Twelve Reasons Not To Agree With The Restorative Justice

Tags:

• According
• Addition
• Agreement
• Analysis of Socrates Definition of Justice in
• Battle
• Being
• Body
• breaking The norm
• Calculation
• Capacity
• Case
• Causes of Crime
• Characteristics
• Commission
• Community
• Concept
• Conception
• Confidence
• Conflict
• Conformity
• Constitution
• Crime
• Criminal justice
• Criminal law
• Criticism

Show more

Get document Get an original paper

Twelve reasons not to agree with the restorative justice

The criminal process, thanks to the imputation and the corresponding punishment in certain cases of criminal law, fulfills its function. In recent years, a proposal has emerged that establishes that the criminal process should not be configured solely from a punitive perspective, rejecting the remuneration options and betting that the imposition of sanctions is but one more circumstance within the global treatment of prevention andThe fight against crime.

Restorative justice, guides criminal justice more towards the repair of the damage, than towards the determination of the penalty of the infringers and also has a great capacity to strengthen social cohesion within a society. The objectives pursued by restorative justice are mainly three:

• Resocialization of the victimizer and thus avoid a future recidivism
• The social, material and emotional reparation of the damaged.
• An incentive to society to prevent crime and to manage any type of conflict

But is it really effective?

 In our position we will give twelve reasons to be against this type of justice:

1. First, the criminal sanction serves to avoid the commission of criminal acts by people producing generalized prevention and an effective battle against infractions and in favor of this a full integration of society and the offender in the norms in the norms. The penalty causes security and confidence in society due to the stability of the legal system and its attributable power. Restorative justice produces a decrease in intimidating perspective and the reduction of penalty could cause an incentive for crime.
2. Second, the sanctioning claim of the State intends with the effectiveness of the sanction to the offender to generate a preventive and discouragement effect of the commission of any crime. The objectives of our system may not be satisfied by the agreement between the parties such as the prevention of performing future criminal acts or the brake of possible damage damage by those who cause the damage.
3. Third, the "resocialization" that remuneration justice intends is an inaccurate concept since it finds an inequality with very disparate doctrinal trends. The Coordination of the State Criminal Policy would be affected since mediation does not cause an identical result and the disproportionate pact agreement is possible.
4. Fourth, there are cases in which there could be no victim-victim repair and therefore, the sanction would cause an inequality of treatment in typified crimes and would lead to a decrease in the function of criminal law in conflict resolutions since it omits interestsof the community that are manifested through a precept that consolidates the protection of the victim and the assurance of the ordering. There are criminal acts that cause high victimization, since, in certain crimes, the imbalance is consubstantial to the parties themselves, always and in any case, thus relegating mediation to assumptions of little gravity and impossible, therefore, mediationFor many cases. In this type of cases the victim would win and not the victim, since the dialogue can hardly occur given the victimization picture of that after the crime commission. Certain criminal illicit causes in the victim a deep primary victimization that causes an almost reverential fear of the victimizer that is often disabling.
5. Fifth, an agreement agreed between the parties does not necessarily entail a resocialization or repair since the victim’s motivations can simply be a calculation of opportunities and the perpetrator may not feel any motivation to lean to a resocialization.
6. In sixth place, restorative justice is a utopian conception since repair is not feasible, although what it proposes is attractive to everyone due to its "good" perspective of people and society
7. In seventh place, it would not be feasible since it could only occur in cases of minor or minor crimes.
8. In eighth place, mediation would be a "soft" type of justice in the face of crime, as a little equitable solution in which one party presses on another to obtain a consensual result.
9. In ninth place, another criticism of this type of justice is that who would win here would be the victimizer and not the victim pretending only the humiliation of the first. Mediation can cause humiliation to the victimizer in the sense and can cause a certain moralizing propagation according to what is over the victim and victimizer to demand the internalization of certain values.
10. In tenth, we find the risk to the privatization of criminal justice in which there would be a dejudicialization of criminal law and therefore a violation of the principle of equality. The subjectivism that an agreement between the parties causes the law to be very predictable by moving it to the epicenter of the system causing them to absent characteristics that are its own being inadmissible by our Constitution since legal certainty would be violated, the equality of trafficking andThe right to non -discrimination. In the same way, the privatization of criminal justice loses vigor when it is a mediation that, while intrajudicial, is informed by the principle of officiality: derived from the process with the view and place of the jurisdictional bodyand of the Public Ministry, an agreement enforced by the jurisdictional body etc. Locate the ready of the alleged privatization in the minimum space created by the dialogue between the parties, leaves institutes such as that of conformity in the threshold of being considered little less than enabling elements for the "commercialization" of criminal law. In addition, those who do not have economic resources will not be able to benefit from mediation.
11. In eleventh place, excessive flexibility can cause a perverse effect with respect to general prevention. In this way it would be necessary for the agreement achieved to be subordinated to the social interest for the criminal function to strengthen and thus causing a validity of the norm.
12. Finally, in twelfth place, restorative justice can cause an extension of the system network and that serves to attract people to the new system that establishes, that is, extension according to the one far from detracting from individuals from the criminal system, it ends byattract them to the new one who proposes.