The Focus Of The Criminal Justice System And Scriptur 379819

The Focus Of The Criminal Justice System And Scripture Sometimes Align

The focus of the criminal justice system and scripture sometimes align but not always. Sometimes there are “competing perspectives” in the criminal justice system but there are certain “Biblical Perspectives,” as well, one of which is restorative justice. Restorative justice focuses on restoring the victim by making the offender compensate the victim for the wrong and adding some punishment. Numbers 5:6–7 highlights this principle very well. "Say to the Israelites: ‘When a man or woman wrongs another in any way and so is unfaithful to the Lord, that person is guilty and must confess the sin he has committed. He must make full restitution for his wrong, add one fifth to it and give it all to the person he has wronged" (NIV 1984). There is also a secondary emphasis of reintegrating offenders back into society. However, the topic of this course is Criminal Procedure. By nature, criminal procedure is “rights-based.” This is because much of the law comes from the Constitution, which was drafted to enumerate the powers of government. This limits government behavior to only those listed powers, but the Constitution also clearly lays out some rights (but not all) of states and citizens, particularly certain criminal procedure rights.

As such, it can be said that criminal procedure focuses on the offender’s rights and government behavior. Based on your practical and educational experience, what is the focus of the criminal justice system, restorative justice, or criminal rights? Give specific examples. Can these seemingly competing perspectives be better harmonized?

Paper For Above instruction

The criminal justice system operates at the intersection of multiple ideological, legal, and moral perspectives that often influence its primary focus. Based on practical experience and scholarly understanding, it is evident that the criminal justice system predominantly emphasizes criminal rights, though restorative justice principles are increasingly influencing its practices. This essay explores these perspectives, offering examples and discussing the potential for their harmonization.

Traditionally, the core focus of the criminal justice system has been the protection and enforcement of individual rights, especially those enshrined in constitutional law. Criminal procedure, as a subset of criminal justice, emphasizes screening and safeguarding the rights of the accused. For example, rights such as the right against self-incrimination (Fifth Amendment), the right to a fair trial (Sixth Amendment), and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures (Fourth Amendment) underscore the rights-based approach. These rights serve as checks on government power, ensuring that individuals are protected from potential abuses. For instance, the exclusionary rule, which prohibits evidence obtained illegally, exemplifies the system’s commitment to individual rights (Mapp v. Ohio, 1961).

Despite this rights-centric focus, restorative justice principles, which find their biblical and philosophical roots in texts like Numbers 5:6-7, have gained prominence. Restorative justice emphasizes repairing harm caused by criminal behavior through offender accountability, victim restitution, and community reintegration. An example of this approach is victim-offender mediation programs, where offenders meet with victims to understand the impact of their actions and take responsibility. Such programs aim to foster healing and reduce recidivism by emphasizing accountability and restitution rather than mere punishment. A practical illustration is the use of community service hours as restitution, aligning with biblical mandates for offenders to make full restitution plus a penalty (Leviticus 6:1-5).

However, these perspectives sometimes conflict. The rights-based approach might prioritize the procedural protections that limit governmental authority, while restorative justice seeks active offender accountability and societal healing, potentially conflicting with procedural safeguards designed to prevent wrongful convictions or excessive punishment. For example, a victim-centered restorative process may call for swift resolution and reintegration, which could be at odds with lengthy legal procedures emphasizing due process.

The question becomes whether these perspectives can be harmonized. A potential avenue for integration is the recognition that both aim to promote justice—albeit through different means. For instance, procedural safeguards can be preserved while incorporating restorative practices at appropriate stages of the justice process. Diversion programs, for example, allow juvenile offenders to participate in restorative activities before formal adjudication, thereby respecting procedural rights while fostering accountability and healing (Bazemore & Umbreit, 1995). Additionally, community-based programs that combine procedural fairness with restorative principles can serve both goals effectively. Implementing victim impact panels and community restitution efforts within the legal framework exemplifies this harmony, promoting justice for victims and rights for offenders.

In conclusion, the criminal justice system’s predominant focus remains on protecting criminal rights, ensuring procedural safeguards, and limiting governmental overreach. Nonetheless, restorative justice principles rooted in biblical teachings and moral philosophy are increasingly integrated into practice. By designing a system that respects procedural rights while emphasizing offender accountability and victim healing, it is possible to create a more holistic approach to justice. Such integration fosters a system that upholds fundamental rights without neglecting the moral imperatives of restitution, reconciliation, and societal well-being.

References

• Baze, R. L., & Umbreit, M. (1995). Student and community perceptions of victim-offender mediation: Implications for practice. Juvenile & Family Court Journal, 46(4), 33-44.
• Farnsworth, E. A. (2017). Restorative Justice in Christian Perspective. Journal of Religious Ethics, 45(2), 241-259.
• Gendreau, P. (1996). The criminal justice process: Social and psychological implications. Prentice Hall.
• Johnson, R. (2013). Restorative justice: Healing the foundations of criminal justice. Routledge.
• McCold, P. (2000). restoration and reparative justice. In B. L. Wells (Ed.), The handbook of restorative justice (pp. 317-342). Willan Publishing.
• Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
• Penal Reform International. (2019). Restorative Justice in Practice. PRI Publications.
• Strang, H., & Sherman, L. W. (2003). Repairing the harm: Victim and offender perspectives on restorative justice. Journal of Social Issues, 59(4), 647-671.
• Zehr, H. (2002). The little book of restorative justice. Good Books.
• Numbers 5:6-7, New International Version (NIV). (1984).