Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Restorative justice is an approach to justice that aims to repair the harm done to victims. [1] [2] In doing so, practitioners work to ensure that offenders take responsibility for their actions, to understand the harm they have caused, to give them an opportunity to redeem themselves, and to discourage them from causing further harm.
In models of restorative justice, victims take an active role in a process with their offenders who are encouraged to take responsibility for their actions, "to repair the harm they've done—by apologizing, returning stolen money, or community service." [60] The restorative justice approach aims to help the offender want to avoid future offences.
Barnes v. Gorman , 536 U.S. 181 (2002), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 17, 2002. The court decided that punitive damages may not be awarded in private lawsuits brought under § 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act .
Restorative justice process to allow victims harmed by wrongdoing to meet with the offender so they can negotiate their own resolution.
Alternatives can take the form of fines, restorative justice, transformative justice or no punishment at all. Capital punishment, corporal punishment and electronic monitoring are also alternatives to imprisonment, but are not promoted by modern prison reform movements for decarceration due to them being carceral in nature.
They advocate for reform in the police departments, prosecutorial reform, court reform, prison reform, and mostly for restorative justice. UNODC helps countries develop plans such as legislature to pass to reform their entire criminal justice system. They also work closely with other groups mostly fixating on the global drug problem.
Retributive justice is a legal concept whereby the criminal offender receives punishment proportional or similar to the crime.As opposed to revenge, retribution—and thus retributive justice—is not personal, is directed only at wrongdoing, has inherent limits, involves no pleasure at the suffering of others (i.e., schadenfreude, sadism), and employs procedural standards.
S v Shilubane, [1] an important case in South African criminal law, was heard and decided in the Transvaal Provincial Division by Shongwe J and Bosielo J on June 20, 2005. The case is significant primarily for its treatment of questions of punishment, advocating the consideration of restorative justice as an alternative to direct imprisonment, urging that presiding officers be innovative and ...