Restoraative Justice

Although the function of a circle is to provide the support and help for the offenders, it does not solely based on this alone. The circle in the program also functions as the “talking circle”( ) that provides the opportunity for the offenders to be placed in the center of attention, so they can connected to one another with the volunteers. Accodring to Höing et al, the engagement factor inclusively measure the “exchange of personal information by volunteers” give the core members “sense of belonging”(Höing et al, 2013). Thus, members of the circle consistently have communications about offense(directly or indircetly), but also personal issues and general interests(Höing et al, 2013). In this regard, the question of whether the participants of the program(offenders) actually have experienced engagement after the completion of the CoSA can be an important factor in evaluating the CoSA. Höing et al, have examined the quantitative data (personal report) of the core members who participated in the CoSA. According to the article, the core members stated that “being accepted and not being morally condemned as a person by the volunteers- while their offense is clearly not condoned- is crucial for their willingness to be open”(Höing et al, 2013). Thus, the authors have identified that trust was build around the circle between the offenders and volunteers when they have engaged in social actives together. In addition, some core members have developed the ability to be more open and honest in their communication(Höing et al, 2013). These findings by the authors illustrate that offenders who participate in the CoSA are likely to experience the positive engagement, where they personally feel belonging, welcomed, treated fairly, and respected manner. Restoration Wilson and associates demonstrated that CoSA produces a great impact on both core members involved in a program and the community(community members) in which that program exists(Wilson et al, 2007). Based on the principal of the CoSA, the core members would have had very difficulty on release from the prison, that would probably have returned to original ways of thinking and behaving, which could potentially increase the likelihood of returning to prison(Wilson et al, 2010). However, many research studies on recidivism rates for the core members who participated in the CoSA have identified the lower-recidivism rates among participants of the program. Also, core members have reported that they have increased their problem-solving behavior, less ruminating, and less stress(Höing et al, 2013). In another words, many core members have improved their social and relationship skills through the prgoram. This explains that the offenders or core members of the CoSA have restored from their criminal past, where they are now ready to live a new life. In addition, members of the communities with the CoSA unanimously stating that they feel much more safe and less concerned about sexual offenders in their communities when they acknowledged these offenders were involved in CoSA(Wilson et al, 2010). This feeling of public safety from the previous serious sex offenders allows the members of communities to accept and understand these offenders. Acceptance and understanding by the community members …show more content…
One of the significant limitation in evaluating the restorative justice is the fact that there are no clear guidelines in terms of defining the “success”. For examples, does low-recidivism rates among participants of CoSA really represent the success of the program? or does positive personal report from the core members of CoSA can clearly explain the success of the program? As these examples illustrate, there are many different measures that can be used to construct or define “success” of the program. In addition, these evidence-based studies conducted by many professionals do not contribute to the development and understanding of restorative justice and explain the success of CoSA. Many factors measured by the authors from the studies, such as the recidivism rates, competition rates, or personal reports are only the indicators. These Indicators cannot be used to exclusively conclude the successfulness of the program. As an example, low-reoffending rates can be due to the offenders’ personal behavioral change after the release, rather than the influence by the program. Thus, we cannot simply determine the success of the program by just examining these scientific or evidence-based research studies. More surrounding factors should be considered and observed before conclusively conclude the success or unsuccessfulness of the restorative practice, in this case