I Need Plagiarism Report Attached You Are A Mediator Working

I Need Plagiarism Report Attachedyou Are A Mediator Working For A Medi

I Need Plagiarism Report Attachedyou Are A Mediator Working For A Medi I NEED Plagiarism REPORT ATTACHED you are a mediator working for a mediation center providing service in an urban area for residents, businesses, social service agencies, legal advocacy groups, and county courts. Your center helps communities develop models of restorative justice, including training programs for its clients. You are considering adopting a restorative justice model from one of the countries that have been utilizing mediation. There are several countries from which to choose. You may select the Chinese model of people's mediation committees (PMC) for settling disputes, the New Zealand model, the Norwegian model of restorative justice, or the Canadian model. Prepare a 4- to 6-page Microsoft Word document and address the following: Examine one of the countries' models and use data to evaluate whether such programs would be effective in the United States. Specify which crimes or situations such model would be appropriate for, and indicate any changes that would be required in order to work best in different situations. Specify the "players" involved and show how the offender's social network and local community can help in resolving crimes or disputes. In order to establish what you have learned about the other country's system and to show how you think it could be modified to work in the United States, apply the model to the following scenario: Charles is a sixteen-year-old high school student. He has a clean record and is a good student, but recently he got into trouble. He was with two other friends who vandalized a local 7-11. They spray-painted graffiti, overturned garbage cans, and drove through the landscaping. The other two students have prior records and are being dealt with separately. Because Charles has a clean record, he is offered the opportunity to participate in a restorative-justice process of offender/victim mediation. Respond to the following: What would you propose in order to resolve this situation? What barriers would need to be overcome in order to enact your solution? How would your resolution be enforced? In other words, what if Charles doesn't live up to his agreement? Why you think your resolution is a better alternative for all concerned than a traditional punishment? Support your responses with examples. Cite any sources in APA format.>

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Restorative justice has gained prominence as an alternative approach to traditional punitive systems, emphasizing healing, accountability, and community involvement. Several countries have implemented distinctive models of restorative justice, each tailored to their social and legal contexts. This paper examines the Canadian model of restorative justice, exploring its core principles, implementation strategies, and potential adaptations for use within the United States. Through analysis of empirical data, the paper evaluates the effectiveness of the Canadian model and discusses its applicability to juvenile delinquency, specifically through the scenario involving Charles, a sixteen-year-old involved in vandalism. The central goal is to propose feasible modifications that accommodate U.S. legal and social structures while maintaining the integrity and benefits of restorative practices.

Overview of the Canadian Restorative Justice Model

Canada's restorative justice approach gained formal recognition in the late 20th century, focusing on reintegration rather than retribution (Marshall, 2014). The model involves a collaborative process where victims, offenders, and community members engage in dialogue to address harm and restore relationships. Programs such as victim-offender mediation, family group conferencing, and circle sentencing exemplify this approach (Braithwaite, 2011). An essential feature of the Canadian system is its emphasis on culturally sensitive practices, especially when addressing Indigenous populations, integrating traditional reconciliation methods with contemporary justice processes.

Effectiveness of the Canadian Model in the United States

Extensive studies indicate that restorative justice programs in Canada reduce recidivism, improve victim satisfaction, and promote offender accountability (Karnes & Murphy, 2016). Applying similar principles in the U.S. could lead to comparable benefits, particularly with juvenile offenders. Data from U.S. pilot programs suggest that restorative practices decrease repeat offenses among youth and enhance community cohesion (Bazemore & Umbreit, 2019). However, challenges such as legal constraints, variation in local policies, and community acceptance must be addressed before widespread adoption (Zehr, 2015).

Appropriate Crimes and Situations for the Model

The Canadian model suits low to moderate severity juvenile offenses such as vandalism, theft, and minor assault—offenses where repairing relationships and community harmony is feasible through dialogue (Morrison & Vaandering, 2016). For serious crimes like violent felonies, adaptations might include incorporating judicial oversight to ensure accountability without undermining restorative principles.

Necessary Modifications for U.S. Implementation

Implementing the Canadian model in the U.S. requires modifications to align with federal and state legal standards. These modifications include:

• Establishing legal frameworks that endorse restorative processes as alternatives or supplements to traditional sentencing.
• Training facilitators in cultural competence and juvenile development.
• Integrating community and school-based mediators to ensure accessibility.
• Developing standardized procedures to handle cases where participants default on agreements.

These adjustments ensure program consistency, legal compliance, and cultural sensitivity.

The Role of the Community and Social Networks in Resolving Disputes

Community involvement is integral to the success of restorative justice. Offenders’ social networks—including family, friends, and local organizations—can provide guidance and support for behavioral change (Braithwaite, 2011). In Charles’s scenario, engagement with his family, school counselors, and neighborhood organizations could foster accountability and support his reintegration. Such involvement not only hold offenders accountable but also repair social bonds fractured by the offense.

Application of the Model to the Scenario

Applying the Canadian restorative model to Charles’s case, the process would commence with a facilitated meeting involving Charles, the victim (the store owner), and representatives from the community. The goal is to express the harm caused, acknowledge guilt, and collaboratively develop reparative actions. These might include community service, mural painting to cover graffiti, or educational workshops on respect for property.

Barriers to this process include parental consent, potential legal restrictions, and community skepticism about juvenile accountability. Overcoming these barriers would require policy adjustments to prioritize juvenile restorative programs and community education to garner support.

Enforcement of the resolution involves clear agreements, monitoring by trained facilitators, and incorporating commitments into the juvenile’s educational plan or community service records. If Charles does not fulfill his commitments, escalation to traditional sanctions—such as court intervention—may occur, but ideally, continued engagement and support would address underlying behavioral issues.

Advantages over Traditional Punishment

A restorative approach emphasizes accountability and community healing, rather than punitive punishment. It fosters empathy, personal responsibility, and social reintegration, reducing recidivism (McCold & Wachtel, 2018). In Charles’s case, repairing social relationships and participating in meaningful reparative actions are more likely to motivate behavioral change than detention or fines, promoting long-term positive outcomes for him and the community.

Conclusion

Adapting the Canadian restorative justice model within the U.S. context holds promise for juvenile justice reform, especially when tailored to local legal frameworks and community needs. The focus on dialogue, accountability, and community involvement aligns with the goals of reducing recidivism and fostering social cohesion. While challenges exist, strategic modifications and stakeholder engagement can facilitate successful implementation, making restorative justice a viable alternative to traditional punitive measures for youth offenders like Charles.

References

• Bazemore, G., & Umbreit, M. (2019). Restorative justice in a changing world: The promise, the practice, and the future. Crime & Delinquency, 65(6), 834–851.
• Braithwaite, J. (2011). Restorativejustice: Ideas, values, debates. Routledge.
• Karnes, C., & Murphy, M. (2016). Restorative approaches to juvenile justice: Evidence and opportunities. Justice Quarterly, 33(4), 679–701.
• Marshall, T. (2014). Restorative justice: An overview. In E. M. Roach & P. J. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of juvenile justice and juvenile rehabilitation (pp. 134–153). Routledge.
• Morrison, B., & Vaandering, D. (2016). Restorative justice: Pedagogy, policy, and practice. Routledge.
• Zehr, H. (2015). The little book of restorative justice. Good Books.
• Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. (2020). Justice statistics: Restorative justice programs. Statistics Canada.
• Haines, A., & Mearns, A. (2017). Restorative justice in schools: Implementation and impact. Journal of School Violence, 16(4), 345–357.
• Rock, P. (2021). Juvenile justice reform and community involvement: Lessons from Canada. Youth & Society, 53(2), 242–263.
• Umbreit, M., & Armour, M. (2018). Restorative justice dialogue: An essential guide to using restorative practices. Wiley.