and inefficient “zero Tolerance to crime” system.
The criminal justice system of the United States is characterized by resource depletion, poor methodologies that do not produce the expected justice results and frustrations to the society as a whole (McMahon, 2003). Over the last one decade, the population of prisoners has risen by 700% with the expenditure expected to be in the excess of $60 billion from the current $9 billion. Despite this massive investment in the justice system, the crime rate has been on the rise thereby indicating a negative return on these financial investments in the justice system (Zernova, 2007). Notably, majority of the prisoners suffer from chronic mental illnesses, drug and substance addicts, adverse poverty victims, and family violence related backgrounds. Taking a look at their backgrounds and historical facts, smart prosecution is a feasible solution to such suspects compared to the traditional prosecutio.
The traditional prosecutio system that roots for jailing criminals is uneconomical and is a waste of public coffers. This is attributed to the fact since over 50% of the criminals and offenders are reported to suffer from mental related illnesses, recommending prosecution is a tall order with no direct positive impacts on all the victims, society, and the criminals themselves (McMahon, 2003). This is backed by the fact that over 50 percent of the released prisoners hardly take three years before being convicted for criminal acts again. The “zero Tolerance to crime” system is a limited process of restoring justice because of its financial and economic burden to the society. The cost incurred in conducting fair and just trial is relatively expensive unaffordable than the outcome derived from such process (Hadley, 2001). In addition, this traditional system of seeking justice is costly in terms of time as the process is bureaucratic and entails a number of unnecessary steps that only succeeds in delaying justice to the victim and to the offender.
Owing to the weaknesses of this system, restorative/therapeutic Justice is a better and effective approach that is sustainable in restoring justice. This alternative system (popularly referred to as the smart prosecution) takes into account the economic principles of scarcity of resources. Unlike the traditional judicial system, that emphasizes on detaining the offenders, the smart prosecution roots for delivery of justice by freeing the offenders. In particular, the non violent offenders with medical and mental illnesses should never be detained in correction institutions, but be admitted to health and clinical institutions as a way of facilitating rehabilitations and treatment process (McMahon, 2003). This correction mechanism does not entail compromising the legal process, but emphasizes on the sustainable and long term rehabilitation. Besides, it is a shorter process that is economical in nature thereby saving sufficient resources for other violent cases.
In conclusion, criminal justice is an important process to the society. For the victims, the restoration process entails accountability and restitution, while for the society; this process involves safety and costs aspects. To the criminals, the process should be founded on treatment and rehabilitation. For this reason, jail should be viewed as an opportunity to stabilize and restore justice rather than delay it. Taking into account the economic and social factors surrounding the traditional prosecutio, restorative/therapeutic Justice is a better approach to solving criminal injustices in the society.
References
Top of Form
Top of Form
Hadley, M. L. (2001). The Spiritual Roots of Restorative Justice. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press.
McMahon, M. (2003). Therapeutic Jurisprudence. Leichhardt, N.S.W: The Federation Pr.
Sim, G. (2013). Hinckley Forums: Restorative/Therapeutic Justice – A Need for Alternatives to Traditional Prosecution, Hinckley Institute of Politics.
Zernova, M. (2007). Restorative Justice: Ideals and Realities. Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate.
Bottom of Form
Bottom of Form
