Category: Justice

Introduction

The mob justice report in a South African community, which was local news, became international. This is due to its broadcast on the internet through Youtube, which is made accessible worldwide. However, the report also raised some questions about its accuracy, and it has some implications on journalism. I argue that the media coverage of the mob justice was poor and it did not represent the news accurately. In this essay, I will be talking about the poor reporting of the news and the factors that affected it, how technology has played a part in the mob justice, the lessons that I have learnt and the video report’s impact on me.

Critical Analysis

This analysis begins with the problematic issues about the report. One problem is the usage of the sources. In the news report, there was a lack of authoritative sources being used in the report. Key people involved in the mob justice, such as the victims of the attack, the attackers themselves, the town council, were not interviewed. They were the best source of information for the mob justice as they had first-hand experience on the case, yet there was no interview with them. In the report, there was only one main contact through Golden Mtika, a resident journalist. We do not know if he had gone through certified journalistic trainings to be doing journalism or being directly involved in the mob justice. Even though he was seen taking pictures in the report, none of the pictures he took were published in the report. Thus, there was no proof of his work and it questioned the validity of his report.

Another problem with the report is about its background context. The video report had no background context and there was no explanation of what caused the mob. The audience may be confused as they do not live in the South African community themselves. A reason for the lack of context can be due to parachute journalism, where journalists “jump from crisis to crisis without providing information early enough or delivering adequate context”. (Meyer, 2012) The journalists may not have spent enough time in the South African community to do research on the mob justice. The lack of research can be shown through the video report which lacked a good explanation on the context. They do not have experience to report foreign news and they may not have the language skills to communicate with the locals in that country. One example would be when Pope John Paul II passed away in 2005, the US news organisations sent experts on the topic on religion to Rome so that they can bring coverage on his funeral and death. (Obijiofor, Hanusch) Thus, parachute journalism results in poor quality of news.

Technology played a huge factor in reporting the mob justice. Many videos from mobile devices were used in this report. However, we cannot verify if they were taken directly from the mob justice itself or from another incident. An example would be the videos that showed people getting beaten up and having their faces censored. The violence shown and the dramatic music were to just cover up the lack of content and background context of the mob justice. It seemed that 3rd Degree sensationalised the news to make it more dramatic, but in truth there was no content.

With the Internet being used as a medium to broadcast news worldwide, mob justice in South Africa became international news. What was being first regarded as local news in South Africa has become international news. Thus, the line between local news and global news was blurred. The global audience may not be familiar with the culture of South Africa, which can mislead them to have inaccurate views about the nation if they do not study the news carefully. This can be supported from the article named “A comparative content analytical study of negative news in Western and Third World Newspapers” which quotes “In the age of global communication since people are constantly exposed to international communication, it is becoming increasingly important to examine the content of international news because news received from other countries has a tremendous impact on people’s perceptions and understandings of the world.”(Chaudhary)

From this report, I have learned that it is crucial to read the news critically. Not every news that we view are accurate as they can be parachute journalists who are reporting the news. Extra graphics and sounds may mislead us with the lack of content in the news. Thus, we need to be critical thinkers when we read the news.

Another lesson that I’ve learned is that anyone can be a journalist. With almost everyone possessing a mobile device, anyone can record a video or take a photo of an incident and instantly post it online through social media. The “mobile devices provide the necessary preconditions to make “news on the move” a reality”. (Franklin, 2014)

This mob justice report has implications on me personally and as a journalist. Personally, I realise that it is quite easy to be misled with inaccurate news reporting. With many news circulating online, it will be more difficult to decipher which facts are true. As I mentioned in the previous paragraph, news can also be derived from the online public worldwide but they may not be trained as a journalist. Thus, as a journalist I need to be responsible in being careful with the sources I put in my report. I have to ensure that the news I report is true and the information is accurate, especially news in a foreign country that I am unfamiliar.

With regards to being a foreign correspondent, it will be good if I spend more time in the country that I am reporting the news from so that I can have more time to carry out interviews and to be in contact with people involved in the news. I will need to ensure that I give a background story about the news and ensure that the audience that I am reporting to back in my home country will understand it. I have to ensure that my preconceived notions about a nation will not affect my judgment toward the nation that I am reporting as it can tweak my report’s objectivity. In this mob justice, it is easy to report news about Africa in a negative light. The news about third-world countries are rarely reported unless the news is negative or they are involved with a first-world country. An example would be in 1982 when Argentina and Britain had a disputation over the “ownership of the Falkland Islands”. It received global coverage in the media due to Britain’s presence globally. (Obijiofor)

In an analysis of news magazine coverage of the Rwanda crisis in the US news media, Wall (2007, 261) argues that ‘Western news organizations have tended to paint a one-dimensional portrait of intercountry conflict occurring on the African continent. (Wall, 2007) However, there are things about Africa that are positive and by only reporting the negative things about Africa will only “fail to characterize the nations’ vast complexity of languages and cultures and its sense of harmonious gradualism’”. (Beaudoin, Thorson, 2001) Hence, as a journalist, I need to be mindful that my news reports are powerful to paint a certain impression about a people group or nation to the readers.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the report of the mob justice was done poorly and this has led to inaccurate views about the case. Foreign reports are to be written carefully with sufficient research so that our readers can understand it. It takes vigilant research on the case and being mindful of the audience we are writing to report excellent and trustworthy news.

Utilitarianism is the right action is the one that brings about the most overall happiness. This basically means a person makes a decision based on what he or she will have the most positive outcome. One should be an agent for their own happiness. Many decisions people do daily are for selfish reasons anyway. Right actions are the ones that produce good according to Utilitarianism. There are three ideas that attack Utilitarianism which is justice, rights, and backward thinking. McCloskey uses the example in the case of justice were in a negro area an African American raped a white woman. Since the rape happened riots will begin. Riots will cause violence causing many people to get hurt. So, in order to stop the riots, the man could lie and say he say the African American rape the woman. This man would bear false witness to stop the riots. According to Utilitarianism since this would stop the riots lying is the best outcome and would produce the most overall happiness. According to McCloskey, there is some obvious fault to it. The McCloskey case according to page 117 in The Element of Moral Philosophy is where a utilitarian tried to incriminate the innocent man in order to stop the riots. By telling this lie this would only have bad outcomes or consequences. The lie could be found out and the situation would worsen for the person. Or if the lie does work then the real person would not be found. An example would be accusing the wrong person. Say back then with lynching if you lie then a person might die, and the right person would never be found. If the lie is found out, then you could die for lying. It could hurt an innocent man in the process. It begs the question for Utilitarianism on if someone is trying to pick the best outcome of how she or he will know what the best consequence or outcome is. In The Element of Moral Philosophy, it states at the end of the McCloskey case utility us not served by framing an innocent man. Utilitarianism’s response is act Utilitarianism. Act Utilitarianism is when an act is trying to promote the maximum general happiness. Act Utilitarianism’s advantages are that it is objective. It doesn’t focus on the individual and make it impartial. It depends on the circumstances and it is flexible with the type of situation that is present. Act Utilitarianism uses the hedonic calculus which is how determines how much pain and pleasure will happen because of the action presented. Hedonic calculus says things are good and bad only in terms of how they make us feel. Using act Utilitarianism will cause the person to find the fairest result. The disadvantage to this are by using pleasure it won’t solve the problem. Hedonic calculus doesn’t prioritize the different types of pleasure which could lead to confusion. The book uses the example a friend says back stuff behind your back. You do not know about it, so it doesn’t make you unhappy. So, nothing is wrong with that according to hedonic calculus. Humans also want other things other than happiness and pleasure. Like love and creativity is example the book uses. The calculus could justify immoral acts such as the example McCloskey gives. Using act Utilitarianism would cause the person to testify against an innocent man. It only considers the result from the single act. Rule utilitarianism is a form of utilitarianism that argues that you should focus on general rules that everyone should follow to bring out the greatest good. Rule utilitarianism doesn’t focus on the individual act. In this circumstance lying would promote happiness. The advantages of rule utilitarianism are that seeks to maximize the happiness of society as a whole and doesn’t want people pursuing personal pleasure. Rule Utilitarianism also allows for impartially. For example, say a stranger needed help and a friend needed help. People are able to be more impartial to someone he or she knows. Opposed to Act Utilitarianism with says there should be no impartiality. A friend and a stranger are on the same level to you personally. Another advantage for rule utilitarianism is that is more likely to have justice and rights then opposed to act utilitarianism. The disadvantage of rule utilitarianism is many people say it is the same as act utilitarianism. Both these utilitarianisms say to maximize happiness in somewhat similar ways. Rule utilitarianism allows states you should follow in accordance with the rule that provides the best outcome. Sometimes that rule isn’t the best outcome.

Kant believes and states that only actions performed by duty have moral value. By inclination alone, Kant says that has no moral value. Goodwill is the only thing that is good in and of itself according to Kant. Duties are what is morally the right thing to do and taking yourself out of the equation as having a moral duty or obligation to do such an act. The example Kant gives is when the buyer sets the same price for everyone. That way everyone has equal opportunity and it is a duty to the people. Another example of duty is the law. Law has a certain standard everyone has to follow. This is why duty has moral value. When acting from duty also has moral value because it is objective. These duties are normally morally right. Inclination is more acting out of pleasure which makes it has no moral worth. I agree that everything should be equal, and everyone should have an equal opportunity. Sometimes acting out of inclination will get you where you want in life. Acting out of duty just makes it more like pity and not worth it. People won’t help you or do anything in life because he or she wants to. They will do it because it is their duty. That is more selfishness if anything. Say your friend ask you a favor and you don’t want to help them. But it is your duty to help. That more pity and just not morally right.

Anscombe’s view states that killing innocents as a means to ends is murder which is wrong. Anscombe’s and Kant’s view is a form of non-consequentialism. Non-consequentialism states that some acts or things may not be done no matter the consequences of the act of thing. Consequentialists say anything can be broken under the right circumstances. According to Kant right acts are ones that follow rules that are universal. By universal Kant means that it is not self-defeating, reversible, and consistently applied. Kant’s example is cutting in line and you can’t make expectations. Whatever you do to someone else then it is okay from them to do it back to you. With the atomic bomb Anscombe thought Truman was a murderer and not justified. Anscombe said killing innocents as a means to an end is always murder. Anscombe faced many criticisms stating that this bomb saved more lives and that her analogy was void. Anscombe said that there is an ethical problem with the atomic bomb and people didn’t face the consequences of these actions. My view on this even though some things are wrong, but circumstances do matter. With the atomic bomb if America didn’t do it first then most likely more lives would have been lost. What Anscombe fails to mention is the innocent lives Pearl Harbor cost. Those were many innocent lives lost, so isn’t fighting back warranted. Anscombe says some acts can’t be done no matter the consequences. Say Britain, where Anscombe is from, didn’t fight back. Anscombe would have died is that okay then? Because her life is an innocent life too, so the consequences were worth it. Circumstances always matter.

Kantianism ranks close with morality and it related to morality thorough categorical imperative. Categorical imperative is a moral obligation no matter the circumstances and follows universal law. Which means it is the duty to help a person no matter what. With morality, we are supposed to help people. Universal law is laws to be followed at all times. Morality has an obligation to help people and should be followed. Kantianism also opposes lying which follows with morality. There are flaws that don’t match up with morality. Sometimes lying is the best option. According to the Rachels we can’t always know our consequences to our actions. Sometimes we have no moral obligation to help. Utilitarianism is to maximize happiness. Morality is deciding between what is morally wrong and right. I would rank Utilitarianism similar to morality in both are trying to bring happiness. Morality doing the right action produces happiness in most everyday life. Utilitarianism is trying to bring more happiness than pain in this world. Utilitarianism does differ from morality is sometimes what produces happiness isn’t the right action morally. Determining what is morally right is sometimes hard to decide in Utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism for punishment is that we should punish the offenders to stop future crimes or problems arising. Retributivist would say to punish the offenders because the offender deserves it. Utilitarianism says we should base our actions on maximizing overall happiness. Since punishment doesn’t promote happiness it shouldn’t be used really. But Utilitarianism knows that can’t happen so the punishment should be limited. We shouldn’t cause maximum punishment to others. For example, if a prisoner is sick or ill then the prisoner should be released because he or she cannot harm to society. Punishment should just be used to stop crimes from happening. If people know how bad the punishment is he or she is less likely to do it. And say one does commit a crime he or she is less likely to do it again cause he or she knows the outcome. Utilitarianism also believes in rehabilitation as punishment. It gives the ability for one to succeed without being in prison. For example, a mentally ill person committing a crime. Prison won’t help the mentally ill, but rehab might be able to help. Rehab also gives skills to help prisoners succeed outside. The retributivist view of capital punishment is more on the balance of society. Humans have free will and can make their own decisions. A person who makes the conscious decision to kill someone should have the death penalty. One life for another. My view is that the punishment should fit the crime. We shouldn’t cause maximum punishment in one’s life. In my position having someone serve life it more beneficial than having them put to death. The system doesn’t always work how it is supposed to. My two strong reasons for why the death penalty shouldn’t be allowed is because there are alternate solutions besides death and it does not provide justice. The death penalty isn’t always the answer. Taking someone’s life shouldn’t be in the hands of another. When someone does murder someone, it can depend on the situation. For example, say someone was jaywalking down the street and I didn’t see them and ran them over. If I accidentally killed the person does that mean I should be put to death? I am more on the Utilitarianism side in this situation in that maximum punishment isn’t the answer. For example, what do we do with people with mental illnesses that kill someone? Is it right to take their life when he or she doesn’t know what they are doing? There is also rehabs and parole as solutions. People can change and see that prison isn’t a place where he or she wants to be. My other reason is it doesn’t always provide justice. For example, what if the wrong man is convicted and put to death. The justice system is flawed and doesn’t always catch the right person. Condemning an innocent man doesn’t provide justice and is why capital punishment shouldn’t exist. On challenging and opposing view of why the death penalty exists is because of the saying eye for an eye. People want what was done to them to happen to another. For example, say a little girl was murder. She had a family and her whole life ahead of her and doesn’t get to have that life anymore. It is only fair that since she didn’t get to live her life the murderer doesn’t get to either. This relates more to the retributivist theory in that it brings a balance to society. The eye for an eye doesn’t always hold in society. For example, say someone robs you. You wouldn’t go and rob them back. Sometimes sending someone to the death penalty doesn’t always hold to common sense. Sometimes having life in prison is more of a just punishment in society. He or she who committed murder is going to be able to reflect on their mistakes for the rest of their lives. Putting someone on death row also has some irony to it. The person that condemns someone for murdering someone is invertible murdering someone else as well. How does that make you better than the criminal if you sentence the criminal to death as well? The death penalty just promotes more violence. The system is just fighting evil with evil. The consequences of the death penalty also can hurt others in the process. The family of the person on death row also suffers even though the family didn’t do anything. Compassion and rehabilitation are more justice and helps solve more problems in society then the death penalty in the long run.

I wouldn’t abort according to my views. My views with down syndrome is that a life is a life. You chose to have sex and by doing so the outcomes falls on you. I have always thought people have to own up to his or her choices. He or she can’t just decide which baby he or she wants. You don’t get to choose your pick of the litter. It would be like comparing a baby to a dog. It isn’t the baby’s fault it was born that way or your fault. If the parents chose to have kids, then the parents choose to have the baby they are going to have. Having a baby with down syndrome doesn’t affect the world in a negative way. It causes no suffering to anyone else. It isn’t a disease that can spread from one child to another. The child can still live a happy life and so can you. The child isn’t in pain constantly or dying like other conditions. Giving birth to a baby with down syndrome doesn’t cause risks to the mother. What should I do according to morals is to keep the baby. Morality is determining what is right and wrong. Killing is considered morally wrong. In this circumstance aborting the baby would be wrong. Society would consider it to be okay to abort this baby. The morally objectionable side or the counter argument is that it is the women’s choice if she wants this baby. If the woman does not want to have a baby with down syndrome it is her right to abort the baby. There is a certain stigma to down syndrome babies that most people don’t want to face. These children cause more of a burden to the family in certain ways. For example, it is more financial straining to have a baby with down syndrome because the parents would need to support that child for most of its life.

The virtue theory is how one should act that leads to what kind of a person he or she should be. A virtuous person expresses certain virtues not just once but many times. If the person uses those virtues continually this will make his or her character. For example, in the book it says a person tells the truth in habitual action. The person doesn’t just tell the truth once. The person’s honesty is part of his or her character. The person’s character is what creates their morals and ethics. It is what causes them to think critically on situations. A virtue is showing high moral standards. When a person thinks virtuously he or she doesn’t think about the consequences. A person just thinks on the right action to do. Some of the examples in the book that it provides on virtues are courage, generosity, honesty, and patience. In the situation of the down syndrome baby, the virtue theory would be applied in that the person would keep the baby. Virtuous people lead better lives in the long run. It can also depend on the character of the person. There are bad virtues. Aborting this baby could be a part of bad virtues.

Utilitarianism has conflicting views on abortion. Utilitarianism states to maximize happiness. Utilitarianism is based on individual events or on an individual person. In this case with down syndrome, it is completely up to the mother to decide on the baby. If the mother thinks it will maximize happiness, then she would abort. If the mother thinks keeping the baby maximizes happiness she will keep it. It depends on the circumstances surrounding the mother in her environment. For example, money would be a factor in this decision. The views of the mother would also be a factor. For example, if the mother is catholic or not would be a factor. In this case, Utilitarianism focused on long term consequences. It is hard to see the long-term consequences in this case. Utilitarianism also could be against abortion due to the feeling of pleasure and pain. The ability to give life and have a child is a good thing which provides pleasure. On the other hand, a baby could cause pain as well. In this case, the financial burden could cause pain, but the child could cause the parent’s pleasure resulting in happiness. Utilitarianism sees the pain as only temporary. On page 121 in The Elements of Moral Philosophy, it says Utilitarianism justifies common sense. All the values that Utilitarianism has hold common sense according to Utilitarianism. Common sense is this case could be having the child over choosing an abortion due to values. Utilitarianism states all that matters are determining if the act is right or wrong and its consequences. Only happiness or unhappiness of the act is all that matters. Utilitarianism doesn’t believe in killing. In this case, would it be categorized as killing? This case is very difficult to see if it right or wrong. There are arguments for both sides.

Restorative practice brings those affected by conflict or crime into communication. This enables everyone’s involved in a situation to play a part in repairing the harm and finding a positive way forward. Nonviolent communicationis an important element towards evaluation when observing. When mixing evaluation with observation we decrease the likelihood that the others will listen to the intended message. Non-violent communication (NVC) guides us to reframe how we express one another and to listen to others. Our words become more conscious responses in relation to awareness of what we are perceiving, feeling, and wanting. Restorative justice promotes such values as healing for the offender and the victim, community input, respectful dialogue between the parties involved, forgiveness, accountability and fraternity. It is presented as an alternative to the adversarial system of justice and an antidote to punitive policies (Roach, 2000).The aim of restorative justice is to give victims a bigger role; meet their need for information about the reasons for and circumstances of the offence; allow them to be heard and to obtain tangible or symbolic compensation; and regain the independence and power that the crime took away from them (Law Commission of Canada, 1999,2003; Roach, 2000). In task 3 I will be demonstrating my use of understanding through restorative practices. Restorative justice does not eliminate denunciation and reaffirmation of social norms, but it does tend to make justice more compassionate and more sensitive to the suffering of the individuals and communities affected by crime (Roach, 2000; Cario, 2003).

In this talk, I will investigate some of the strengths and drawbacks of working restoratively and why I think it is an important and invaluable tool that can have lifelong effects on inter and intrapersonal development.So, how do we approach the question of whether a move towards restorative justice would make things significantly better or worse than they currently are? First, it is necessary to recognize that, for all its troubling features, in its current form the institution of judicial punishment does perform certain essential functions tolerably well. It provides most of us, regardless of our means, with some degree of protection from predatory and harmful behaviour, without making us pay the price of oppressive conformity. Moreover, it meets some of our criteria of fairness to some extent and gives some degree of recognition and protection to the rights of those accused of a crime. It even provides some offenders with some protection from vengeful victims and angry members of the public. Further, under certain conditions, it can help disseminate efficiently progressive ideas of what is right and what is wrong. This is not to deny the charges of those who accuse judicial punishment of being cruel, unjust and ineffective and of often creating or at least exacerbating the very problems it purports to solve (Bianchi 1994). Nor is it to deny that there may be something much better than judicial punishment. Rather, it is simply to acknowledge that –for all its faults –the institution of judicial punishment does have certain merits and those who would replace it with something else –either as a general policy or in any particular case –need to be sure that they do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We need to ask of proponents of restorative justice how careful and balanced is their critique of judicial punishment, and how they will ensure that the essential tasks which judicial punishment does perform tolerably well continue to be performed at least as well. In addition to tangible compensation, restorative justice advocates rebuilding the relationship between the victim and the offender. In sharp contrast to the traditional model of justice, restorative justice aims to resolve conflict and restore dialogue between the parties where possible. Is such dialogue desired or desirable in all cases? There are many fine distinctions to be made.Several studies show that many victims would be willing to meet with the offender if given the opportunity. Getting an explanation of the crime and insight into the person who committed it, being compensated, describing how they were hurt, and making sure that their testimony helps the offender realize what was done and thus helps prevent more offences: these are among the reasons often given to justify the desire to take part in such a meeting (Reeves, 1989; Law Commission of Canada, 2003; Daly, 2003).Restorativeness requires a degree of empathic concern and perspective-taking; and as measured by psychologists’ scales, these qualities are more frequently evinced for adults than adolescents. For example, within the interviews of youthful offenders, the SAJJ project had found out that over half had not thought at all about what they would say to the victim. Most did not think in terms of what they might offer victims, but rather what they would be made to do by others. It is possible that many adolescents may not yet have the capacity to think empathetically, to take the role of the other (Frankenberger, 2000); they may be expected to be as if they had the moral reasoning of adults when they do not (Van Voorhis, 1995). And, at the same time, as we shall see in limits (4) and (5), victims may have high expectations for an offender’s behaviour in the conference process, which cannot be realized, or victims’ distress may be so great that the conference process can do little to aid in their recovery.Why is fairness easier to achieve than restorativeness? Fairness is large, although not exclusively, a measure of the behaviour of the professional(s) (the facilitator and, depending on the jurisdiction, a police officer). In comparison to the professionals, they are polite, listen attentively, and they also establish ground rules of respect for others and respect in the conference process. Although justice is established within the relationship between the professionals and participants, the restorative practice than rises within the relationships between a victim, the offender, and their supporters. By being polite, it is easier to do than saying you are sorry; listening to an individual telling their story of victimization is easier to do when you are not the offender. Certainly, understanding or taking the perspective of the other can be easier when you are not the actual victim or the offender in the justice encounter. However, I disagree with restorative justice because Restorative justice has not yet changed the basic course of the criminal justice system. It has proven to be a more effective alternative to prison or other forms of punishment but has produced mitigated results in terms of victim participation and reparation for injury (Bonta, 1998, in Griffiths, 1999). Despite the high level of satisfaction among victims indicated by the research, particularly studies that focused on mediation, we have to be cautious still and refrain from overstating the benefits of restorative justice. Victims’ problems are not resolved once andfor all by the solutions made available to them. The objectives of reparation and healing put forward in these

Emotive and body language, for example, facial expressions can be a strong indicator of the power of the meeting. Through a common understanding of the basic teaching levels of Tomkins‘Affect Theory’ (2008), he states that this is based around what is caused and can be triggered by the environment and can also be biological. Through my perception, there were neutral and positive effects which were explored withinthe meetings carried out. For example, when harmed or harmer was able to express or tell their feelings to each other, the damaging connotation was affected i.e. the shame was shifted. This resulting in how restorative process helped reveal a more thorough understanding of the underlying factors which causes a behaviour that encourages real solutions without the need of adding more shame or guilt (Kelly, 2014). To highlight on the outward and visible responses which were touched through the earlier, such as body language, as fora couple of situations, a smile or even a hug was an acknowledgment of transformation occurring. Consistently incorporating high-quality cooperative learning methods which enable people to have a voice (Ladson-Billings, 1994).In addition, until this point, there has been good practice proceeded by those directly affected. It was clear that the groups and facilitators have met up before the role play to discuss their meetings and how to carry out them. Clear structures and ground rules were explained which is important to set the tone for success (Lawrence, 2000). Each of the facilitators managed to minimize the certain risks prior to the gathering which highlighted the profession. Although, this was all up to standard, the process of facilitation was complex to an extent. There were times of risk factors which were not clearly broached through the start of the meeting as well as the progression. This showed that it was either forgotten or hastily not used within the meeting.

In summary, the limitations exceed the positives of restorative justice. Through recognising the limits of this process, it sets up to fail with unrealistic and too high expectations. Restorative justice has great potential for the parties involved and for the community. However, it is not the magic solution to all evils. It remains an option for some crimes in some circumstances and under some conditions. It must not be considered a cheap form of justice or pretend justice. Nor must it trivialize the valid demands of victims.The restorative justice model will gain legitimacy if victims’ needs are placed in the forefront and it succeeds in mobilizing all of the players in the justice system, victim support groups in particular (Bazemore, 1999; Roach, 2000; Miers, 2001). Support groups must be actively involved in the design, implementation and evaluation of restorative justice programs. Finally, discussion of the restorative justice approach must not be confined to a small circle of experts. The community will never embrace and participate in restorative justice unless it understands its purpose and its aims.

Introduction

Restorative justice is an approach to justice that has its focus on a wide range of human emotions such as healing, mediation, compassion, forgiveness and reconciliation. According to Jim Consedine, (1997; 184) it is an approach that focuses on three key components; the offenders, the victim and the community on the needs of the victim. The purpose is to repair the damage caused by the offender by providing a process of dialogue between the offenders, the victims, their families and community members. The restorative justice approach aims to provide opportunities for victims and community members to confront offenders in a constructive manner and provide the offender opportunities to take responsibility for their actions and be held accountable for harm caused. According to Batley, M. (2005) the approach is guided by the following three principles; criminal offences affect victims, offenders and communities at large therefore the criminal justice process should promote healing and reconciliation to rectify and restore broken relationships. Secondly, the process should not involve only the government but also the victim, the offenders, both their families and communities all should be actively involved in the criminal justice process. Thirdly, the government is responsible for preserving order while the community is responsible for establishing peace. Furthermore, according to the Restorative Justice Network (2003) restorative justice is considered restorative justice if it is guided by a competent and neutral facilitator to ensure safety for all participants. If it strives to be inclusive and collaborative, where all stakeholders who are affected are actively and voluntarily involved in the process and where confidentiality is well maintained. It is restorative when different cultures are recognised and respected and the focus is on the needs of all affected members. The key elements to restorative justice are; encounter reparation, reintegration, and participation. Bately, M. (2005)

The ecological systems model is a theory of development by American psychologist Urie Bronfenbrenner (917 – 2005) views an individual as the centre of a system that is affected by everything in their surrounding environment. The following systems surround the nucleus; Micro systems which are closest to the individual and has direct and immediate contact for example their families, friends, work/school and their communities. The Meso system refers to the interconnections between the different microsystems. The Macro system which is the largest refers to the cultural patterns, values, beliefs and societal structures that are held by the individual,Bernes R. N (2007). It is very important to involve families and the communities as they form part of the systems which affect the individual because in order for restorative justice to be served all systems involved must be included in the process.

Restorative justice is more suitable than the retributive justice which views punishment as an acceptable response to criminal offence. Retributive justice addresses criminal offence at micro level by involving only the offender and the justice system. At meso level, only decisions made during the interactions between the offender and the courts where sentencing and punishment takes place are considered. Whereas in restorative justice, the victim and their families have an opportunity to have an input in the decision-making. At macro level, only the values of the courts and those of the offender are considered, while the restorative justice processes consider the values of the families and communities.

This assignment will further discuss family group conferencing and describe the process of each stage including the involvement of all relevant role players. The facilitation of family group conferencing will also be discussed and its suitability to the South African context.

Family group conferencing

Restorative justice conferencing involves all direct stakeholders in determining how best to repair the harm of offending behavior (McCold and Wachtel, 2002). Family group conferencing is a process that involves the family in the decision-making process and is usually used in relation to child offenders. The process is victim orientated because it provides the victim an opportunity to be directly involved in the decision-making process in order to increase their awareness of the impact of their actions. The process of family group conferencing addresses the impact, encourages the offender to take responsibility through a dialogue with all parties involved.

The stages of family group conferencing

Referral: is made by different professionals at micro level, the role players are the groups and individuals with immediate contact to the individual for example social workers, educators, health visitors, counsellors and families. The role of the social worker is to make certain that clients are referred to correct resources, to ensure effective communication with the facilitator of the conference. The role of the family is to make a decision about the referral and ensure attendance. The interconnection between schools and health visitors play a role in meso level for example when offence takes place at school (rape in schools), the school together with health clinics and families can be actively involved to ensure a successful facilitation process. At macro level, the cultural values and beliefs held by the family play a role in the type of referral therefore families should be offered the opportunity to request a facilitator who suitably reflects their ethnicity, language, religion or gender.

Preparation: at micro level, the facilitator contacts victim and the offender to assess the readiness of offenders and victims to encounter each other. The role of the facilitator is to seek voluntary participation and prepare the victims immediate and extended families, friends, neighbours and any persons providing counselling or assistance to the victim and offender. Then explain the process, send out invitations, negotiate times and dates and should be available to answer any question the family may have. At meso level each participant in the micro system is provided an opportunity to voice their concerns, expectations and needs through prep sessions and the social workers role here is to explore each participant’s motivation. During the prep sessions, a script to be followed is created which will detail who speaks first and this script should be structured in a manner that will give back power to the victim. At macro level, the facilitator liaises with relevant agencies to ensure families have appropriate information. The role of the family is to provide correct and relevant information and it is the facilitator’s duty to question the information.

Conference: during the actual conference the facilitator’s role involves giving information about the reasons for a conference, relevant resources and different support structures. At micro level, families, friends are all responsible to attend the conference and are given the opportunity to discuss in private after the process. They are responsible to open up and speak about events. The offender is responsible sharing the events of the offence as respectfully and honestly. Each member involved is then awarded the opportunity to share how the offence impacted on them. During the introduction phase it is the facilitator’s role to establish and maintain the conference process, to guide and support all participants. In this phase the facilitator welcomes each member as they arrive, discusses behavioural expectations such as mutual respect and allow each participant to introduce themselves. During the information sharing and discussion phase the facilitators role is to act as the mediator, the family’s role is to share their stories in relation of their involvement and to know what resources and support structures are available to them.

Family group conferencing in South African context

In South Africa the Inter Ministerial Committee initiated family group conferencing pilot programmes in Pretoria and Wynberg after being inspired by the New Zealand’s youth justice system. Authors Sloth- Nielsen, and Branken and Bately concluded that family group conferencing should be for intensive intervention only and not for petty cases. Reviews done by authors Branken and Bately (1998) discovered that programmes in Pretoria struggled with securing sufficient referrals and this was due to not having formal legislative framework for such programmes. Furthermore discovered was the issue of language barrier between the facilitators and participants in the conference however when it came to strengthening relationships and promoting healing the conference has been effective. In terms of cost benefits analysis, the conferencing would be cost-effective if minor offences were dealt with through life skills diversion programmes instead of using labour-intensive programmes such as family conferencing. In South Africa it was also discovered that the role players in the justice system lacked commitment and prosecutors were not making sufficient referrals this then revealed that prosecutors in South Africa are punishment orientated and lacked confidence in family group conference programme.

Conclusion

One of the principles of Restorative Justice is the involvement of all affected stakeholders such as victims, families, communities and the offenders in the process of justice where the offender is held accountable and takes responsibility for their actions. Family group conferences are programmes which are effective when all stakeholders take part and when the government prosecutors show commitment. Restorative justice can make a difference in dealing with children in conflict with the law because it utilises a program that is not punishment orientated but is rather victim and offender orientated. The purpose of family group conferences is to have all affected members to participate in the decision making process, to provide opportunities for offenders to become aware of the impact of their actions. The involvement of all systems is significant because as the ecological systems theory states that an individual is a centre piece of systems which all have an influence on each other. The role players each have their roles to play in the different levels of development, for example on micro level social workers play the facilitator role and at meso level they act as the mediator facilitating the interconnections between the systems. The restorative justice can make a difference in dealing with child offenders if only the government and its prosecutors can take programmes such as family group conferences seriously and commit to the process.

Bibliography

1. Batley, M. 2005. Restorative Justice in the South African context. In Beyond retribution: prospects for restorative justice in South Africa. Pretoria: Institute for Security Studies and Restorative Justice Centre. Available: http://journals.co.za/docserver/fulltext/ismono/2005/111/ismono_n111b.pdf?expires=1484302174&id=id&accname=58211&checksum=E7A3A6BC13E388645A9116845702670B [9 January 2019].
2. Branken, N. & Batley, M (1998). Family Group Conferences: Putting the wrong right. A Practice Research Study and Implementation Manual. The Inter-Ministerial Committee on Young People at Risk Pilot Project.
3. Dennis Sullivan & Larry Tiff (2006) Handbook of Restorative Justice
4. Sloth-Nielson, J (1996) Theory and Practice of Family Group Conferencing in South Africa: an Overview of General Principles and Report on the Pioneering Wynberg Pilot Project. Unpublished Social Justice Resource project, Institute of the Criminology University of Cape Town.

It is important to understand that restorative justice may not be beneficial from a victim’s perspective as it is a complexed issue. Not every individual that has been victimised is the same, there are various types of victims and offenders. They differ from race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, levels of education, sexual orientation, maturity along with others. These different factors between individual victim(s) and individual offender(s) are rendered problematic concerning the interaction between the individuals, which is what adds to the complexity of the issue. It is critical to understand that restorative justice programs are not all correct or convenient in particular situations for some victims and offenders. This is why victims and the offender’s needs must to be carefully assessed and to undergo analysis by professions. Enabling individuals to familiarise themselves with the process and objectives.

An additional argument as to how there is no transparent reason for how effective the restorative justice processes is for victim mending is the complications in defining what a prosperous result is for a victim. According to (Better Outcomes through Victim-Offender Conferencing, 2017) within a recent report, “, it was found that offenders and victims entered the restorative justice process with a variety of expectations and needs, which suggested that there can be no one measure of perceived ‘success’, as far as participants are concerned.” This analysis covered various aspects involving the depths of how a victim’s questions were answered, how their needs were meet, whether the offender was able to take responsibility, if there was a sense of closure and more. But overall both the victim and their offenders’ views on this were mostly positive. For instance, it is said that over half of the victims that do face to face conferencing with their offender was able to get a sense of closure on the other hand others had said it had given them closure to a certain extent which all depends on the victim and the circumstance of the crime. However, this evaluation highlighted that 85% of victims who took part in the restorative justice process said they were “satisfied” with the experience. There are victims that initially could be satisfied with the conference between them and their offender but later on could reflect and change their opinions and their views on how they felt. It is possible for victims to have high expectations of the process in the beginning and if these needs are not met, they can never possibly be satisfied with the outcome. This proves that there is no set outcome when understanding how prosperous the restorative justice process can be for a victim of crime.

The restorative justice process may not be effective to victims due to the level of violence done to them. Victims who are physically injured report that the crime had a longer impact on their lives compared to different types victims (Shapland, Willmore & Duff, 1985). It is important to understand that it is about the crime and how heinous the act is rather than the victim as different crimes and offences effects victims differently. Violence in every form is a matter of concern. There are types of violence that is done that disrupts the community’s ability to work well and live among one another as a society. Violence essentially takes away our humanity and value as human beings which is a course of great concern.

In some cases, there are particular offences that restrict the restorative justice process from moving forward, the crime which has affected the victim could be so extreme that the victim may not want to sit and seek rectification with the offender. Examples of these types of crimes are sex offences, domestic violence, and more. Another main example is hate crime, this is when a crime where the offender’s prejudice against any identifiable group of individuals is a factor when determining who is victimised. “In the United Kingdom, the 2000 British Crime Survey estimated that there were 280.000 racially motivated incidents in England and Wales.” (Gönczöl, 2010). It has been argued that restorative justice isn’t the most effective alternative for serious offences such as hate crimes, this is because some programs such as victim-offender mediation would expose victims to further trauma and stress. The serenity of offenders is also questioned because it would be difficult to come to terms with an offender who has had negative attitudes towards other individuals consistently would agree to an honest meeting. Racist offenders may be difficult to rehabilitate, overall it causes victims to be exposed to more possible offences if in contact with the offenders.

I want to focus my project on global distributive justice and the issues of the current pandemic, concentrating specifically on vaccine distribution and health services. I aim to demonstrate that a global effort is vital. Since the world is so interconnected because of globalisation, and the pandemic is global and affects all, it is important to find a vaccine on a global scale to ensure that everyone can access it, regardless of their resources. COVID-19 highlights how the world is so connected, but access to recourses and wealth is unfair. Is it justifiable that some have so much while others have so little?

I want to illustrate that a global effort is needed and that countries need to support each other and not just operate at a state level. For example, America, who are buying vaccines for themselves and are going against a global distributive justice approach, illustrates that a non-global approach will not result in justice for all.

Having looked at some articles aimed at achieving a fair distribution of the Covid-19 vaccine, it is clear that a global effort is required. In “Multi-value ethical framework for fair global allocation of covid-19 vaccine,” [ek5] Yangzi Liu demonstrates that obstacles for low-income countries such as the inability to afford vaccines, as well as inadequate resources to vaccinate, are amplified during a pandemic. This illustrates that my project will be very important in today’s climate since the need for global distributive justice is at the highest’s it has ever been. The article illustrates that, given the inevitable demand for the COVID-19 vaccine, the high burden of disease already placed on many countries, there is a need for an equitable global framework for vaccine distribution. The article contributes to my project by explaining how a global theory of distributive justice is urgently required in these times.

The first piece that I will be focusing on is Chris Armstrong’s ‘Global Distributive Justice: An Introduction’ (2012[ek1] ). Armstrong offers a summary of what global distributive justice is and why it should be deemed essential. He is one of the first to concentrate solely on issues of distributive justice at a global level.

Armstrong shows that there are several ways to describe what global distributive justice is. Generally, it is the idea that the duties of justice are particularly firm and that they are enforceable. For many theorists, stating that someone has an entitlement or right as a matter of justice, will mean that we should also be prepared to conclude that someone is acting unjustly if that certain entitlement is not reached. (Armstrong 2012, 11-12[ek2] )

Therefore, theories of global distributive justice would usually give an account of what our entitlements or rights are. For instance, the need for food or education, we have an entitlement of justice for this and we ought to be provided these entitlements. If we are not provided with these entitlements, theorists claim, that an injustice has occurred (Armstrong 2012, 15-17). For my research, I would use the example of access to health services and a COVID-19 vaccine as an entitlement, and argue that if these are not provided, then an injustice has occurred.

Armstrong illustrates that global distributive justice can vary in the content of the entitlements and duties that it suggests that one should have. For instance, some theorists suggest only basic entitlements and would therefore only have a basic set of duties. Others, on the other hand, would have a fuller range of entitlements and would thus, require more duties. (p14[ek3] -17)

He focuses on the topic of why global distributive justice is required and points to the question of whether it is because the world is so “interconnected” (Armstrong, 2012). He offers two potential responses, rational and non-relational[ek4], to this. These responses discuss the reasons why global distributive justice is crucial and this will help me in my research as I will be able to explain why it is relevant, and then I can link this concerning the current issues of COVID-19.

Armstrong also explores the two approaches of global distributive justice, a minimalistic approach, and an egalitarian approach. Minimalistic accounts imply that we should achieve for everyone in the world to have access to the conditions of a decent life. This view is not very demanding and aims for a relatively low goal.

On the other hand, an egalitarian approach argues that more needs to be done. Although it agrees with the minimalistic approach that we ought to minimise deprivation and fulfil the basic needs of everybody, it also argues that this is not enough, and we need to do more. I will be arguing for an egalitarian approach in my project and use the likes of Caney to support my conclusion.

My second piece that I have focused on is Simon Caney, he defends and articulates a cosmopolitan approach to world affairs and justifies an egalitarian account in his book, “Justice Beyond Borders: A Global Political Theory” (Caney 2005). He claims that distributive justice should be viewed from a global perspective and not just within states. This will assist my project as it will explain how it is crucial to look at the issues surrounding COVID-19 from a global perspective. He also discusses some possible criticisms of a global view and illustrates how they are unpersuasive. This will be useful because it provides some potential criticisms of which may be used against my claim that issues surrounding COVID-19 should be looked at from a global perspective. His book also addresses the issue of whether there are universal moral values exist and which principles should be used. This relates to my project in that it will offer ideas about how political theory can be used to enable global distributive justice concerning issues of COVID-19.

In order to locate literature on the subject of the success of restorative justice, books, journal articles, as well as governmental and organisational websites were reviewed. The research identified three main aspects of restorative justice to consider which are: the application of restorative justice, the impact of restorative justice and finally the effectiveness of restorative justice. These sub-topics are addressed and analysed in terms of relevance to the research question.

The Criminal Justice system has the overwhelming task of dealing with the constant and ever growing challenges of lowering the crime rates while enduring to uphold and maintain the public’s confidence in the criminal system (Brooks, 2017,). Restorative Justice could just be the answer the system is looking for as Brooks (2017) states that Restorative justice can lower offender rates by up to 25 percent. However, although this process is popular with the political process in Britain, it comes with its disadvantages as it is primarily only directed at the less serious crimes and youth offenders. On other hand, Marshall (1999) suggests that by using Restorative Justice with the more serious crimes there can be a lot of advantages in terms of the victim benefits, this process should only be used hand in hand with the criminal justice system and not as a substitute.

For many of the victims of crime seeing the offender held answerable for their offences by the use of the judicial system providing the victims with a level of closure thus allowing them to be able to move on from the crimes they have been a victim of is often enough. However, this is not the case with all victims of crime and the judicial process is not enough by itself, (Wright 2012). Restorative Justice is a process that provides the victims a voice that the Criminal Justice system often denies them, (Robb,2012). This is often in the form of mediation between the victim and the offender and has been set up to address some of the failings and limitations of the criminal justice system (Zehr, 1990). The process of Restorative Justice is conducted by means of offering victims the opportunity to have their say in the outcome of the offence/s and to have an input into the punishment of the offender, providing ways to improve and transform the way the victim’s needs are met, this process also allows the offender to face up to the consequences of their actions and the impact these have had on others (Ministry of Justice, 2012).

Zehr states that “Crime is a violation of people and relationships. It creates obligations to make things right. Justice involves the victim, the offender, and the community in a search for solutions which promote repair, reconciliation and reassurance “ (1990: 118). If this is indeed the case, then an integral part of the ‘search for solutions’ to repair the damage done by a crime being committed could be in the form of Restorative Justice, which essentially addresses the victim, the offender, and by extension the broader community in its objectives.

Victim satisfaction plays a critical and substantial part in police-victim encounters and this can play a primary and essential role in the willingness of victims to co-operate. With this in mind the victim’s willingness plays an extremely significant part of the process that allows Restorative Justice to continue to work successfully on behalf of the victim/s, (Aihio, 2017). It was suggested by Camp and Wemmers, (2013) that victimology studies have revealed that procedural justice such as Restorative Justice does continue to make a difference to the victims of crime in the terms of how the criminal justice system deals with the cases as they go through the system.

The Restorative Justice movement is a societal programme that is looking to work with and alongside the current punitive measures that are used by the Criminal Justice system, (Johnstone and Van Ness, 2007). Restorative Justice (RJ) is as defined by the Ministry of Justice is: “The process that brings those harmed by crime, and those responsible for the harm, into communication, enabling everyone affected by a particular incident to play part in repairing the harm and finding a positive way forward” (Ministry of Justice, 2014 p3). However, the term Restorative Justice has been used as a way to reference the fact Restorative Justice has a large range of approaches and not one single practice (Brooks, 2017). Although a jointly recognised and concise definition of the term has yet to be established T, F Marshall’s (1996) definition appears to encompass the main principles of Restorative Justice and is perhaps one of the most used, “Restorative justice is a process whereby all parties with a stake in a particular offence come together to resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future” (p. 37; cf Braithwaite, 1999, p.5). However, this quote suggests that the topic possibly becomes problematic to debate due to the large range and variety restorative Justice has to offer (Brooks, 2017). For the purpose of this dissertation Marshall’s (1996) definition for Restorative Justice that will be used.

Restorative Justice was a fairly fresh idea in the field of criminology in the 1980’s nevertheless it was also a recent, new concept that has not been seen and used in the United Kingdom (Daniels, 2013). Crawford and Newburn (2002) likewise states that Restorative Justice has been renowned as maybe one of the most extremely influential developments in crime control in today’s society. Restorative Justice is a process that was introduced to concentre mainly on the victim and the process of the Criminal Justice System as Christie (1977) states that the objective of Restorative Justice is for the offence to belong to the victim just as equally as it does to the offender Christie, (1977), cited that, “Not only has he or she suffered, lost materially or become hurt, physically or otherwise …but above all he has lost participation in his own case. It is the Crown that comes into the spotlight, not the victim. It is the Crown that describes the losses, not the victim. It is the Crown that gets the chance to talk to the offender, and neither the Crown nor the offender is particularly interested in carrying on that conversation. The prosecutor is fed up long since. The victim would not have been. He might have been scared to death, panic-stricken, or furious. But he would not have been involved. It would have been one of the most important days in his life. Something that belonged to him has been taken away from the victim. (1977: p7-8).

Christie (1977) states that the victim is the one that constantly misses out twice once as the victim of the original offence but then furthermore as a victim of the Criminal Justice System as there is an extremely improbable chance of being paid compensation for their loss. Furthermore, they play a very small role in whatever legal proceedings that follow nevertheless the use of Restorative Justice hands back this right and power back to the victims of crime.

Restorative Justice was originally introduced during the 1970s to manage low level crimes including burglary and other property crimes, however there was a confusion by the victims that Restorative Justice was about forgiveness, (Zehr, 2014). Zehr, (2014) also suggests that some victims do not have any understanding or belief in Restorative Justice as they are of the opinion that the fundamental destination of this process was to encourage or to persuade them to forgive their offenders.

Have you ever been treated equal? Have you ever met ethical considerations and fair process? A view of recent research over thirty years ago, demonstrates that justice is the first virtue of social institutions describing the nature of transaction costs and their consequences for institutional governance. This elevates decision-making procedure, provides equity and develops acceptance of rules and decisions that depart from individual or group self-interest. The basic problem that has to be solved via social cooperation is that everyone cannot have everything they want at the same time. Everyone cannot have the resources they desire for themselves to which they belong. They cannot live in a society or organization that always follows the policies they prefer and they cannot cannot have their preferred status or social position. Hence, people need to be willing to accept changes, outcomes, and policies that they do not view as desirable. Human life faces a steady increase in the potential for interpersonal and intergroup conflict. The rising of resolution affects people’s views about what is just or fair. Unlike an oil, justice creates concept of physical reality. As a consequence, it is an important topic of concern to diplomats to those who seek to prevent, contain, or end social conflicts.

Not all individuals can accept an unfortunate outcome as long as the process is fair and they are treated with interpersonal dignity. If justice were based exclusively on obtaining benefits, then one would expect a higher association. In a form of social considerations, people are social animals. We wish to be accepted and valued by important others while not being exploited or harmed by powerful decision-makers. Treatment tells us that we are respected and esteemed by the larger group. This sense of belonging is important to us even apart from the economic benefits. In line with ethical considerations, people also care about justice because they believe it is the morally appropriate way others should treated. Through this mechanism, injustice may spread ill will throughout a work group. In a system, reseach appraise distributive, procedual, and interactional justice that tend to be correlated. They can be meaningfully treated as three components of overall fairness and can work together with appropriateness. Distributive justice is concerned with the reality that not all workers are treated alike.

It was hoped that people would be willing to accept fair outcomes and execute equity. According to equity theory, we are interested in how much we get relative to how much we contribute. Allocating social-emotional aspect equally signals that everyone in the organization matters and is worthy of respect. Moreover, procedual justice establishes certain principles specifying and governing the roles of participants within the decision-making processes. A just process in which one is applied consistently to all, accurate and correctable. This shows that fair process effect can mitigate the ill effects of unfavorable outcomes. As it goes beyond, procedural justice seems to be essential in maintaining institutional legitimacy that could lead to intellectual and emotional recognition. In a sense, interactional justice plays a vital role in treating a person. The informational justice that provides adequate justifications and the interpersonal justice that somehow refers to the respect and dignity with which one treats another. This can be done through cognitive, affective and behavioral reactions. On the contrary, their feelings have an important ethical and moral component. This provides an approach to the constructive resolution of social conflicts.

People value having respect shown for their rights and for their status within society. They are aware that in the process of dealing with authorities, their dignity as an individual is recognized and acknowledged. More than any other issue, treatment with dignity and respect is something that authorities can give to everyone with whom they deal. A concept of fair and just relations between individual and society that is measured by explicit in terms of personal gain and social privileges. Each has the potential to designate some as ‘winners’ and as ‘losers”. This is to fulfil their societal roles and receive what was their due from society. After all, there will always be people who fail to get what is right. As a result, justice talks mainly about fairness with different levels over a period of time. A justice that everyone should prevail in the hands of our society in a fair manner with discipline and character. One should attain what he/she deserves in the process of equity that is never the same for all. However, it does hold out the possibility that power will be used in accordance with normative principles that respect the dignity of all involved. It is also the right thing to do.

Authority gives the right to power, but for power to be used right it must be used in conjunction with justice. One of the main causes for injustice is prejudice. Within the book To Kill a Mockingbird written by Harper Lee in 1960, justice is an important theme in which Scout addresses uncomfortable truths about inequality and injustice within her community. She discovers that while the courts can be a likely source of justice, there are countless other ways to attain justice away from the courtroom. This is especially important when she comes to the realisation and sees that the legal system does not always return the morally correct verdict. Even though the book was written in 1960, it occurs during the Great Depression in the 1930s. This results in financial and economic struggle being experienced by characters from all levels of society. Harper Lee also chose to set her novel in the 1930’s as a way of highlighting the inherent inequalities faced by African Americans in the United States during this time period. The book conveys how power is used with authority but in a way that justice is not being exercised. It also displays how power can be used without authority but because of prejudice and discrimination is accepted.

Prejudice is hate, hostility, or unjust behavior deriving from unfounded opinions. Prejudice is one of the key reasons for the lack of justice in To Kill a Mockingbird because many characters such as Tom Robinson and Boo Radley are all fallen victim to it. Tom Robinson is the predominant victim of injustice in this book, because he is black he is mistreated by the citizens of Maycomb as well as the court’s jury with racial prejudice. One night Atticus talks to Jack about the doomed future of the Tom Robinson case. ‘The jury can’t possibly be expected to take Tom Robinson ‘s word against the Ewells… You know what ‘s going to happen as well as I do, Jack, and I hope and pray I can get Jem and Scout through it without bitterness, and most of all, without catching Maycomb ‘s usual disease. Why reasonable people go stark raving mad when anything involving a Negro comes up’. Atticus discloses that there is prejudice in the jury. He mentions that ‘the Jury can’t possibly take Tom Robinson’s word,’ which indicates that the jury already has preconceived opinions irrespective of the evidence to be put forth.

The novel sets a careful distinction between justice and revenge. Scout and Jem are concentrated on revenge in early portions of the book. When their cousin makes a negative comment on Atticus, Scout begins a fight with him; when their elderly neighbour Mrs. Dubose insults Atticus for representing Tom Robinson, Jem rips up all her bushes. Atticus however teaches the children that these acts of revenge are not actually achieving justice. Instead, he insists that Jem would apologise to Mrs. Dubose by reading her daily to her. Atticus implies that Jem’s apology and penance compensate for the destruction of her flowers, which suggests that justice is achieved when the culprit does penance, not when the wronged party returns the negative action as revenge. Attempts by Bob Ewell to seek revenge on the characters he believes have embarrassed him fail, the widow of Tom Robinson is protected, the judge is unharmed, and Scout and Jem mostly escape unhurt. Ironically, Bob Ewell is the only character who really suffers from his desire for revenge, because Boo kills him while he is attacking the kids.

Although Bob Ewell’s death provides some semblance of resolution for the novel and ensures that he is punished for his actions, it also distracts the reader from the permanently unresolved tragedy of Tom Robinson’s wrongful conviction. Although Bob Ewell’s passing may make up for his crime of assaulting the children, it does not alleviate the wrongs done to Tom. To Kill a Mockingbird Reveals the complexity of justice. There is no such possibility of redemption to the outcome of Tom’s trial, which is a flagrant miscarriage of justice and is never remedied. It is a clear example of how the use of power without authority is accepted because of prejudice and other racial issues.

Both texts ‘To Kill A Mockingbird’ and ‘Jasper Jones’ communicate the importance of justice and the relationship it has on the two different children in the two different texts. Though these two texts are completely different being a book and a film, there are still many themes shared between the two. Both different texts describe with major detail the different changes in the perspectives of children that has occurred through the result of growing up and having to mature. Both texts also discuss the different implications for a child’s understanding and their interpretations of the justice system as well as justice itself. Through both the texts, the children aging, is how the relationship between both the protagonist and their fathers describe the stories. The fathers in the two different texts offer their children moral education and different examples of the ideals of justice. The two different texts describe the flaws that occur in the justice system in connection to the social and historical context of both settings. The texts both relate to the bad effects that a small town mentality had or will have on a child.

Scout is the main character in ‘To Kill A Mockingbird, Harper Lee writes the novel as Scout as a grown adult, narrating the novel in her view. Harper Lee overemphasizes the relationship between the aging of a child and the perspective that grows with it. Harper also goes through the different implications this has for a child’s interpretation and description of justice, as these provide an insight into the thoughts Scout had as a child. Scout’s naive perspective and innocence throughout the opening of the novel expands as she learns to consider other people and their different outlooks, this is first encouraged by her father. Her father is Atticus, he then teaches Scout a lesson that become very valuable “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view…until you climb into his skin and walk around in it”. Through this quote it captures the theme of perspective that then carries out throughout the plot of the novel from that point.

The quote was used as an example to give Scout an idea on how to minimize the intensity of different negative situations and the consequences that can come out of it. When Scout first hears these words she does not understand the meaning behind it until the final chapter. When Scout first starts to understand the words her father once told her she says “Atticus was right. One time he said you never really know a man until you stand in his shoes and walk around in them. Just standing on the Radley porch was enough.” Through this quote it is focused the attention on to the relationship between perspective and justice as Scout has come to the realization that the way society views people compared to the way they are in reality, which was then and still continues to be a problem in today’s society as the justice system still fails to provide justice for those who are accused. Through Scout understanding this flaw she begins to adapt the way she acts in the future and carefully considers the different perspectives of those she chooses to surround herself with, being a source of justice where her society fails to provide.

The film ‘Jasper Jones’ in comparison to the novel ‘To Kill A Mockingbird’ is less about getting a better perspective, and is more towards developing a perspective whilst practicing it. Viewers can see through the beginning of the film that Charlie (played by Levi Miller) has the ability to consider other people’s opinions when Jasper Jones (played by Aaron McGrath) asks ““But I hoped you might see things from my end. That’s what you do right? When you’re reading. You’re seeing what it’s like for other people.” Hearing this quote, it highlights the different approaches to reach the same theme of perspective through the two different texts. The novel ‘To Kill A Mockingbird’ goes through the theme perspective by describing the process of a child growing the ability to consider people’s perspectives, but in the film ‘ Jasper Jones’ it instead defines the practice and perfectibility of understanding people’s perspectives. From beginning of the text, Charlie is already able to consider perspective but through a different way, he considered perspective through his writing and love of literature. Through the film Jasper acts like some sort of an incentive for Charlie, Jasper pushes Charlie to consider the perspective of other people, those people mainly being the ones that suffer from the small town scrutiny of Corrigan. The Jasper constantly pushing Charlie he learns to consider the thoughts and feelings of his parents Wesley and Ruth, he begins to understand the reason for their actions while being frustrated by this, he is also justified to them. Similar to the novel “To Kill A Mockingbird’, Charlie is able to think about all the different perspectives allows him to make the realisation that the injustice shown by the small town and the hard socio-cultural setting of outback Australia in the 1960s. Charlie also came to the realisation that his words may have different effects on other people and how his words can be received.

People can argue that the relationship Scout had with her father is what helped her to consider the different perspectives, as her father is the one who presents the idea to Scout in chapter three. Scout’s father Atticus acts as a moral educator to not just Scout but also Jen, throughout the plot of the novel. Scout grows up in a small town called Maycomb County, the education system is where the small town mentality first starts being fueled, this is seen when the first grade teacher known as Ms.Caroline tells Scout to forget what her father has previously taught her, “Your father does not know how to teach. You can have a seat now, Scout then recounts, “I mumbled that I was sorry and retired, mediating upon my crime.” Reading this quote the relationship between education and injustice is first seen, the teacher first shows that she is small-minded and determined. It is seen that the effect the teacher instantly has on Scout, she is quick to trust the teacher judgment and changes her views, soon after mentioning to her as a crime. It is through Atticus that made it possible for Scout to get away and escape the flaws of the educational system, as he gives her the opportunity for her to be educated at a higher level. It is clear that Scout has a large amount of respect for her father and is always wanting to listen to his opinions and be shaped by his views to be the person he wants her to be. Through the novel, Scout constantly refers to Atticus, his actions are usually fair and unbiased as he tries to teach his children compassion, this is seen when he says “This time we aren’t fighting the Yankees, we’re fighting our friends. But remember this, no matter how bitter things get, they’re still our friends and this is still our home.” We can see from that Atticus is capable himself of being compassionate while maintaining a clear mind in most situations. This is a trait he wants to pass on to his children, pushing them to be comfortable, despite what society pushes them to do.