Category: Justice

Families expressed the view that the most reparative act the authorities could undertake was to reveal the truth about the disappeared. They were concerned that compensation through reparation payments was designed to divert families from pursuing the “truth about their loved ones” .

Therefore, in this specific case, the value of truth and acknowledgement for victims and their families cannot be emphasised enough. The first thing needed in addressing their needs was ensuring they were known, acknowledged and “part of the transitional justice agenda” . It was also clear the value of truth takes precedence over the need for judicial intervention which has dominated discussions of transitional justice While research shows that as long mechanisms do not exclude the possibility of future prosecutions, they would be acceptable to victims , it is important to note there are mechanisms that can deliver truth decoupled from a judicial process such as truth commissions.

Truth commissions, by name, indicates to deliver the truth for the purpose of assisting a wounded nation to heal . Popkin and Roht state the goals of seeking the truth include; establishing an authoritative record, helping victims, and promoting accountability , however, whether this is victim-centred must be analysed. Erin states the value of truth commissions includes opening up and acknowledging the past however it must be stated this is not a risk-free process. Firstly, the truth that is produced is monolithic, meaning there should be no expectation of producing a single account of events. This multiplicity problem can turn into a subjectivity problem as different versions tell different stories and assign blame and victimhood to different parties. Moreover, this subjectivity fails to wholly comprehend and communicate the experiences of victims who have lived through the conflict. This can be evidenced by the fact that often the truth victims and others want to hear is not the forensic, historical or dialogic truth, but the psychological truth which unfortunately gets lost in the translation.

Helping Victims

Truth commissions’ goal in helping victims can be argued to be victim centred, Minow even states this as the main purpose of establishing truth commissions . However, the value of this to victims shouldn’t be overstated because as Daly notes, many are not aware of the truth commission mechanism with only a small fraction of the world’s victims participating in such truth-seeking processes . Thus, this affects which truths are being told and the less the percentage of victims heard by the commission the less likely it could potentially have a positive impact. Moreover, where retributive justice is unlikely – due to factors such as the criminal justice system is weak, the truth may give no measurable benefit for victims. For these victims, the truth may be a luxury, almost a psychological support/relief mechanism. The point is not to abandon the truth, but governments should only advocate the truth when the population prioritises a truth-seeking process over essential basic needs.

Accountability

The value of truth in terms of accountability is that it can potentially pave the path towards prosecution for those named in truth commission reports, as has been the case in Chile . Brahm, notes while truth commissions do not subject perpetrators to legal punishment, “they represent some form of accountability for human rights abuses when historically this has been rare”. This could be due to the fact truth commissions can reach a wider range of victims than long trial procedures which in turn can lead to pressure for change and educate the masses. Thus, the impact of truth commissions might be realized at a minimum in terms of acknowledegment and healing . However, a few convictions do not prove that the truth produces accountability. For example, in South-Africa many high-level prosecutions ended in acquittals due to a lack of evidence , this can cause serious trauma to victims as they may feel the suffering has been for nothing and perpetrators are walking away unpunished. In essence, this essay agrees with Aldana who noted other than criminal prosecutions, lesser sanctions, such as apologies and confessions in the truth commission mechanisms, can never fully satisfy victims’ demands for accountability . Thus, the truth only provides accountability where it can at the least contribute to the possibility of a criminal prosecution, something which has been a rarity historically. Another historical rarity which will now be analysed is the lack of attention paid to the emotional needs of the victims.

Prioritisation of civil and political rights over socio-economic and emotional rights of victims

Doak notes transitional justice discourse has emphasised political and civil wrongs at the expense of more pressing socio-economic concerns this essay agrees and argues this prevents transitional justice mechanisms from being fully victim-centred. This can be proved by truth commissions and their common offer to perpetrators for amnesties from prosecution in exchange for their testimony. This was especially the case in the South-African truth and reconciliation commission (SATRC) where amnesties were handed out in exchange for the truth . Proponents of truth commissions argue justice may need to be sacrificed to ensure instrumental goals such as peace, stability and avoidance of civil war Yet these are clearly more state-centred goals rather than victim-centred. Proponents further argue that the SATRC attempted restorative justice by granting amnesties in the name of reconciliation which seeks the truth of the past in order to build a different future. Gibson concurs stating amnesties made coexistence and tolerance more likely .

However, this essay disagrees because amnesties undermine the rule of law and states’ legitimacy to address victims’ needs for retributive justice especially as Aldana points out when such feelings are “shared widely by the public” . This was clear in South Africa’s case where the perceived lack of justice in the TRC got pointed out and as Howse states there were calls for ‘No Amnesty, No Amnesia, Just Justice’ . Clearly the reference to ‘just justice’ is in relation to retributive justice. Thus, not only do truth commissions deny justice but it also deprives victims, as by granting amnesty it robs victims of their opportunity to chase their own justice through criminal/civil courts. Furthermore, amnesties guarantee impunity, this can frustrate the victims further undermining the possibility of reconciliation. Victims’ emotional needs can be seen to be further frustrated as demonstrated below.

Emotional Needs of Victims

Proponents of transitional justice mechanisms, especially truth commissions have praised it for allowing victims to speak in a public environment dedicated to documenting the suffering and locating individual trauma. Raquel has pointed out knowing one’s suffering is not a lonely experience can allow individuals to “move beyond trauma” . Moreover, Minow states, therapists working with survivors, have experienced the process of rendering testimony a vital “element of healing” . On the other hand, Doak has stated, “scant regard has been paid to the psychological impact of testifying either before… criminal trials and truth commissions ”. Robins further notes in the Nepal missing cases victims had little access to medical facilities and especially psychosocial support which was needed as a result of the disappearances. This clearly reflects the narrowness of transitional justice and the lack of ‘victim-centredness’. Moreover, in countries where the possibility of retributive justice is slim due to factors such as the “crimes are too big” it means very few truth commissions have the resources to ensure that the truth heals rather than hurts . Hence, it’s arguable it might be more beneficial for some to forget and move on.

However, this essay agrees with Herman who notes, “repressing memory can have a deleterious psychological impact ”, the truth in these circumstances can rekindle anger and trigger posttraumatic stress . The psychological burden, therefore, cannot be undervalued, as it’s directly proportional to increased social costs. Truth commission’s lack the resources to fully investigate the outcomes for all victims. This coupled with the fact individuals respond to psychological trauma and to the truth commissions in different ways shows transitional justice mechanisms have a long way to go to be victim centred as victims ‘emotions cannot be measured, and they need more focus, now more than ever.

Most importantly psychological impacts shouldn’t be classified into collective records, they can be personal experiences which cannot be solved through broad processes that prioritise broader objectives. For instance, in the SATRC Trauma Centre, it was estimated 50-60% experienced serious psychological problems after testifying and while partial truth helped some, for others its re-opened old wounds and ignited a sense of anger. Therefore, to legitimise transitional justice processes in the eyes of the victims one ought to more carefully analyse and think about the emotional harms suffered by them and not just look at trauma as the lens through which to understand societies emerging from mass violence. As Robins notes, “Victimisation clearly has the potential to be accompanied by emotional and psychological impacts, but transitional justice has yet to make psychosocial support to victims central to its practice” . Thus, to be more victim-centred transitional justice must look to alternative approaches such as psychological impacts and combine this with other processes in what this essay calls a multimethod approach.

In 2006 the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) released a report that conceptualised restorative justice as “…a way of responding to criminal behaviour by balancing the needs of the community, the victims and the offenders,” (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2006). The report goes on to further underscore the importance of exercising this form of justice as opposed to the traditional retributive justice. In light of this recommendation by the international body this paper seeks to not only compound this stance but to go further and make a case for the desertion of the current criminal justice process, either wholly or partially. This paper shall make the aforementioned cases exclusively victims of rape, a deviation from the generous approach adopted by the UNODC report. The paper shall highlight the positives that could result from the adoption of restorative justice when dealing with rape victims as well as the possible shortcomings of this justice model when used on rape victims.

The criminal justice system as currently is in Botswana views all criminal activity as crimes against the state. This is evidenced by the fact that the State in Botswana is party to all criminal matters, either as applicants in courts of first instance or as respondents or appellants in appellate courts. All criminal cases before our courts are either State v X or X v State, where X denotes the accused. The involvement of the state on all criminal prosecutions, with the state assuming the position of the victim is an indication of a retributive type of justice (Maiese, 2003). Under the current form of justice employed within our borders, the victim’s views are not considered. It has been held by our honourable court that the pardon prescribed by section 150(e) does not include a pardon from the actual victim of the actual crime (Mogofu v The State, 2002). A pardon under the stated section precludes an individual charged with a crime from entering a plea of guilt and ultimately precludes them from being tried for such an offence. The power to pardon, Walia AJ as he was then known noted, is an exclusive prerogative of the head of state as conferred by section 53 of this republic’s constitution. This is an indication of how much the victim and their views are disregarded by our justice system. It is thus trite our justice system, much like justice system the world over is in dire need of reformation to be more victim inclusive (Bazemore & Griffiths, 2010). Restorative justice, this paper will aver is the much needed reformation as it places some emphasis on victim involvement.

The restorative justice model acknowledges that rape victimhood, much like any other forms of victimhood, is not limited only to the people whose bodies are physically violated. People who suffer along their loved ones who have been violated are also victims, so too are community members who have an apprehension of fear resulting from the victimisation of one of their own. This model further recognises the offenders as well as his or her family and friends as victims for all the shame and guilt they feel as a result of their association with a rapist (Koss & Achilles, 2008). This mode of justice takes cognisance of the fact that crime’s effect and consequences are not borne solely by the primary victim as there is a plethora of secondary victims that also suffers. In light of this restorative justice seeks to repair the harm, have a restorative effect, be a driver for reconciliation and facilitate re-integration (Walker, 2012). The model further advances the notion that the suffering of all should be accounted for when justice is meted out. It first off recognises the primary victim instead of transferring victimhood to the state in the manner that our current system does as illustrated above. It preaches that the justice system must not solely focus its attention to the perpetrator as is currently practice.

Central to the restorative justice model is dialogue. One of the most common forms of dialogue employed by this model is a practice termed the circle process (Umbreit, Vos, Coates, & Lightfoot, 2005). The circle process, as the name suggests, sits all who are affected by a crime so as to talk about the crime and how much it affected them. For purposes of this discussion rape victims, both primary and secondary, and rape perpetrators, both primary and secondary, and the community at large are seated in a circle with the intention of securing some understanding between all involved. This process is thus a more social and communal process often employed in the wake of a social scourge. The circle process, as all subtypes of restorative justice, seeks to repair, heal, and build relationships and a sense of community all of which have been largely torn to shreds by the rape incident (Karp, Shackford-Bradley, Wilson, & Williamsen, 2016). It is for that reason that the parties in the circle are encouraged talk about their experiences and their perspectives freely. Some of the underlying values of the circle process are a shared responsibility, accountability, an acknowledgement of our interconnectedness and a mutually shared social concern (Greenwood, 2005). It thus comes naturally that in these circles, all participants are treated as equals.

Away from the circle process, restorative justice has a process called restorative conferencing (Suzuki & Wood, 2017). Conferencing is a process geared specifically towards sexual violence victims and is thus aimed at rape victims. It is this paper’s averment that the conferencing practice be adopted by our justice system. Restorative conferences are neither counselling sessions nor mediating efforts (O’Connell, Wachtel, & Wachtel, 1998). They are a consensual and voluntary meeting between all the people considered victims under restorative justice. At such meetings the aftermath, implications and consequences of the victimisation are discussed with the goal of repairing the harm done as well as mapping a way forward for all parties involved, all of whom are victimized somehow by the crime or wrongdoing committed. The primary victims and the secondary victims are given an opportunity to confront the individual who victimised them. They are given the opportunity to express their feelings and have a say on the final outcome. Because of the plurality of the people involved, the best way forward can be mapped (Wachtel, 2013). Restorative conferencing is a better alternative to the other practices of restorative justice like the aforementioned circle process. It is also better than victim-offender mediation because of the more people involved all of whom are directly involved in or affected by the crime in question. Restorative conferencing has been found to be satisfactory by both victims and perpetrators and enjoys approval by both parties. It is for this reason that it has been recommended that, “The government should use conferences as an alternative to court more often” (Strang, 2000). It is primarily for this reason that it is here averred that this system be introduced to our criminal justice system.

Restorative justice practices though thoroughly advantageous have their own pitfalls. The most problem that is encountered by rape victims who look to adopt this model is that it comes with some degree of re-victimisation (Wemmers, 2018). There is a heightened risk of re-victimization for victims of rape, many of whom are women. This is because as previously stated above, dialogue is a cornerstone of restorative justice. All involved are expected to speak on their feelings and at times must recount their experiences. This often proves too traumatic for the victims as they are compelled by the process to speak about an issue they are trying to move past. The argument that restorative justice is harmful has however be negated in some quarters. It has instead been averred that talking about the experience is an integral part of the healing process (Weitekamp & Parmentier, 2016). Restorative justice affords the victims, both primary and secondary and indeed the offenders, a chance to receive information about events surrounding the victimisation. The restorative counselling method for one is not facilitated by trained and qualified professionals with knowledge on how to navigate the emotions of the victims (Umbreit, Coates, & Vos, 2002). This could prove detrimental and give the first of the aforementioned and contrary positions credence. Under the guise of restorative conferencing and justice, the victims may use the opportunity to shame and berate the offender, all of which go against the most rudimentary aim of the process. The offender can thus also be harmed (Daly, 2006).

Restorative type of justice draws its strength and supremacy over other modes of justice, our present one inclusive, form its staunch advocacy for victim involvement. Victim involvement is advantageous in this case because when properly done, it results in healing and closure for the victim (Weitekamp & Parmentier, 2016). A great deal of rape incidents in Botswana go, for one reason or another, unreported (Gender Links, 2012). The reluctance to report that is rampant amongst rape victims in Botswana can be attributed to the distrust of the court process or they believe that taking the perpetrator through the court process will not yield any relief for the victim. Victims thus often do not report because they neither their reporting nor the subsequent incarceration of the perpetrators if at all any results does nothing to help their situation (Allen, 2007). A switch to the restorative justice model that actually strives to help the victim therefore would help these rape victims and empower them to come forth and out of the shadows with their truth and into a practice that cares for them. Rape victims often feel humiliated when they are forced to recount their rape ordeal in open court (McGlynn, 2017). Restorative justice processes are kept behind closed doors and only people affected are involved. This serves to protect the victim from undue and further embarrassment, humiliation and ridicule. The same protections are guaranteed for the offender.

In their book tittle The Little Book of Restorative Justice, Howard Zehr and Ali Gohar (2003), state that contrary to popular belief, restorative justice is not intended to be replacement for the traditional criminal justice system that encompasses the prison system. The authors contend that optimum justice is achieved when restorative justice is practiced in unison with the traditional system. The prison system therefore should be kept in place and offenders should be sent there. Imprisonment is a form of incapacitation. The restorative form of justice does not advocate for rapists or indeed any other criminals to roam the streets as they were before their crime. Restorative justice does not advocate for a return to what was before the offending. It instead propagates for a search for the best way to move forward after a crime. Restorative justice answers the question, “how do we move forward now that we find ourselves in this position?”. It does not answer the question, “now that we are here how do we move back?” Imprisonment therefore being a means of protecting the society should be kept open.

References

1. Allen, W. D. (2007). The Reporting and Underreporting of Rape. Southern Economic Association, 73(3), 623-641.
2. Bazemore, G., & Griffiths, C. (2010). Police reform, restorative justice and restorative policing. Police Practice and Research, 4(4), 335–346.
3. Daly, K. (2006). The Limits of Restorative Justice. In L. Tifft, & D. Sullivan, Handbook of Restorative Justice: A Global Perspective (pp. 64-80). Michigan: Routledge.
4. Gender Links. (2012). Gender Based Violence Indicators Study. Gaborone: Women’s Affairs Department.
5. Greenwood, J. (2005, October). THE CIRCLE PROCESS: A Path for Restorative Dialogue. Retrieved October 15, 2019, from Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking: http://rjp.umn.edu/sites/rjp.dl.umn.edu/files/media/the_circle_process.pdf
6. Karp, D. R., Shackford-Bradley, J., Wilson, R. J., & Williamsen, K. M. (2016). A Report on Promoting Restorative Initiatives for Sexual Misconduct on College Campuses. Skidmore College, Skidmore College Project on Restorative Justice. New York: Saratoga Springs.
7. Koss, M., & Achilles, M. (2008). Restorative Justice Responses to Sexual Assault. Applied Research Forum: National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women, 1(4), 1-15.
8. Maiese, M. (2003, July). Types of Justice. Retrieved October 15, 2019, from Beyond Intractability: https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/types_of_justice
9. McGlynn, C. (2017). Rape Trials and Sexual History Evidence: Reforming the Law on Third-Party Evidence. The Journal of Criminal Law, 81(5), 367–392.
10. Mogofu v The State, Crim App No 73 of 2001 ( High Court November 7, 2002).
11. O’Connell, T., Wachtel, B., & Wachtel, T. (1998). Conferencing Handbook: The New Real Justice Training Manual. Melbourne: Piper’s Press.
12. Strang, H. (2000). Victim Participation in a Restorative justice Process: The Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments. Australian National University: PhD dissertation.
13. Suzuki, M., & Wood, W. R. (2017). Restorative Justice Conferencing as a ‘Holistic’ Process: Convenor Perspectives. Current Issues in Criminal Justice(3), 277-292.
14. Umbreit, M. S., Coates, R. B., & Vos, B. (2002). The Impact of Restorative Justice Conferencing: A Review of 63 Empirical Studies in 5 Countries. Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking, 1-21.
15. Umbreit, M. S., Vos, B., Coates, R. B., & Lightfoot, E. (2005). RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY: A SOCIAL MOVEMENT FULL OF OPPORTUNITIES AND PITFALLS. Marquette Law Review, 89(251), 253-276.
16. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2006). Handbook on Restorative Justice Programmes. New York: United Nations.
17. Wachtel, T. (2013). Defining Restorative. Bethlehem: International Institute for Restorative Practices.
18. Walker, L. (2012). Chapter 1: Restorative Justice: Definition and Purpose. In K. S. Wormer, & L. Walker, Restorative Justice Today: Practical Applications (pp. 1-2). New York: SAGE Publications.
19. Weitekamp, E. G., & Parmentier, S. (2016). Restorative justice as healing justice: looking back to the future of the concept. Restorative Justice: An International Journal, 4(2), 141-147.
20. Wemmers, J.-A. (2018, September 13). Judging Victims: Restorative choices for victims of sexual violence. Retrieved October 15, 2019, from Department of Justice: Government of Canada: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/rd10-rr10/p3.html
21. Zehr, H., & Gohar, A. (2003). The Little Book of Restorative Justice. Intercourse: Good Books.

Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird is set in Maycomb town in the U.S. State of Alabama. The fictional town is home to the Finches. Atticus Finch, a widower, lives with his daughter, Scout Finch, and son, Jem Atticus, during the Great Depression. Racism is a vital hallmark of life in Maycomb. As a prominent lawyer, Atticus understands the issue of race in Alabama. He reminds his children not to “kill a mocking bird” because they do not harm people (Lee, 1960). Atticus emphasizes to Scout and Jem on the significance of showing empathy and just to others. Tom Robinson, a black man, in the racist community in Maycomb, faces accusations of raping a white woman named Mayella Ewell. Atticus decides to represent Tom in a decision that angers the white community (Rapping, 2015). At the beginning of the trial, a lynch mob prepares to kill Tom, but Scout diffuses the tension after posing a question to the leader of the mob. Atticus presents incriminating evidence that links Bob Ewell to the rape allegations. However, the white jury dismisses the evidence and convicts Tom. Eventually, Tom is killed in his attempt to escape prison. Earlier, Scout and Jem developed an interest in Boo Bradley and engaged in a miniaturized demonstration of prejudice. The children frequently trespassed into the Radley property to mock Boo’s reclusive behavior. However, Boo’s significance comes to the fore when he stabs Bob Well, who had embarked on a vengeance mission targeting the Finches. Boo’s action brings Scout to the realization that Boo has become a human being and recalls her father’s emphasis on sympathy and understanding of differences. Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird illuminates the racial bias in the criminal justice system in the South.

Superficially, the story describes life in the small town of Maycomb, but it contains underlying issues about the country’s criminal justice system. The case involves the trial of Tom Robinson, who is facing allegations of rape in the 1930s. Bob Ewell’s daughter, Mayella, is the victim in the case. When Atticus Finch decides to represent the defendant, he takes the case seriously. In a racist town like Maycomb, Atticus understands the challenges of seeking justice, especially by minority populations (Rapping, 2015). As a white attorney, he experiences ridicule, slurs, and taunts from both children and neighbors. Jem and Scout experience abuse from children in a Christmas event. They have become victims of racism because of the position of their father in the case. One of the children in school wonders why Scout’s father represents niggers (Banks, 2006). The taunts that Scout and Jem encounter in school suggest that legal representation for black suspects was not the norm in Alabama’s small towns.

Perhaps one would wonder why a white attorney would represent a black defendant in the story. According to Banks (2006), it was unlikely that a black attorney would have been available in a small town in Alabama. Only four black lawyers practiced in the State’s major cities in the 1930s. Black lawyers threatened the social order in the South, and the chances of appointing a black lawyer to represent a black defendant were dim (Banks, 2006). Black lawyering portended danger for practicing attorneys, and it explains why the judge appointed Atticus in this case. Racism comes out as an overriding theme in this case. On the day of trial, the lynch mob (predominantly the members of the white community) seek to lynch Tom even before he is heard. This situation underscores the influence of race in the pursuit of restorative justice in Alabama and the United States at large. As Atticus steps to represent Robinson, he understands that winning a case like this could be a daunting task because racism is “Maycomb’s usual disease” (Lee, 1960). With this awareness of the nature of the case, the next section explores the pertinent facts in the case and includes Atticus’s legal position on the issue before trial.

During the trial, Atticus makes a compelling argument that should exonerate Tom Robinson over his alleged involvement in the rape. Atticus argues at the trial that Tom could not have raped Mayella. He believes that Mayella’s attacker is left-handed with both arms. Mayella’s right eye was blacked, and her right side of the face showed beatings (Lee, 1960). Atticus’s fact tends to reveal that the left-handed accuser could have perpetrated the act of rape on Mayella. During a cotton-gin accident earlier, Robinson lost his left arm. The defendant’s loss of the left arm lends credence to the notion that the perpetrator could have been someone else other than Tom (Dare, 2001). Meanwhile, in the courtroom, something else came up. Judge Taylor noticed that Bob Ewell was left-handed: “You’re left-handed, Mr. Ewell” (Lee, 1960). The judge’s pronouncement angers Bob Ewell as he wonders what his left-handedness had to do with the rape.

Tom Robinson lost the case during trial, and the jury sentenced him for the rape of Mayella Ewell. The decision highlights racial injustice that is bedeviling this white-dominated town in Alabama. To reinforce the ill of racial injustice, Lee highlights the shooting of the rabid dog by Atticus to symbolize his unrelenting struggle against racism and prejudice in Maycomb.

Atticus’s central argument is premised on the claim that Tom did not break any law. Instead, Atticus observed that Mayella Ewell “violated the code” when she advanced towards the accused (Stephens, 1995). To further reinforce his proposition, the defendant’s lawyer held that Mayella did not commit the crime, but merely broke an honored code of the Maycomb society. Fundamentally, Atticus argued that the nature of Maycomb society was one where racism was rampant, and sexual relationships between a white woman and a black man were somewhat forbidden. By labeling Mayella’s behavior as a violation of the time-honored code, the lawyer emphasized that the law should prevail when judging Tom in this case (Stephens, 1995). Atticus also recognizes that judging Tom may occur in the backdrop of the code of the Maycomb community rather than the law.

Both Bob and Mayella implicated Robinson in an attempt to cover a father’s shame and guilt. Atticus argues that the affliction on Mayella’s face are wounds that her father inflicted on her. When Bob found Mayella with Tom, he accused her of being a whore and beat her up: “You goddamn whore, I’ll kill ya” (Lee, 1960). Tom reveals these words as said by Bob Ewell upon encountering him with Mayella. When pressed further to reveal more information about the ordeal, Tom admits that Mayella made advances towards her. Even though he tried to resist, he did not want to be ugly to her (Lee, 1960). Tom ran away when Ewell arrived because striking a white woman at the time of the story was unimaginable. Running away was one way of escaping the consequences of being implicated in a crime in the racist town. He tells Atticus that if he (Atticus) were a nigger like him, Atticus would be scared too.

Dramatic swings occur where Bob Ewell meet his death while embarking on a mission to revenge. Bob had made the Finches and the judge Taylor the targets of his vengeance. The story reports Bob as menacing Mrs. Robinson, breaking into the judge’s house, and attacking Scout and Jem (Lee, 1960). Bob met his death when he attacked Scout and Jem on their way home from a Halloween party. The opening statement reveals Jem’s badly broken arm. Scout tells the reader that her brother injured his arm at the elbow at the age of thirteen (Lee, 1960). This statement sets the mind of the reader to expect something more: how the thirteen-year-old boy would overcome the challenge brought about by a broken leg. The closing statement revisits what Atticus had told Scout about rushing into judgments. Scout recalls her father telling her that most people are nice when “you finally see them” (Lee, 1960). This statement intends to remind Scout to treat people with respect regardless of differences in race, color, and gender. The statement also underscores Atticus’s persistence in the struggle against racial injustice.

To Kill a Mockingbird cautions against making superficial judgments. When the story ends, Scout can relate to what her father told her about the innocence of a mockingbird. Although Tom Robinson and Boo Bradley come out as characters that are most misunderstood, they exhibit inner innocence. Scout’s perception of Boo changes after his dramatic effort to save her from Bob Ewell. Robinson’s unjust death cast a dark shadow of life in a racist society where respect for society’s time-honored code supersedes the rule of law.

References

1. Banks, T. L. (2006). To kill a mockingbird (1962): Lawyering in an unjust society. The University of Maryland, Baltimore.
2. Dare, T. (2001). Lawyers, ethics, and to kill a mockingbird. Philosophy and Literature, 25(1), 127-141.
3. Lee, H. (1960). To Kill a Mockingbird. J. B. Lippincott & Co.
4. Rapping, J. A. (2015). It’s a Sin to Kill a Mockingbird: The Need for Idealism in the Legal Profession. Mich. L. Rev., 114, 847.
5. Stephens, R. O. (1995). The Law and the Code in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird. Southern Cultures, 1(2), 215-227.

Abstract

The restorative justice system is a traditional way of justice. Despite this, most people have realized the system lately. As such, the retroactive justice system is still at an earlier stage of implementation in the modern world. Various research is being conducted, however, to make the operation successful. A study into the restorative justice system aims at establishing multiple factors. These factors include the effects of the order on the victims and offenders. Through this knowledge, the discussion aims at analyzing the current information regarding the restorative justice program.

Introduction

The criminal justice system is one of the broadest aspects of justice. Countries around the world have a set of punitive ways for criminals. Various forms of punishment, such as imprisonment, work in different ways. One of the researches conducted indicated that the United States of America has the greatest number of convicted people in jails. Despite the nation having 5% of the world’s population, it is sad to imagine that the same population could also contribute to the highest number of crimes. 25% of prisoners in the world are locked up in the United States. As such, there have been questions over the years regarding if the popular and most used way of a criminal conviction is right.

Numerous law enthusiast has disputed jailing as a way of justice to the victims. Despite jailing being the most used way of a criminal conviction, it does not always leave satisfaction in the victims. There is still a lot of criticism on the punishment that offenders get. An insight into the matter shows that imprisonment does not always serve the purpose intended. First, imprisonment is an affair between the criminal system and the offenders. The victims are never part of the discussion (Strang & Braithwaite, 2017). One they give their testimonies; the justice system handles the rest. This is one of the factors that contribute to low satisfaction in the system. Sometimes the sentences are seen to be too lenient while other times, they are harsh. Therefore, it is important to consider that imprisonment is not always the solution. Multiple accounts have indicated the same.

As such, the solution to the standard justice system is a restorative justice system. The system, despite not being common in developing countries, is one of the most effective. Various nations have their way of devising the system. The restorative justice system has been a solution to a significant part of criminal behaviors. The system works through creating a room for understanding between the victims and offenders. It is essential to note that it is not mandatory (Council, 2016). The parties must be willing to take part in it to be successful. Upon agreement, they meet and talk and get to understand the scope of the crime. For the offenders, they are made to understand the effects of their actions.

The victims also get to understand what motivated the offender to commit the crime. Through this form of dialogue, the parties can come into a consensus. The system ensures that both parties understand each other and, if possible, forgive . There is a general sense of satisfaction in this system. Studies have shown that most criminals involved in the therapeutic justice system transform from the dark past. They become new members of society. The victims, on the other hand, get a chance to recover from the crimes committed against them. As such, they have a chance to heal and get back into their communities. It is not always easy for a victim to get back into society. Imprisonment does not allow room for recovery for both parties.

As such, the state serves justice to the victims and offenders. We get broken individuals despite everything having been done according to the set procedure. Restorative justice works through inclusion, whereby both the offender and the victim play their part in finding the solution. It also gives a chance for encountering whereby the parties can talk about the magnitude of the crime. The offender is also allowed to amend their actions through apologies. Finally, restorative justice allows room for recovery and healing. Both parties can be mentally affected; thus, the system allows them to recover and get back to their respective communities. Restorative justice has a couple of advantages, such as curbing a repeat of crimes by offenders. As a result, there is a general reduction of crimes in society. The restorative justice system gives a sense of satisfaction between both parties. Through creating satisfaction, vices such as a craving for revenge are eliminated. The restorative justice system also plays a role in reducing the costs accrued in the criminal justice system.

High imprisonment rates are costly to the states. There have not been very many researchers into the criminal justice system. As such, this discussion aims at examining some of the existing research regarding restorative justice. Research into the restorative justice system aims at establishing various factors. These factors include the effects of the system on the victims and offenders . Through this knowledge, the discussion aims at analyzing the current information regarding the restorative justice program. Through this analysis, the paper also establishes some of the existing gaps in the program. Previously, the success of the program was weighed through the ability of a criminal not to commit a crime again.

There has been a development in the idea citing that there are other factors at hand to be considered. Such include the overall fairness in the program, the ability of loss recovery, and satisfaction among the victims. In that sense, the discussion digs into some historical developments of restorative justice that have been witnessed over the years. Such include the know-how regarding the program, models that have been applied, and the principles that govern it. The discussion will also focus on the issues that have faced the research on restorative justice. This information will help in identifying the loopholes in the comprehension of restorative justice. The course of the restorative justice system in the future will similarly be addressed.

Literature Review

Restorative justice has been in existence for a very long time now. One thing that remains clear is the fact that most people are not familiar with it. This has been accrued to the fact that that the justice system has not been I application. Compared to its counterpart, such as the conviction and imprisonment, which most people are more accustomed to. A revolution into the justice system has brought into the realization of restorative justice. Many people are keen on understanding how the system works . Some communities have even considered replacing their standard justice system with restorative justice.

The most vital thing to consider is that the world is embracing the confines under which restorative justice works. Despite the program not being as standard, numerous researches from governments and private institutions have been ongoing. The primary purpose is to establish how the system can be applied in the new justice. It is like a building bridges initiative that seeks more understanding. Restorative justice is not new, unlike what many people perceive it to be (Strang & Braithwaite, 2017). We live in a world whereby our thoughts seem to be governed by the institutions in place. As such, we tend to pass over practices from one generation to another in the name of the routine. Unless someone comes up with a way of challenging the existing system or digging deep into its methods of operations, people live lifetimes unaware of existing facts. This has been the case in the justice system.

Most people are tuned into the traditional justice system, which involves conviction and sentence. This made it easy for restorative justice to be overlooked. Most people, even at this age and time, believe that the criminal system is all about convicting and jailing offenders. For most individuals, this is justice served. In the 20th century, most offenders lived an inhumane life once they were convicted (Strang & Braithwaite, 2017). At the time, prison represented an ideal form of punishment. It was indeed a form of punishment as offenders would go through hell during their sentence. The conditions were very unbecoming. As a result, most people lost their lives while in prison, while others became mentally sick. It is for this reason that in the mid-20th century, movements were formed.

These movements aimed to protest the inhuman treatment of offenders. People of all walks came together to fight for the rights of offenders while at the same time asking for a reduced imprisonment rate. The aim was to help improve the conditions under which prisoners lived. At the time, there had been a belief that poor living conditions pushed criminals into committing more offenses. This came at a time when truth-seeking was the only way of seeking justice. The party that provided more evidence was considered the winner. This would see the use of negotiations and mediation methods being in more application. People were demanding a system that provided an opportunity not only for the offenders but for the victims too. As time progressed by reconciliation programs started setting in in various states (Strang & Braithwaite, 2017). These would see a sequence of similar programs introduced not only in the United States but also in other nations globally. In some communities, the principles of negotiation programs were governed by religion.

An example is the confines of Christianity, which would call for forgiveness among people. These were the roots of the restorative justice system. As such, restorative justice has continuously grown with time. Apart from nations embracing the move, they are also implementing ways of making the justice system better (Wong & Tu, 2018). The modern justice system, as seen in the United States, does not rely on traditional conviction methods like it was before. Today, previous consideration is addressed. A restorative justice system is always an available option for all. All that is required is for the parties involved to agree in participation. The system now acknowledges the importance of restorative justice. A journey that began with protesting has far resulted in a broad application of restorative justice globally.

Research Application Model

The research utilized various principles used in the criminal justice research model. The categories include the victims and offenders form meditation and conferences. The restorative justice system is a way of uniting the victims of the offense and the offenders. Members of the community are often invited as representatives. This conference aims to establish a way that can help in reducing the weight of the crime. Members of the community are pure representatives. As such, they do not have an active role in the course of the mediation. The subject of discussion is the crime. The debate also involves the motivation behind the crime. Finally, its effects, and a means of restoration in the form of forgiveness. In the justice system, there are significant sections that are considered as strategic points for restorative justice (Strang & Braithwaite, 2017). This includes the police, pre-conviction period, court hearing, and the rectification process. The therapeutic justice system is robust in that it can be applied at any stage. As such, the restorative justice system is not used as an alternative for justice rather than an option. In weighty matter, it is often referred at a later part of the process.

Research Findings

The research established that there had been an increased rate at which restorative justice has been applied across major states globally. As much as restorative justice has been in application, most essential principles have not been put into practice. This is due to the lack of a clear course of action and assessment applied in restorative justice. It is also essential to consider that restorative justice is still in the newborn stage. As such, numerous questions are yet to be answered. People who have previously gone through the therapeutic justice program expressed satisfaction in the system. There was a general belief in the fairness of the system. Offenders also show confidence in the program. The research established that offenders felt more comfortable in systems that were lenient with them. Finally, the study identified that numerous participants in restorative justice expressed a high level of negotiating skills and favorable agreements. This played a role in a successful justice transition.

Research Issues

The modern justice system has experienced a significant change. As such, carrying out research plays a critical role in the success of a new order. As such, this was the course of the study. One of the essential definitions of a successful program is through the way it can offer protection to the public. A justice system that puts the lives of the people in danger is doomed to fail. The needs of the program are also put in to test. This is seen through the requirements of the victims of crimes. Their satisfaction with how the case is solved determines the program’s success (Daly, 2016). The community is also paramount and should be put into consideration. As such, the effects that come along with restorative justice are robust. The introduction of restorative justice comes with a bundle of impact. These effects occur in the form of cost-cutting in as much as it is not clear on the actual cost. The roles of the people responsible for the justice system have not been revised as well.

As such, operators such as police lack the necessary tools to incorporate restorative justice system. It is also safe to consider that there will be a lack of statistics regarding crimes committed. The standard way of collecting crime data is through courts. Restorative justice aims at solving crimes outside the courts. As such, it is hard to keep tabs of offenders.

Existing Gaps in Restorative Justice

The application of the restorative justice system has been on the rise. There have been multiple programs aimed at the subject, as well. Despite these researches being in place, there are still numerous gaps that exist as far as the investigation is concerned. There has been no standard way of evaluating the effectiveness of restorative justice. Various measures have been used in assessing the effects of each restorative justice in every society. This shows a lack of consistency, which is also a significant gap in the research. Lack of evaluation of the program has led to further questions into the study. The effectiveness of the restorative justice system has also not been set.

As such, there is an overreliance in the traditional beliefs which were based on the criminal’s ability to refrain from crime (Council, 2016). Therefore, lack of a clear way of evaluation creates the gap in the research. The gaps in the study can also be seen in communities. There have been no available records into the effects of therapeutic data in cities. As such, there are numerous unanswered questions on the impact of the program on people. Another gap seen in the research is the weight of the crimes committed in relation outcome of the restorative justice process. The personal relationship between the involved parties may come into effect while determining the course of justice. More questions continue to increase the gaps, such as the professional capabilities of the mediators and the levels at which victims are satisfied with the results. As such, multiple variables affect the outcome of the mediation process.

This makes the process unstandardized. While it may be possible to vary the cost, benefits accrued fewer imprisonment levels, there are numerous unanswered questions as well. The restorative system is used in the course of the current justice system and not as an alternative. As such, one cannot independently vary the benefits that come along with it (Daly, 2016). Victims end up satisfied with the process; however, if asked to gauge the monetary value of the satisfaction, it is impossible. The criminal justice system is also not equipped with the right tools for restorative justice. The ancient training is being applied in modern justice methods, which creates a significant gap. Finally, there need for more information regarding how the therapeutic program is benefiting communities. Without this data, there will always be questions regarding the benefits of the program.

Conclusion

In short, the world continues to experience a significant change in the justice system. Application of modern strategies such as mediation among the victims and offenders, diversion, and other alternative measures is making a significant change. As such, the entire justice system is positively impacted by the restorative justice system. There is a predetermined sequence of change that is taking place. The essential thing to account from this change is that it is positive. Development of the justice system that will adequately serve the future generation relies on how well it can apply the existing changes. It is, therefore, essential to put into consideration the kind of movement taking place in the justice system. In the past, most people argued that the use of the traditional form of justice, such as imprisonment, was more effective compared to the current system. The conclusions are, however, pointless as they are based on mare conclusions. Carrying long term research into the restorative justice system aids people in better understanding. As such, the comprehension of the effects of the restorative justice system and its significance over the traditional system lies under critical research. Restorative justice system is the way to go. Despite there being contrary arguments, there have been multiple sources proofing otherwise. It will, however, take a deep understanding and know-how to embrace restorative justice system.

References

1. Council, R. J. (2016). What is restorative justice?
2. Daly, K. (2016). What is restorative justice? Fresh answers to a vexed question. Victims & Offenders, 11(1), 9-29.
3. Ferdous, S., Khan, R., & Dulal, B. (2018). Application of Restorative Justice Theory .
4. Payne, A. A., & Welch, K. (2015). Restorative justice in schools: The influence of race on restorative discipline. Youth & Society, 47(4), 539-564.
5. Strang, H., & Braithwaite, J. (2017). Restorative justice: Philosophy to practice. Routledge.
6. Ryan, T. G., & Ruddy, S. (2017). Restorative justice: A changing community response. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 7(2), 253-262.
7. Zehr, H. (2015). The little book of restorative justice: Revised and updated. Simon and Schuster.

The current criminal justice system often tends to focus on punishing the offender. However, this practice has proved to be destructive and a failure in many cases. The Little Book of Restorative Justice by Howard Zehr is a bestselling novel. Howard Zehr is known worldwide for his work he has done in terms of understanding justice. The Little Book of Restorative Justice examines how restorative justice is a process to involve offenders, victims, and the community in order for healing and to make things as right as possible (Zehr, 3). By bringing the offender and the victim together, restorative justice aims to get some sort of closure and acceptance in the aftermath of the offence. Above all, the primary goals of restorative justice are to put key decisions in the hands of those most impacted by the crimes, bringing the pursuit of justice in order for healing and transformation, and to reduce the likelihood of future offences (Zehr, 37). The Sammy Yatim case serves as a prime example, of how those who gain power are doomed to be corrupted by that same power and also how the current criminal justice system has failed to assist families in the aftermath of offences. Sammy Yatim was a youth who was shot a total of nine times by a police officer, he died from his injuries. Yatim also suffered from mental illnesses at the time of his death. Based on a thorough examination and analysis of the Sammy Yatim case, it is clear that restorative justice would be more well applied than the current criminal justice system to this case, by using the goals and three pillars of restorative justice which are focusing on harm, wrongs or harms results in obligations, and promoting engagement or participation.

Sammy Yatim was an 18-year-old male youth, who was murdered by Constable James Forcillo on July 27th, 2013 in Toronto, Ontario (“James Forcillo trial: timeline follows days after Sammy Yatim’s death”, 2016). On the day Yatim was murdered he threatened passengers on a streetcar, with a small switchblade knife that he was carrying and he exposed himself (Segal, 2018). However, Yatim did not harm anyone and all the passengers aboard the streetcar were able to exit safely without any struggle or conflict with Yatim. Constable Forcillo arrived to the scene and ordered Sammy to drop the small knife he was holding (Segal, 2018). Yatim refused and swore at constable Forcillo, and Forcillo then proceeded to shoot Yatim three times (Segal, 2018). As a result, Yatim fell to the ground and the small knife he was holding fell out of his hand. Constable Forcillo then continued to shoot Yatim six more times, after the youth was clearly powerless as the weapon was no longer in his possession (Segal, 2018). Two days after the death of Sammy Yatim, James Forcillo was suspended with pay from the Toronto police force (“James Forcillo trial: Timeline follows days after Sammy Yatim’s death”, 2016). The death of Sammy Yatim triggered public outrage all over Canada, with many people arguing that “mentally ill people need to be calmed down not shot at” (Picard, 2017). Yatim suffered from mental illness and was not in the right state of mind, as many witnesses stated that he appeared to be intoxicated either by alcohol or drugs. After his death, it was revealed that toxicological tests showed that Yatim had ecstasy and cocaine in his system when he was shot and killed (Pazzano, 2015). Therefore, the police force were criticized for the way the situation was handled as not only did Yatim appear to not be in the right state of mind, but he also did not pose a threat to anyone when he was shot because at that time all the passengers had safely existed the streetcar. In addition, Canadians were outraged at the number of times Sammy was shot at and also at the fact that Constable Forcillo continued to shoot at Sammy after the youth was clearly powerless, as the weapon was no longer in his possession and physically Yatim could no longer harm anyone because he had already been shot three times. James Forcillo was charged with second-degree murder on August 19th, 2013 for the death of Sammy Yatim. However in 2016, Forcillo was found not guilty for second degree murder, but guilty for attempted murder and was then sentenced to six years in prison (Segal, 2018). The mental illnesses that Yatim suffered from at the time of his death included anxiety and depression (Gillis, 2014).

The first pillar or key concept that restorative justice focuses on is harms and needs (Zehr, 22). Restorative justice acknowledges that the crime that has been committed as the harm that has been done to the victims and society as a whole. The current Canadian justice system puts their primary focus on punishing the offender, however in restorative justice the primary focus is on the victim’s needs and roles (Zehr, 22). Sammy Yatim’s mother, Sahar Bahadi acknowledged that “no amount of jail time will bring her son back” (“Sammy Yatim’s parents say son received justice after sentencing, but nothing will bring him back”, 2016). She went on to say that the Yatim family will continue to honour the life of Sammy Yatim in the aftermath of his death (“Sammy Yatim’s parents say son received justice after sentencing, but nothing will bring him back”, 2016). It is evident that in the Sammy Yatim case, his family believes and agrees that punishing the offender should not be the primary focus, but rather the primary focus should go to Sammy and the Yatim family. Sahar Bahadi also said “it is our hope that no other family will have to suffer this unbearable pain. Sammy was a good boy and his life was not only a few minutes on a streetcar” (“Sammy Yatim’s parents say son received justice after sentencing, but noting will bring him back”, 2016). Based off of this statement it is obvious that society should also be the prime focus. This is because if society is the prime focus, then it will reduce the chance of similar criminal offences of police abusing their power and crimes against people who have mental illnesses, from occurring in the future. Furthermore, Bahadi went on to say “even if it’s 100 years it can’t bring our son back”, further acknowledging how no matter how many years in prison Forcillo serves, it will not change the fact that Sammy Yatim is no longer alive (“Sammy Yatim’s parents say son received justice after sentencing, but nothing will bring him back”, 2016). Thus, rather than focusing on punishing Forcillo, the justice system should direct the focus to how to heal the Yatim family and what the needs of the Yatim family are. Overall, if restorative justice was applied to the Sammy Yatim case instead of the current Canadian criminal justice system, then it is clear that it would be more beneficial as an experience of healing is essential for all those involved in the offence, as evident by the goals of restorative justice. In this case it is unmistakeable that there was no healing as obvious by the Yatim family’s statements, this is because the focus did not go to the victim’s family but instead went to the offender.

In addition to harms and needs, obligations is also one of the key concepts of restorative justice. Obligations is the second key concept and pillar (Zehr, 23). Restorative justice acknowledges the fact that the offender must take accountability and responsibility for the criminal offences they have committed (Zehr, 23). The current Canadian criminal justice system takes on the approach of accountability by making sure the offender is punished. However, restorative justice takes on the approach of accountability by encouraging the offender to understand the harm that they have caused (Zehr, 23). Offenders must be aware and comprehend the consequences that will come as a result of their criminal actions (Zehr, 24). Overall, restorative justice aims for the offender to take responsibility, accountability, and to put things right. This can be done by addressing harms, addressing causes, and involving all those involved and affected by the crime (Zehr, 34). In the Sammy Yatim case, is it Constable Forcillo’s responsibility to make things right, as he is the offender in this case. However Sammy Yatim’s father, Bill Yatim expressed disappointment and frustration at the fact that Forcillo failed to take responsibility and accountability for the murder of Sammy Yatim, as Forcillo did not express any remorse or guilt for his crime (“Sammy Yatim’s parents say son received justice after sentencing, but nothing will bring him back”, 2016). Moreover, Bill Yatim said “what he did was wrong and he should have admitted it” (“Sammy Yatim’s parents say son received justice after sentencing, but nothing will bring him back”, 2016). It is apparent that restorative justice would have been more beneficial for this case because the obligation of taking responsibility and accountability to make put things right, would have gone to Forcillo and based on the reactions and statements from the Yatim Family, it is clear that they need closure from Forcillo.

Harms or needs and obligations are both significant aspects that are part of the three pillars of restorative justice. However, equally important is the pillar of engagement or participation. Engagement or participation is the third pillar of restorative justice (Zehr, 24). Engagement encourages the victim, the offender, and society to come together in order to come to a consensus or mutual agreement, in terms of deciding what amount of justice should be required in the case (Zehr, 24). Therefore, it should be an inclusive and collaborative process for all those who are impacted by the crime (Zehr, 34). In the Sammy Yatim case, Forcillo failed to express any remorse or guilt for the crime he committed, which clearly had a negative impact on the Yatim Family and on the community. Sahar Bahadi was hopeful that Forcillo would express feelings of guilt and remorse, however when he failed to do so her response was “that hurt a lot. He destroyed our family, he destroyed our life” (“Sammy Yatim’s parents say son received justice after sentencing, but nothing will bring him back”, 2016). Though, had restorative justice been applied to this case instead of the current Canadian criminal justice system then the Yatim family, Forcillo, and the community would have had to come together to reach some sort of consensus. Additionally, it is important for the community to also have a say, as it was not just the Yatim family that was impacted by the murder of Sammy Yatim. The community was notably outraged at the crime that Constable Forcillo had committed, as Sammy Yatim was only a teenager (Gee, 2013). The public criticized the police force for the way that the situation was handled as there were multiple officers at the scene and only one of Yatim, therefore they could have easily apprehended him, instead of shooting him (Gee, 2013). Many members of the community also criticized Forcillo, as he was police officer and a person with authority who used his power in a destructive and negative manner, and was therefore corrupted by that same power. Many members of the community were also outraged at how Forcillo decided to shoot someone who was clearly not in the right state of times and the number of times that Forcillo shot Yatim, as he continued to shoot Yatim even after he was evidently powerless as the weapon was no longer in his possession and there was no passengers on the streetcar that he could harm as they had all safely existed before Forcillo arrived to the scene (Gee, 2013).

In a related police case that also occurred in Toronto, involved Constable Ken Lam and the Toronto van attack. The Toronto van attack occurred on April 23rd, 2018, in which a man named Alek Minassian drove a van that he rented into pedestrians. Minassian murdered a total of ten people and injured fourteen others (“Officer praised after taking down Toronto van attack suspect without gunfire”, 2018). Constable Lam was the first and only officer to respond to the van attack and was praised for the way that he handled the situation. Constable Lam refused to shoot Minassian and instead was able to calm him down and arrest him. Minassian shouted at Lam saying “kill me” (“Officer praised after taking down Toronto van attack suspect without gunfire”, 2018). To which Constable Lam responded by saying “no get down” (“Officer praised after taking down Toronto van attack suspect without gunfire”, 2018). Phil Gurski, a former Canadian Security Intelligence Services analyst said of Constable Lam, “he followed that training to the nth degree. And he was able to neutralize a guy who had just carried out a heinous attack” (“Officer praised after taking down Toronto van attack suspect without gunfire”, 2018). He went on to say “now the guy is alive, he’s not dead, which means you can question and you can hopefully find out what he did” (“Officer praised after taking down Toronto van attack suspect without gunfire”, 2018). This case can be compared to the Sammy Yatim case as they both occurred in Toronto and both involved police officers. However in the Sammy Yatim case, Yatim did not harm anyone yet was shot a total of nine times and murdered. Whereas in the Toronto van attack, Minassian actually killed numerous people but was not shot at. The actions of Constable Forcillo and Constable Lam can be compared, as Forcillo decided to abuse his power and use it in a destructive manner to murder a youth, which resulted in Forcillo being corrupted by that same power that he once had. Constable Lam on the other hand refused to shot and instead defused the situation by neutralizing Minassian. Furthermore, since Lam did not kill Minassian, that means Minassian is alive and can answer questions as to why he did what he did. Although, Yatim is dead and therefore will not be able to reveal his actions on the day he was murdered. This means that what was going through Sammy Yatim’s mind on the day he was murdered will never be known.

In conclusion, based on a thorough examination and analysis of the Sammy Yatim case, it is clear that restorative justice would be more well applied than the current criminal justice system to this case, by using the goals and three pillars of restorative justice which are focusing on harm, wrongs or harms results in obligations, and promoting engagement or participation. In the Sammy Yatim case it can be noted that those who gain power are doomed to be corrupted by that same power, as this is what occurred with Constable Forcillo. Constable Forcillo abused the power he had as a police officer of authority and as a result was corrupted by that power he once had and is currently serving time in prison for the attempted murder of Sammy Yatim. In the aftermath of the death of Sammy Yatim, had restorative justice been applied it would have proved to be more beneficial than the current Canadian criminal system. Restorative justice aims to bring the victim, offender, and society together in order to reach a consensus in the aftermath of a criminal offense (Zehr, 24). By doing so, it will give the victim and their family closure and healing, and it will also give the offender the responsibility to make things as right as possible (Zehr, 24). In order to reduce the chance of criminal offences being committed in the future, it is crucial that restorative justice be applied to future cases as opposed to the current criminal justice system.

Works cited

1. Gillis, Wendy. ‘Family of Sammy Yatim Files Multimillion-dollar Lawsuit.’ Thestar.com. July 23, 2014. Accessed January 23, 2019. https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/07/23/family_of_sammy_yatim_files_multimilliondollar_lawsuit.html.
2. The article gives an insight of how the aftermath of the Sammy Yatim murder has impacted the Yatim Family. This article was useful because it gave an insight of how the Yatim family filed a lawsuit against Forcillo and the Toronto police. It also talked about how the family is struggling with physical and psychological conditions in the aftermath of the offence.
3. ‘How This Toronto Officer ‘courageously’ Got the Van Attack Suspect in Custody without Firing a Shot | CBC News.’ CBCnews. April 24, 2018. Accessed January 22, 2019. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/officer-praised-taking-van- attack-suspect-custody-peaceful-1.4632661.
4. This article was about the Toronto van attack and the courageous actions of Officer Lam. It was useful because it gave an insight of what happened on that day and how police should respond to issues such as that.
5. ”I Want Him Back.’ Yatim Family Says Sentence Won’t Bring Back Their Son | CBC News.’ CBCnews. July 28, 2016. Accessed January 22, 2019. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/sammy-yatim-family-sentencing-reaction-1.3699730.
6. This article was about how the Yatim family continue to struggle with the fact that they lost their son. This was a valuable source because it gave an insight as to how no amount of justice will bring closure to the Yatim family due to the fact that Forcillo has not expressed any guilt or remorse for his actions.
7. Pazzano, Sam. ‘Yatim Had Illicit Drugs in System When Shot, Court Told.’ Toronto Sun. October 23, 2015. Accessed January 23, 2019. https://torontosun.com/2015/10/22/yatim-shooting-audio-to-be-played-in-court/wcm/34ffaf90-f115-4573-8ab9-100a134da35c.
8. This article is about how toxicological tests have revealed that Yatim had drugs such as ecstasy and cocaine in his system on the day of his death. This source was valuable because it gave an insight as to how Forcillo shot and killed a youth who was not in the right state of mind, as Yatim was under the influence of drugs and also had mental illnesses.
9. ‘The Lasting Impact of the Forcillo Conviction.’ Law Times. July 10, 2018. Accessed January 23, 2019. https://www.lawtimesnews.com/article/the-lasting-impact-of-the-forcillo-conviction-15963/
10. This article is about the impact of the conviction of James Forcillo. This was useful because it gave an insight of how this case has impacted many people and the community as a whole.
11. ‘Timeline Follows Sammy Yatim’s Death to James Forcillo’s Trial | CBC News.’ CBCnews. January 20, 2016. Accessed January 22, 2019. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/forcillo-timeline-1.3411879.
12. This source was about the timeline of the Sammy Yatim case and the James Forcillo trial. This was a valuable source because it gave an insight of all the events that led up the conviction of Forcillo and it had all the dates on it.
13. Zehr, Howard. The Little Book of Restorative Justice. Vancouver, B.C.: Langara College, 2016.
14. This source is about restorative justice and how it is more beneficial than the current Canadian criminal justice system. This was a valuable source because it gave an in depth and detailed look at how restorative justice is a more beneficial approach as it brings the victim, offender, and society together. Overall, it examines how society should respond to a wrongdoing.

Research has overwhelmingly shown the harmful effects of charging and punishing youth. statistics have proven that young people who are charged are less likely to succeed in school or find stable employment and are more likely to reoffend. Restorative justice is commonly defined as an approach to justice that focuses on addressing the harm caused by crime while holding the offender responsible for their actions. Restorative justice is based on an understanding that crime is a violation of people and relationships. The principles of restorative justice are based on respect, compassion and inclusivity. The Peachbulders Restorative Justice Program provides young people with access to justice and divert them out of the courts before trial. Through this paper I will conduct and identify the effectiveness and impact of the circle based restorative justice program.

Restorative Youth Circles program also referred to as Peacebuilders Circle began in 2004. Peacebuilders is a nonprofit organization based in Toronto, Canada. Their main goal is to use restorative practices to keep young people out of the criminal justice system and help youth realize their full potential while building safe and peaceful communities. This extra- judicial diversion program is designed to provide effective access to restorative justice to youth aged 12-18 who are known to, or are subjected of involvement with gangs; have been charged and would otherwise be in detentions; and have been impacted negatively by the provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the Safe Schools Act. The youth circles project welcomes participants from all cultural, ethnic and religious backgrounds and provides a safe space for difficult conversations. The mission of this program is to “increase the capacity of youth, schools, communities and the justice system to manage conflict through Peacebuilding dialogues (Peacebuilders Canada, 2018)”. Peacebuilding Circles are built on the traditional talking circles, in which a talking piece is passed around from person to person consecutively within the circle, regulating dialogue. The peace builders circle model uses multidisciplinary panel of trained peacemaking circle facilitators consisting of volunteer lawyers, mental healthcare professionals, community members and youth working collaboratively to guide the youth accepted into the program to ensure that they make choices that will keep them out of the criminal justice system. In order to be eligible, the Restorative Youth Circle works with court involved youth aged 12-18 and provide assistance to youth who are required to appear in court at specific locations. ( Jarvis street, finch avenue west and Eglington avenue east ). Youth can also be referred to the program by an informal diversion ( includes self referrals and referrals from lawyers, crown, judges, police , teachers, family, etc. ) and Extrajudicial Sanctions ( referred by Crown to probation ).

A Restorative Justice program that helps to divert youth from the Canadian Criminal Justice System. (2016, May 23). Retrieved November 9, 2019, from http://www.selresources.com/sel/restorative-justice-program-helps-divert-youth-canadian-criminal-justice-system/

The University of British Columbia is in favour of the Restorative Youth Circles program. The author identifies that its a good program from the beginning of the article by providing positive dialogue in the introduction. “Canadian organization dedicated to improving the lives of youth that are at risk for incarceration, promoting a restorative justice approach (in contrast to the conventional criminal justice approach) to empower them to overcome personal challenges, make better choices, and succeed (UBC,2016 )”. Its evident that this approach is more favoured than the regular criminal justice approach in which results in detention centres and jail time. The author also talks about how the program has impacted youth and helps them focus on responsibility, learning positive values, making amends and moving forward. “Since its inception, over 500 youth have participated in the process, graduated and been successfully diverted from the justice system (UBC, 2016 )”.

The Peacebuilders program is very effective, they use professionals such as lawyers, mental health specialists as well as volunteers for youth to connect with. However, In order for the restorative justice circle program to be more efficient would require more funding for their program. Having sufficient and stable funding to implement sanctions for alternatives to imprisonment would highly improve the effect of the program. The lack of programming in communities also attributes to funding and resource issues. Furthermore there should be an increase in awareness and understanding of the restorative justice program. We live in a generation where social media is at the centre of our lives; utilising social media outlets would bring more awareness to restorative justice and the programs that are provided with it.

In conclusion restorative justice is important. Its importance is reflected in our criminal code, the youth criminal justice act and the fact that judges are required to consider it during the sentencing process. Restorative justice programs such as Peacebuilders and many others provides alternatives to detention centres and jail time, and gives youth a second chance to change their lives. This ultimately shows youth that they matter in their community and reduces recidivism rates.

Introduction

Since the end of World War II, global inequalities have been increasing exponentially. The developing nations have been left behind even as most countries across the world are gearing towards sustainable economies (Habermas, 2018). Due to unequal growth, developing countries are still faced with limited resources to participate proportionately in global economic growth (Dorsey, 2005). There are many issues such as corruption, illiteracy, tribal wars, and trade barriers that still affect the developing countries (Cheru, 2016). The international relations between the developing and developed countries is limited based on little available resources to affect international trade.

However, it is important to note that justice should be served equally irrespective of the origin of a person. This implies that people living in developing countries should be treated equally to those in developed nations. The debate on global justice began in the 1990s, and it was aimed at addressing the issue of social justice and poverty which are some of the pertinent problems that people living in developed countries face (Graness, 2015). This paper will highlight if morality could help bring conscience in the developing nations and solve justice issues faced by these countries using philosophical arguments of global justice theorists.

Research design

This paper will be based on secondary sources of early scholarly material. Early researchers have studied inequality taking place since World War II. The research process will involve the analysis of various material on ways that morality has influenced justice, the present gaps and draw a suitable conclusion from various sources. The paper will include research methodology, data collection and analysis, reporting of findings and discussion, and recommendations and conclusion on the topic. The gaps will be clearly identified to assist other scholars to dwell on bridging the gaps.

Research Methodology

The research methodology is a process of analyzing data so as to get useful meaning out of it. Notably, research methodology enables the researcher to determine the validity of the information that has been collected and also helps in answering the research question (Schick-Makaroff et al., 2015). Research methodology can either use secondary or primary sources. There are numerous methods and techniques that are used to collect data and that enable the researcher to make an interpretation. This paper will utilize the research synthesis methodology, whereby, past empirical findings and literature review on the topic will be analyzed to answer the research question.

Data Collection and Analysis

Based on the practice of global justice, it is the role of the rich countries to assist the poor nations. According to Gilabert (2012), there should be a moral commitment to help those who are in need. Philosophers argue that the issue of poverty that the developing nations are faced with is not a philosophical challenge, but one that involves the will of the politicians (Gilabert, 2012). Mostly, most of the politicians from the countries that are developed due not consider the issue of global injustice as one that entails moral failing which is the reason little effort has been observed in relation to helping the developing nations. Hassoun (2012) asserts that the global institutional order cannot be legitimate if it does not address the problems that people in developing nations are being faced with.

Based on philosophical arguments, the arrangements that are aimed at assisting the developing nations should not be coercive in nature since they would be against morality. Hence, developed countries should not expect anything in return whenever they decide to assist the countries that have poor economies (Hassoun, 2012). Additionally, it is the responsibility of each person in the world to take part in solving the issue of global injustice. Notably, developed countries must ensure that they make good of the harm that they have already caused in the developing nations in order for global justice to be attained (Pogge, 2012).

Based on moral positioning, philosophers argue that it is important to address the issue of how the developed countries have contributed to the problems that the developing nations are being faced with (Pogge, 2012). Individual autonomy, one of the concepts introduced by philosophers dealing with the issue of global justice, seems to be lacking and that is the reason many developing countries are being exploited by developed nations (Pogge, 2012). Philosophers also posit that social justice should not only be an issue of morality but one that ensures that there is justice for all people in the world. Further, there are some philosophers who argue that the issue of social justice should be one that is enforceable by law to ensure that there is equality in the distribution of wealth (Graness, 2015).

Based on the philosophical argument, morality is important in addressing the issue of global justice since it ensures that there is a human minimum threshold as relates to the distribution of wealth (Graness, 2015). This implies that people should not lack basic needs, but this is contrary to the developing nations. Hassoun (2012) asserts that it is important that global libertarianism is addressed if the issue of global justice is to be addressed in developing countries. Libertarianism is a philosophical concept that is concerned with ensuring that people have the freedom to choose what they desire (Tan, 2013).

Philosophers also advocate for global egalitarianism as a way of ascertaining that social justice is attained in the developing countries. Global egalitarianism is a philosophical doctrine that incorporates morality to ensure that all human beings are treated equally (Tan, 2013). Equal treatment of people would play a significant role in ensuring that there is an end to poverty and social injustices that are prevalent in the developing nations. Hence, looking at the above philosophical arguments, it is clear that they all focus on morality, and that it is possible to attain global justice in the countries that are not developed.

In a study that was conducted by Choudhary (2018), it was observed that all individuals should have equal moral worth. Further, the author argues that it is important that human beings are placed at the center of any discussion that is held by countries. Therefore, states or countries should not enter into an agreement that would end up depriving the rights of the citizens. Notably, for global justice to be attained, morality should be rooted in the center of each discussion. Additionally, past studies indicate that it is important to address the issue of ethics if global justice is to be attained in developing nations (Choudhary, 2018).

Report of Findings and Discussion

One of the research findings is that the commitment by developed countries to assist developing nations in tackling financial problems should be based on morality. Based on the research methodology of my paper, it was observed that most of the developed countries do not assist the developing nations with the right intention. Hence, there should be a global discussion on what intentions drive some of the developed countries into assisting the nations that have poor economies. The research also observes that the will of politicians plays an imperative role in upholding morality in a country, hence, ensuring that there is global justice.

Solving social problems that people in developing nations are facing can also play a big role in ensuring that morality is embraced. The research also finds out that coerciveness by the developed countries has contributed largely to the increased level of injustices around the world. Most of the rich economies do not have the right intention whenever they are assisting countries that are developing. Also, to attain morality and global justice in the long-run, it is important for leaders to address the injustices that were perpetrated in the past. Morality cannot be attained if leaders of countries that did harm to the developing nations are not willing to apologize on the issue.

Additionally, philosophers assert that there is a lack of individual autonomy making it possible to address the issue of morality. Some of the nations that financially assist the developed countries are not concerned with the ability of the poor citizens to meet their basic needs, but they are driven by self-interest. The other research finding is that there is a lack of global egalitarianism which is a concept that advocates for the incorporation of morality whenever the problems facing human beings are being addressed. Also, it has been difficult to attain global justice since people are not treated with equal moral worth.

Recommendations

It is important that developed countries have a collection action of solving the social and economic problems that developing nations are being faced with. Also, developed countries that have contributed much to global injustices should identify some of the measures that should be adopted to ensure that human rights are observed. International lawyers would play an important role in ensuring that morality is adopted whenever developed countries enter into agreements with developing nations. Universal laws can also be utilized to address past global injustices, hence, a step forward in ensuring that morality is attained in all the current dealings.

Developed countries should advocate for the equal distribution of financial resources around the world as a way of ensuring that there is global justice. It is not moral for some countries to exploit developing nations. Leaders should embrace each other in ensuring that the issue of morality and global justice is solved. The role that leaders play in attaining global justice is to enact laws that are meant to protect the rights of human beings and that ensure that human beings are equally presented. There is also a need to strengthen the world community so that each person in the world can embrace morality.

The relations between developed and developing nations should be one that promotes ethics in all practices. Besides, if world politics are centered towards moral development, then it is possible to attain global justice.

Conclusion

The issue of global justice is one that has been discussed in numerous international sessions, but the problem is yet to be solved. Developing nations have suffered due to global injustices that amount to exploitation by the developed countries. It is not moral that some people lack basic needs due to the unequal distribution of resources around the world. Philosophers argue that global injustices can only be solved if the discussion is centered on morality. Developed countries should have the right motive whenever they are willing to financially assist developing countries. Also, to address the issue of global injustice, it is important for global leaders to embrace morality in all their discussions. This paper finds out that global justice can only be solved if morality in integrated into all dealings between countries, and this would entail ensuring that human beings are treated equally. The social and economic problems that people in developing nations are faced with, need to be addressed as a way of ensuring that morality is achieved.

References

1. Cheru, F. (2016). Developing countries and the right to development: a retrospective and prospective African view. Third World Quarterly, 37(7), 1268-1283.
2. Choudhary, A. (2018). Justice, morality, and international relations: A critical–theoretical reading. Javadpur Journal of International Relations, 22(1), 22-38.
3. Dorsey, D. (2005). Global justice and the limits of human rights. The philosophical quarterly, 55(221), 562-581.
4. Gilabert, P. (2012). From Global Poverty to Global Equality: A Philosophical Exploration. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN: 978-0199639717
5. Graness, A. (2015) Is the debate on ‘global justice’ a global one? Some considerations in view of modern philosophy in Africa. Journal of Global Ethics, 11(1), 126-140.
6. Habermas, J. (2018). The concept of human dignity and the realistic utopia of human rights. In Human Dignity (pp. 52-70). Routledge.
7. Hassoun, N. (2012). Globalization and Global Justice: Shrinking Distance, Expanding Obligations. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 978-107010307.
8. Hathaway, O. A. (2007). Why do countries commit to human rights treaties? Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51(4), 588-621.
9. Hocking, C. (2017). Occupational justice as social justice: The moral claim for inclusion. Journal of Occupational Science, 24(1), 29-42.
10. Shestack, J. J. (2017). The philosophic foundations of human rights. In Human Rights (pp. 3-36). Routledge.
11. Schick-Makaroff, K., MacDonald, M., Plummer, M., Burgess, J. & Neander, W. (2015). What synthesis methodology should I use? A review and analysis of approaches to research synthesis. AIMS Public Health, 3(1), 172-215.
12. Tan, K. (2013). The demand of global justice. Economics and Literature, 3(4), 665-679.

The Spanish Tragedy is considered the best revenge play of its time and to this day, critics are analyzing its various aspects like justice, revenge, divinity etc. The most dominant subject matter throughout the play was the idea of judiciary. In this essay, it will be examined how justice played out through the characters of The Spanish tragedy and its relation to the theme of justice and revenge. While reading several articles associated to the play, the above-mentioned topic commanded the most attention. Therefore, by keeping the drama and the actions of the characters in mind, the topic will be discussed and unraveled.

The play opens with the soul of Don Andrea awaiting justice in the Underworld but due to him being a lover and a warrior, the three judges can not decide where to place him and consequently send him to Hades and Proserpine for judgement. Hades is presented with an air of indifference towards the fate of Don Andrea and he goes along with Proserpine to let Revenge accompany the warrior to get justice. In the article, The Eschatological Crux in “The Spanish Tragedy”, the writer mentions “In contrast, the judgement scene Don Andrea’s ghost describes must make us wonder if the gods are genuinely concerned about their roles as dispensers of “divine justice”. (Aggeler, page 2).

On the other hand, the King of Spain expresses his faith in divine justice right after the previous scene after finding out about their victory over the Portingales.

“Then bless’d be heavens and guider of the heavens

From whose fair influence such justice flows”

The King vows to execute justice whenever the need arises yet when it does arise, much later in the play, the King turns a blind eye to the pleas of justice and it leads to more catastrophe. The King’s attitude in this scene resembles to the gods’ indifference towards the suffering people.

Hieronimo, the main avenger in the play, is presented as a figure of justice at the start but after discovering the body of his son, Horatio, although he acknowledges his belief in divine justice, he cries out for vengeance in any form. He is half-crazed with grief and the thought that the murder might go unpunished. He yearns for some form of personal retribution:

“To know the author were some ease of grief,

For in revenge my heart would find relief.”

He is contradictory in his feelings because on one hand, he believes the gods will grant him justice but thoughts filled with vengeance are also taking over him. However, after receiving the letters of Bel-imperia and Peringano, Hieronimo is determined to achieve justice through the King who is “appointed to rule for God.” In the court, Hieronimo’s cry is loud as he says, “Justice, O justice to Hieronimo”

This makes it evident that Hieronimo does not seek revenge but justice at the hands of the ruler. But it turns out that the King fails to grant him that and tells him that he is interrupting an affair of business. This incident can be seen as the turning point when Hieronimo realizes that there is no justice to be granted by the King and that he will have to take matters in his own hand by walking the path of revenge. Justice after all, has to come forward one way or the other. He announces,

“Stand from about me!

I’ll make a pickaxe of my poniard,

And here surrender up my marshal ship:

For I’ll go marshal up the fiends in hell,

To be avenged on you all for this.”

Thus, in deserting his post, he is deserting what he stands for- justice through lawful means. He does not assume this position lightly though and according to the article “Divine Justice and Private Revenge in “The Spanish Tragedy”, “only by seeing himself as the instrument of divine justice can he bring himself to do the deed.”

Hieronimo only wanted justice but it was the heavenly indifference and the King’s disregard that led him to seeking revenge. He does not accept the fact that the heavens are indifferent to his suffering.

When he asks Balthazar and Lorenzo to act in his play and they agree, Hieronimo says

“Why so!

Now I shall see the fall of Babylon

Wrought by the heavens in this confusion.”

The reference to Babylon is proof that he sees himself as the one chosen to carry out divine justice which is a destructive work. The things that Hieronimo does in the play-within the play are cruel and excessive, especially Castile’s murder who had no relation to Horatio’s death. It arouses pity and fear in the audience to witness a just and patient man like Hieronimo carrying out such evil acts because he had no other choice.

The play concludes with Andrea expressing his happiness and rewarding his friends. At the beginning of the play, he was the one being judged and by the ending, he is the one granting justice to the characters. It seems as if the gods have given over the responsibility of their judgement over to Don Andrea who gives rewards and doom according to his personal affections. G.K Hunter is rightful in saying that the last judgement scene “places everyone where he morally belongs.”

Although in his article The Ironies of Justice in “The Spanish Tragedy”, he argues that everything that takes place is Andrea’s allegorical dream of perfect justice and that the characters do not have free will but are mere puppets of a predetermined justice. However, I do not support this view because if all of this was already decided then was it really justice? Did Balthazar and Lorenzo deserve to get eternal punishment while Hieronimo enjoyed eternal bliss? It was their choices that led to their respective ends.

Concludingly, this play shows how a good man, Hieronimo is forced to damn himself to achieve divine justice. He was someone who imparted justice yet had no choice but to take the path of revenge due to the negligence of the gods and the King to grant him justice. They represent a weak and irresponsible judiciary whose actions led to the destruction of various lives.

References

1. The Eschatological Crux in “The Spanish Tragedy” by Geoffrey Aggeler
2. Divine Justice and Private Revenge in the Spanish Tragedy by Ernst de Chickera
3. Ironies of Justice in The Spanish Tragedy by G.K Hunter
4. Thomas Kyd’s “The Spanish Tragedy”: Inverted Vengeance by David P.Wil

Juvenile Justice is the area of criminal law applicable to persons not old enough to be held responsible for criminal acts. (Wex Legal Dictionary). It is a justice system for criminal offenders under the age of 18. In the United States youth are incarcerated at an increasingly alarming rate, according to the American Civil Liberties Union(ACLU), 60,000 kids are incarcerated in juvenile facilities in any given day. These young criminal offenders for crimes such as robbery, possession of drugs or possession of armed weapons are tried in court and sentenced to prison. They are tried in adult courts where rules apply to adults not to children and are placed in adult prisons or juvenile prisons where they undergo abuse.

The ACLU’s position in the fight for the juvenile justice system has been a long one that is not over yet. It works to challenge the way youth are criminalized and incarcerated, it seeks to create better ways to achieve rehabilitation of the youth other than putting them in prisons. The ACLU has taken a front row position in this fight by advocating for change in laws and policies concerning the youth.

ACLU has taken on the position of pursuing legislation for the youth. It works to advocate change in the age limit for incarceration of youth to adult prisons in states that still put youth under 18 years in these prisons. It further works to ensure that those taken to juvenile prisons remain in them and are not taken to adult prisons. The organization also works to push for less youth being taken to youth jails and prisons but to be put in community based programs and services that will still provide rehabilitation for the youth and also support their families. It further works to ensure the reallocation for resources from youth jails to these community based services to reduce the number of youth going to jail.

The organization also fights for the dismantling of the school to prison pipeline. This is a trend that is ongoing that mainly affects youth from underprivileged communities. Many youth are shuttled from high school and straight to youth jails and prisons. .they are victims of the zero-tolerance policy used in many schools that punish severely minor infractions. Instead of issues that can be handled in school remaining as such, students are arrested and put into the criminal system. ACLU works fervently to push for more positive and less severe school discipline approaches to reduce these phenomenon.

The ACLU also works to reallocate resources to poorly funded public schools which are responsible for increased incarceration of youth. There’s poorly funded schools are overcrowded with unqualified teachers and no support staff such as counselors. The lack of these facilities means that the educational needs of these students are not met and they are forced into a life of crime that leads to incarceration. Many youth end up joining neighborhood gangs and carry out theft or even murder in an attempt to earn some money in a poverty stricken society. Sooner rather than later they are caught and incarceration follows. This is occurs mostly for black youth who, according to ACLU statistics are incarcerated five times more than white youth. To this end, the ACLU works to end racial disparities in the juvenile system.(ACLU)

The ACLU understands that these youth are criminal offenders and should be punished for their crimes but also seek to make their rehabilitation process less severe. It works to end excess sentences and extreme punishments for youth. It also works to end sentences that comprise of life imprisonment with no parole to ensure no youth dies while incarcerated. It also seeks to put an end to solitary confinement as a punishment for youth in prison. (ACLU)

As the ACLU has been fighting for the youth it is good to see that the justice system is opening up to these changes and seeing these young offenders as children who are still growing who deserve to live beyond their incarceration. I believe that the ACLU has the right standing in this fight for the reprogramming of the juvenile justice system in America and it is a fight that can be won.

Throughout time, there have been many different controversial ideas debated throughout different writings. Today, I am discussing the ideas of justice, law and morality as they are discussed within The Tempest by William Shakespeare, Republic by Plato, and Medea by Euripides. These three ideas can all be connected with each other. Justice is not as widely discussed in Medea, but it is the main focus in The Tempest and Republic, while the other 2 ideas connect to it. With the idea of justice or injustice we are thinking about whether or not people are being treated in a just and fair way regarding their own actions. Law plays into overall justice as that will almost always make the decision to decide someone’s fate, which questions the idea of whether or not their punishment was just and fair. Morality brings into question what exactly should be considered right and wrong decisions along with good and bad behavior. These three texts all bring into question these themes of justice, law and morality which are all extremely relevant topics in our world today, and not having a clear understanding of different viewpoints throughout these ideas will risk our society being unfit to handle our own issues of injustice.

William Shakespeare’s The Tempest focuses primarily on the theme of justice, as it showed multiple examples of injustice done in multiple scenarios throughout the story with different characters. A large portion of this story focuses on how Prospero is fighting to regain justice and earn back his power after being unjustly usurped by his brother and forced to retreat to an island. His views on justice often seem hypocritical, as he seems to skew all of his views to what is most beneficial for himself. He believes that he is the highest power on the island, and his word is the law. An example of injustice being done in this story came when Prospero said, while talking to Miranda, “Both, both, my girl. By foul play, as thou sayst, were we heaved thence, But blessedly holp hither” (Shakespeare 17). This shows Prospero claiming that they were unjustly pushed out of power even though they lawfully should not have been, but they were still blessed to be pushed towards the island they are now at. This is a great example of how Prospero seemingly was being treated unfairly, at least according to him, especially as it may have been unlawful and not morally right. Prospero started the issues on the island, but later serves his own idea of what justice and law should be as he forgives those who have wronged him and freed his slaves. But this was misleading, as it makes it appear that justice is being served for everyone who was wronged, but Prospero is strictly benefiting from everything he does as he returns to his Dukedom, making it seem that justice was not served at all for Prospero considering all the morally wrongful acts he committed to others. While talking to Trinculo later in the play, Stephano states that “He that dies pays all debts” (Shakespeare 107). This means that based on your morally wrong actions you will always get what you deserve through justice, but again that did not seem to be the case for Prospero as he seemingly was not served justice whatsoever, making it appear that justice was seemingly an illusion in this story, and not served as was expected.

The idea of Justice with the relating ideas of morality and law are conveyed differently in Plato’s Republic, primarily through the view of Socrates. A great deal of this story discusses the idea of how the soul includes three elements, being rational, appetitive and spirited. Plato argues that personal justice can be achieved by maintaining a balance between the three, while specifically limiting the appetitive element and favoriting the rational element. He specifically favors this when discussing what is a just man because that focuses not on what he considers unnecessary desires but what is most beneficial for society, and helps make sensible decisions that are not based on personal desires. For any individual to be just they must almost completely limit their appetitive element to be a just and moral individual, while almost entirely thinking with their rational element. These thoughts lead into his views of a just and ideal society, where when talking about an ideal society with Adeimantus, Socrates says that “The result, then, is that more plentiful and better-quality goods are more easily produced, if each person does one thing for which he is naturally suited and does it at the opportune moment, because his time is freed from all the others” (Plato 48). Within this he argues that each different part of a society must perform and specialize in a particular function to be just, and everyone must accept their role based on their natural aptitude. Also, by saying he should be doing it when his time is freed from others is related to the idea of avoiding the appetitive element to help be a just individual. Later, Socrates continues these arguments by saying “or when one of the soldiers who is unworthy to do so tries to enter that of a judge and guardian, and these exchange their tools and honors; or when the same person tries to do all these things at once, then I imagine you will agree that these exchanges and this meddling destroy the city” (Plato 120). Glaucon agrees with this, again showing how if somebody were to attempt to contribute to society by doing a profession outside of their natural aptitude it is bound to diminish it and contribute to an unjust society. Plato dove deeper into the idea of law by discussing his views on different forms of government, and gave his opinion on the superior form. The four different forms he critiqued were a Timocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy and Tyranny. He believes that each of them are severely flawed, and each will always fail and end up transitioning to another, and emphasizes that none of these systems are fit for a just society. He does not dive into the characteristics, but he believes an Aristocracy to be a superior form of government that would result in a just society if ran correctly, but it likely would still have chaos within it which would lead to it also transition to a different form of government, and therefore resulting in an unjust society as well. Plato certainly had his own unique views of how justice should be assumed, as well as overall morality and lawful ideas pertaining to different governmental forms, as he believed that overall justice was seemingly unattainable because of our appetitive appetites, which would never allow us to have a just society.

Euripides Medea refers to the idea of justice but also takes a more focused stance on morality than the other 2 pieces discussed. Generally, justice is used for attempts to better society, but in Medea it is connected with revenge, as Medea feels like her husband’s actions towards her were unjust, so she feels justified in taking her revenge out on him, but most people would agree that the revenge she took was a severely unjust way to handle the situation, as it involved killing her own children as a means of it after her husband abandons her. She wants this not only to get revenge, but also because she believes it is what is best for her children, as she says “I’ll request my children may stay here – not that I wish to leave them in a hostile land for enemies to foully treat my children no, but so that I can kill the princess by deception. I’ll send them carrying presents for her in their hands, to take them to the bride so as not to have to leave this land: a finespun dress and plaited wreath of beaten gold. If she accepts and puts the finery next to her skin, she will die horribly, and so will anyone who ever comes in contact with the girl – such as the poisons that I’ll smear upon the gifts. But now I’ll leave that part of the story. I grieve for the deed that I must do then: that I must kill my sons” (Euripides 106). Even though her primary reason for killing her sons is for efforts of revenge towards Jason, she is now saying that if she does not do this to them the town people will do it anyway, so by killing them she is saving them from a more cruel death or other possible tragedies, giving her more reason to believe that her actions were justified. She originally believed that the words of the chorus supported her to enact her revenge in this way, but chorus later tells her not to do this revengeful act, but Medea responds by saying “There’s no alternative. It’s understandable you talk like this when you have not been made to suffer wrong like me” (Euripides 107). They then continue talking and Medea assures she is doing this because it will be the greatest revenge she can take on her husband. Euripides using Medea as an example shows us his opinion that humans are not fully capable of understanding how justice should be interpreted and used. In addition to the ideas of justice, her actions also brought into question the idea of morals, and what specifically should be considered a right or wrong decision. It seems nearly impossible trying to argue that you are making the right decision by killing your children, but if she is correct in thinking that she is saving them from a much more severe death or experience than the possibility must be considered that her actions were morally justified, even if it is not what traditional moral beliefs or law would approve of.

It appeared throughout the three texts that justice was a very prevalent idea, but morality and law were still apparent in each. In The Tempest, Shakespeare makes justice seem somewhat imaginary, because not everyone who truly deserves justice receives it. Justice was served for some, but it was not with Prospero as he was never truly punished for the detriment he caused towards others making justice seem somewhat of an illusion in the story. In Republic Plato gives his idea for how justice can be achieved on multiple fronts, but argued that it can never happen. On a personal level this is because of our appetites and unnecessary desires, and says that no person can be just without avoiding these, but not enough people can manage to. Along with that he gives his views on justice in society, again claiming that it is unattainable. According to him this is because there is only one system of government that brings true justice, being an aristocracy, but even an aristocracy can never be sustainable, so the system would never last and the society will again become unjust. Justice within Medea is much harder for humans to accept, considering how it plays into the ideas of revenge. It is most difficult to accept simply because of the fact that the revenge that Medea took considering it included murdering her own children. This makes Euripides idea of injustice especially hard to understand, because it involved something that nearly nobody in society would ever deem appropriate. Each piece clearly had their own views on justice whether it is just in society or personal as well. Morality was also considered in each piece, but it appears that the author in each wants us to determine if the characters actions were morally acceptable. In Medea I feel most people would argue that her actions were not morally okay, but in the other pieces good arguments could be made from both sides, as there is not any clear justification of the actions done in either story. Law was something that was touched on in the three different series, but not as emphasized as justice and morals were. In Republic, Plato gave his lawful opinions on the most supreme government form, saying how things should be run to create the best society. Law is not strongly emphasized in Medea, as she was never clearly punished for her actions, and in The Tempest Law is not heavily relied on, aside from Prospero’s beliefs that his word is the law of the land.

Each of these texts can both teach us ways that people may have often thought back when these were written, but also give us lessons to consider when discussing these themes in today’s society. Going off what was mentioned before, Medea would be the least likely book for us to learn something from. I, like many people would not be able to accept the idea of murdering one’s own children, and could never consider Medea’s point of view because of it. I do believe we can take valuable lessons regarding justice from both The Tempest as well as Republic, but different lessons because their thoughts are drastically different. For The Tempest, I believe it relates well to the issue we have today of whether or not people are being punished fairly, and receiving their justice. This is because in the story it nearly seems like everyone who was treated wrong was made right in the end, aside from one person mostly, being the person who caused most of the issues, which should help us realize that in any situation, primarily ones involving criminals, we need to be sure that everyone is receiving the necessary punishment. This is a big problem because of the many times today that people commit horrible offenses, but somehow are let off with an easier punishment than others for doing the same crime. Also, Republic can give us another lense to look through when discussing politics, one of the worlds most debated topics. Our system of government is not often what is debated, as that is usually done for the candidates in the system, but that can be a problem. I believe change should always be considered for such substantial topics, and our country seems to never think about whether or not democracy is the best system for us, and we never even debate modifying it, but Republic gives us an example of different government systems, with positives and negatives. Even if you may not entirely agree with another system, it would still be helpful for others to consider Plato’s ideas in order to get new ideas about ways we can at least simply improve our government, or at least discuss the possibility for the better. The three pieces I talked about today certainly all have different views on the vital ideas of justice, law and morality, and reading each will help us expand our understanding through different viewpoints to avoid having a society unfit to handle the frequent issues of injustice.