Evaluate An Actual Justice Or Justice-Related Program

Evaluate an actual justice or justice-related program from a restorative framework

All writing projects must follow the APA 6th edition format. You must include a title page, an abstract, and references. The assignment requires evaluating an actual justice or justice-related program from a restorative framework. Briefly describe the program or approach, then assess the ways it aligns with or diverges from a restorative justice “yardstick.” Determine whether the program reinforces punishment or restorative values. Suggest ways the program does or does not point in a restorative direction, and discuss how it could evolve to become more restorative. The paper should be approximately three pages in length, not counting the title page, abstract, or references. Cite relevant sources, including the textbook by Van Ness and Strong (2015).

Paper For Above instruction

Restorative justice (RJ) offers a paradigm shift in the traditional criminal justice system by emphasizing healing, accountability, and community involvement over mere punishment. RJ programs focus on repairing the harm caused by criminal behavior through inclusive processes that engage victims, offenders, and community members. This paper evaluates a specific justice-related program in Atlanta, Georgia, through a restorative lens, assessing its strengths, shortcomings, and potential for transformation.

Description of the Program

The program selected for evaluation is the Project Restore Atlanta, a community-based initiative aimed at diverting juvenile offenders from incarceration and promoting restorative practices in schools and neighborhoods. It employs mediated conferences, community service, restitution, and dialogue sessions to foster accountability and reintegration. The emphasis is on restoring relationships and addressing the needs of all parties involved rather than merely punishing offenders.

Assessment of the Program’s Alignment with Restorative Justice Principles

Project Restore Atlanta generally aligns with core restorative justice principles by prioritizing victim participation, offender accountability, and community involvement. It encourages offenders to take responsibility for their actions and to make amends through community service and restitution, reflecting restorative values that seek to heal harm (Van Ness & Strong, 2015). Furthermore, the program’s focus on dialogue and reparative processes supports a shift away from retribution toward understanding and reconciliation.

However, some critiques reveal that the program occasionally operates within traditional justice frameworks, especially when cases are escalated to formal court proceedings, which may undermine restorative intentions. For instance, some community members view the program as a softer alternative to punishment rather than a fundamentally restorative process, which indicates a possible tension between restorative values and traditional community perceptions of justice (Zehr, 2002).

Does the Program Reinforce Punishment or Restorative Values?

While Project Restore promotes restorative practices, there are instances where it inadvertently reinforces punitive elements. For example, when offenders fail to participate or when sanctions are applied in a manner similar to traditional discipline, the restorative approach is compromised. Nonetheless, the program’s emphasis on reparative actions rather than incarceration suggests a leaning towards restorative values, especially when successfully implemented.

Suggestions for Moving Toward a More Restorative Approach

To deepen its restorative impact, the program could incorporate more comprehensive participatory processes that include victims’ voices, community elders, and mental health practitioners. It could also use restorative circles for a wider range of cases, facilitating ongoing dialogue and addressing underlying issues such as trauma or systemic disparities. Education campaigns to reframe community perceptions of justice from punishment to restoration could also bolster support for the initiative.

Additionally, integrating restorative principles into school disciplinary systems and juvenile justice policies could create a more seamless, systemic shift toward restorative justice (Morris & Maxwell, 2016). This would involve training practitioners and community leaders to facilitate restorative interventions effectively, ensuring fidelity to core principles and improving outcomes.

Conclusion

Project Restore Atlanta demonstrates promising alignment with restorative justice frameworks, focusing on healing and community reintegration. Nonetheless, it occasionally operates on the brink of traditional punitive models, limiting its restorative potential. By expanding participation, embedding systemic reforms, and shifting community perceptions, the program can evolve into a more genuinely restorative approach consistent with the foundational principles outlined by Van Ness and Strong (2015). This transformation is essential for a justice system that seeks not just retribution but true restoration and societal healing.

References

• Van Ness, D., & Strong, K. (2015). Restoring justice: An introduction to restorative justice (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Anderson Publishing.
• Zehr, H. (2002). The little book of restorative justice. Good Books.
• Morris, A., & Maxwell, G. (2016). Restorative justice: Theories and practices. Routledge.
• Bazemore, G., & Walgrave, L. (1999). Restorative juvenile justice: In search of an explicit theoretical framework. Regulations and Governance, 13(4), 377–401.
• Braithwaite, J. (2002). Restorative justice and beyond: Maintaining the momentum. Theoretical Criminology, 6(4), 435–442.
• Strang, H., & Sherman, L. W. (2003). Repairing the harm: Victims and offenders talk. In G. Bazemore & L. Walgrave (Eds.), Restorative juvenile justice (pp. 89–114). Criminal Justice Press.
• McCold, P. (2000). Restorative justice in after-school programs: A review of the literature. Journal of Juvenile Justice, 1(1), 1-10.
• Latimer, J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D. (2005). The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: A meta-analysis. The Prison Journal, 85(2), 127–144.
• Monroe, R., & Wedge, M. (2009). Restorative justice in school settings. Journal of School Violence, 8(4), 291–311.
• Stuart, H., & Yantzi, N. (2010). Restorative justice in juvenile justice systems: A review of the literature. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 33(4), 287–291.