Beyond Punishment: Why Restorative Justice Outperforms Prisons

Media by Alexandra Hanesworth | The Brown Daily Herald

On February 23rd, 1993, 14-year-old Greg Ousley entered his parents’ bedroom in Warsaw, Indiana. For a long time, Greg had struggled to cope with internal, violent thoughts. His childhood was marked by turmoil and discord, and the teenager felt acutely unheard and misunderstood. In the bedroom, Greg pointed a 12-gauge shotgun at his father’s head and pulled the trigger. Then, he pointed the weapon at his mother, rushing to the phone, and shot twice. In the end, the teen was tried in the adult justice system and sentenced to 60 years for the murder of his parents.

The decision was not uncontroversial: some saw the punishment as too harsh, given Greg’s age and capacity for future rehabilitation. Ultimately, Greg’s case reminds us of the challenges legal systems worldwide face in balancing accountability and rehabilitation for juvenile offenders. In the United States, the question of criminal justice reform has taken center stage in recent years, as illustrated by the passing of the First Step Act in 2018, a bill designed to promote rehabilitation, lower recidivism, and reduce excessive sentences in the federal prison system. Some activists call for more extreme measures, however, including the abolition of the prison system altogether. This essay investigates the pros and cons of that proposal and analyzes the two primary approaches to justice more broadly: restorative and retributive justice.

Restorative justice, originating from indigenous practices and gaining prominence in the 1970s, focuses on repairing harm and restoring relationships rather than punishment. In contrast, the older penal system, rooted in traditional Western legal frameworks, prioritizes punishment as a means of deterrence and retribution. These divergent approaches reflect differing philosophies on justice and rehabilitation. The emergence of restorative justice marked a significant departure from the entrenched old model, offering a compelling alternative that prioritizes healing and reconciliation over punitive measures. Overall, the following analysis reveals that restorative justice offers a more effective and humane approach to addressing crime, as it reduces recidivism rates, fosters greater accountability, and upholds the rights and dignity of both victims and offenders. The principles of restorative justice encompass movements advocating for prison abolition as they envision a society where healing, rehabilitation, and community support replace punitive incarceration.

Practical Considerations

If prisons were abolished, society at large would benefit due to a reduction in rates of recidivism and broader cost savings. When offenders are instead arrested for hurting society and victims, the long-term costs end up being higher. This is because jailing offenders ignores the importance of educating them to contribute to society after prison. In other words, the current retributive justice system directly facilitates recidivism — the tendency for criminals to commit crimes again after being released — by merely regulating criminals rather than providing an environment for them to actively realize their faults and to reshape their own moral values.

For example, drug offenders are a group that typically experiences high rates of recidivism. According to the United States Sentence Commission, crack cocaine traffickers were rearrested at the highest rate (57.8%), while the rearrest rates for other primary drug traffickers ranged from 42.7% to 46.7%. This is not surprising considering the prison environment, where criminals are gathered together with little preparation for the outside world. It is akin to putting a student who wants to study hard into the worst class in school. Ultimately, prisons are schools of crime where offenders learn new skills for the illegitimate labour market and become more deeply enmeshed in criminal sub-cultures. Moreover, prison can be an embittering experience that leaves offenders angrier at the world than when they entered.

Restorative justice reduces recidivism by truly teaching the criminals and correcting their moral values. The main part of restorative justice is to get rid of the strict and hateful rules, where emotion plays an important role, and humans as emotional animals are very likely to be affected by the restoration process, thus realizing the essence of crimes and morality. Specifically, by involving victims in the process, restorative justice helps offenders understand the impact of their sins. When offenders see the consequences of their actions, they may be more motivated to change their behavior. Moreover, the process of restoration could effectively reduce the stigma between the offenders and society by focusing on repairing harm and reintegrating offenders into the community. That means offenders are more likely to rebuild their lives and become productive members of society without returning to criminal activities. As a result, the recidivism rate after restoration is much lower than the retributive system — a 9% difference, proving how effective restorative justice is.

In addition to reducing rates of recidivism, the abolition of prison would save the U.S. government a significant amount of money. This includes costs for prisoners and facilities as well as for families, children, and community members who have committed no crime. Even if one were to exclude the cost of jails, the aggregate burden of incarceration would still exceed $500 billion annually. Specifically, the reduction in lifetime earnings of incarcerated persons exceeded $230 billion per year, as when people are removed from the workforce, their education, training, and career advancement opportunities dwindle. Without the prison system, the government could save the huge amount of tax on building other facilities that benefit its people.

Restorative justice practices will not be free, of course, due to expenses for facilitators to arrange meetings, coordinate dialogue sessions, and follow up with participants. That is on top of an initial cost for training, infrastructure, and policy reforms. From the long-term perspective, however, such a system holds the promise of significant cost savings due to the benefits of preventing recidivism and fostering community well-being. Therefore, transformative justice approaches have the potential to reduce the societal costs associated with incarceration, including lost productivity, healthcare expenses, and the intergenerational impacts of mass incarceration. One study concludes, for instance, that there is an 8 to 1 cost-benefit ratio with restorative justice programs: for every £1 spent on restorative justice conferencing, the criminal justice system will save £8 from reduced costs of reconviction.

Moral Considerations

Restorative justice including prison abolition would not only be pragmatic, but it would also be a more moral system since it promises greater accountability regarding accessibility, justice, and most importantly, the rights of both the victim and the offender. Specifically, maximalist restorative justice approaches aim to bring affected parties together and collectively identify and address harms, needs, and obligations. That ensures a more comprehensive healing process that is very likely to result in a higher chance of successful offender rehabilitation into society.

In a recent case, a man named Harry committed a burglary but later took accountability for his actions, expressed remorse, and acknowledged his difficulties through a restorative process in a meeting with homeowners Lily and Michael. The humanizing interaction hugely supported his rehabilitation, which shows the potential of restorative justice to promote true accountability and successful rehabilitation. This contrasts with the shortcomings of the retributive justice system, as evidenced in cases like that of the story of Pablo Escobar. Escobar, a notorious Colombian drug lord deeply involved in drug trafficking, corruption, and violence, faced multiple attempts by law enforcement to prosecute him. Despite numerous efforts, Escobar managed to evade capture for many years and continued his criminal activities with impunity. Even when he was eventually apprehended, his prosecution and trial were riddled with challenges, including corruption, witness intimidation, and legal maneuvering, reflecting a broader failure of retributive justice systems to effectively hold powerful and well-connected individuals accountable for their actions.

While some proponents may argue that certain aspects of restorative justice could potentially mitigate the status/power imbalance resulting from transgressions, it’s important to recognize that retributive justice often more directly addresses this imbalance. Moreover, restorative justice excels in fostering a shared values consensus and promoting deeper introspection among offenders, thereby facilitating a long-term commitment to recognizing and upholding moral and legal standards. This approach ultimately ensures a more robust framework for accountability.

Ultimately, retributive punishments always result in a negative relationship between the victim and the offender, harming society as a whole. Restorative justice, by contrast, promises an opportunity for criminals to rejoin society and also has been shown to enhance victim satisfaction by means of emotional restoration. 79% of the victims reported feeling satisfied with restorative programs, emphasizing the importance of self-participation in the process, compared to only 57% who felt satisfied with retributive justice programs. The high level of satisfaction seems to be a result of victims’ greater level of engagement in the process and the fact that victims are shown to place less importance on material restoration than on the “emotional restoration” possible through restorative justice. Therefore, restorative justice is a more moral system as it reduces recidivism while simultaneously allowing the victim the opportunity to “recover” from losses suffered.

Conclusion

The overhaul of the prison and penal system represents a departure from longstanding traditions, necessitated by the rapid evolution of our society. This shift requires comprehensive re-education and a fundamental reevaluation of our approach to justice. As it advances, restorative justice could increase community safety, reduce actual and societal costs of crime, and improve victim satisfaction rates. Offenders are likely to perceive restorative justice approaches as a chance for redemption and rehabilitation. Rather than being isolated and stigmatized in prison, they have the opportunity to take responsibility for their actions, make amends to those they’ve harmed, and positively reintegrate into society. From a broader perspective, everyone benefits from restorative justice due to long-term cost savings and greater communal cohesion.

Implementing restorative practices in the prison system would lead to a reduction in recidivism rates, resulting in a more cost-effective approach to crime prevention. Moreover, it would ensure the protection of basic human rights for offenders while providing emotional restitution for victims. It’s time to reimagine our approach to criminal justice in this fast-changing world as rehabilitation is a more pragmatically effective and moral solution compared with retributive punishment. We should invest in programs that promote redemption and reintegration and build a system that upholds fairness, equity, and humanity for all.

In the tragic case of Greg Ousley, who fatally shot his parents in Warsaw, Indiana, it’s crucial to consider his age and circumstances before deciding on punishment. Greg’s troubled upbringing, marked by inner turmoil and a lack of support, likely influenced his actions. Sentencing him to 60 years in prison not only robs him of a chance for rehabilitation but also imposes a heavy burden on society. At his age, Greg could benefit more from interventions focused on addressing his underlying issues and providing support. Overall, redirecting resources towards rehabilitation and restorative justice offers him and other offenders a path to redemption while sparing society the heavy costs associated with harsh punishment.

Bibliography

Anderson, Scott. “Greg Ousley Is Sorry for Killing His Parents. Is That Enough?” The New York Times, 19 July 2012, www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/magazine/greg-ousley-is-sorry-for-killing-his-parents-is-that-enough.html.

“Crime Prevention & Criminal Justice Module 8 Key Issues: 3. How Cost Effective Is Restorative Justice?” Www.unodc.org, Apr. 2019, www.unodc.org/e4j/en/crime-prevention-criminal-justice/module-8/key-issues/3--how-cost-effective-is-restorative-justice.html. Accessed 6 May 2024.

Komar, A. N. P. A. L. (2023, August 22). The First Step Act: Ending Mass Incarceration in Federal Prisons. The Sentencing Project. https://www.sentencingproject.org/policy-brief/the-first-step-act-ending-mass-incarceration-in-federal-prisons/

Mclaughlin, Michael, et al. The Economic Burden of Incarceration in the United States. 2016, ijrd.csw.fsu.edu/sites/g/files/upcbnu1766/files/media/images/publication_pdfs/Economic_Burden_of_Incarceration_IJRD072016_0_0.pdf.

Nascimento, Ana M., et al. “The Psychological Impact of Restorative Justice Practices on Victims of Crimes — a Systematic Review.” Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, vol. 24, no. 3, Apr. 2022, p. 152483802210820, https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380221082085.

Nellis, Ashley, and Liz Komar. “The First Step Act: Ending Mass Incarceration in Federal Prisons.” The Sentencing Project, 22 Aug. 2023, www.sentencingproject.org/policy-brief/the-first-step-act-ending-mass-incarceration-in-federal-prisons/. Accessed 30 Apr. 2024.

O’mahony, David, and Jonathan Doak. Reimagining Restorative Justice. Hart Publishing, An Imprint Of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc ; Portland, Or, 2017.

Pobutsky, Aldona Bialowas. “Peddling Pablo: Escobar’s Cultural Renaissance.” Hispania, vol. 96, no. 4, 2013, pp. 684–99. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23608519. Accessed 4 May 2024.

“Recidivism of Federal Drug Trafficking Offenders Released in 2010.” United States Sentencing Commission, 4 Jan. 2022, www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/recidivism-federal-drug-trafficking-offenders-released-2010#:~:text=Crack%20cocaine%20trafficking%20offenders%20were.

Restorative solutions. “A Creeper Burglary: Restorative Justice Case Study — Restorativesolutions.” Www.restorativesolutions.org.uk, www.restorativesolutions.org.uk/why-we-do-it/case-studies/creeper-burglarly-case-study. Accessed 24 Apr. 2024.

Umbreit, Mark S. 1998. “Restorative Justice Through Victim-Offender Mediation: A Multi-Site Assessment.” Western Criminology Review 1(1). [Online]. Available: http://www.westerncriminology.org/documents/WCR/v01n1/Umbreit/umbreit.html