The Importance Of Family Group Conferencing

Statistics as drastic as the above can only lead to the conclusion that Aboriginal people receive unequal justice in comparison to the majority population. The Aboriginal Justice Strategy (AJS) group was created specifically in response to the disproportionate number of Aboriginal persons involved in the criminal justice system, both as offenders and victims (Bennet, 2012). In their evaluation of the justice system, they found that “there remains a need for culturally relevant alternatives to the mainstream justice system” that are able to address the needs of Aboriginal populations (Bennet, 2012, p.1). Therefore, the pursuit of justice for Aboriginal populations must be culture based to not only administer uniform justice going forward, but also to address past wrongs.

These agreements, as negotiated with each state, vary but address the police framework in relation to these criminal justice problems. For example, the Queensland agreement involves reducing the rate in which indigenous come into contact with the criminal justice system to level with the non-indigenous rate (Cunneen 2007). By achieving this they have set out specific goals, which address early intervention and diversionary strategies with the risk factors involving indigenous youth coming into contact with the justice system. Also addressing the policies, procedures and practices within the justice system that are suitable for indigenous communities and increasing participation of these communities by development of their own resolutions (Cunneen

During the 1990s, the emphasis and development of restorative justice perhaps reached its summit when both the federal government and the RCMP outwardly problematized conventional justice on the one hand, while they “championed” restorative justice on the other. Victims have generally expressed their satisfaction after participating in restorative justice programs. Moreover, while conventional justice has been plagued by significant reoffending rates, many scholars have found that restorative programs demonstrate success in this regard. Thus, we essentially have a failed experiment by Canada's leading and national police force on the one hand, but widespread academic support for restorative justice both in Canada and internationally on the

Its most commonly known definition was provided by Marshall in 1996, that describes restorative justice as a process where both parties; victims and offenders, work together to restore, resolve and deal with the after effects of the offence and future ramifications (as cited in Van Camp & Wemmers, 2013). The concept of restorative justice originally derived from various indigenous and pre-industrial western justice practices, however, in the 1970's it begun to appear in modern times and was then developed as a reference to describe victim-offender programs that were developed in North America (Strang, 2001). Restorative Justice approaches spread across the world in the 1990's, where many countries such as Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom, began introducing these approaches as alternatives in their criminal justice systems (Braithwaite, 1999). The concept of restorative justice usually involves victim and offender direct participation and is conducted in the form of conferences or mediation. This is where both parties; the victims and offenders, come together fact-to-face in one location, alongside a facilitator, police and support people, and work out together the consequences of the offenders actions and the

While talking things out family and community members will explain to the offender how they have violated tradition and failed to fulfill the expectation of their role as a family or community member and how it has impacted them. Brown’s description of the peacemaking process is similar to Pinto’s which is illustrated via a table comparing three model’s of dispute resolution. The table clearly shows the importance of Navajo tradition in peacemaking and how it is reflected in each step of the process via a healing ceremony and focusing on restoring harmony to the community.[8] Pinto also includes three pages detailing the seven steps and components of the peacemaking process. The outline format makes the process easy to understand and reinforces many points brought up by the other two authors. Meyer describes the peacemaking process in terms similar to Brown and Pintos, but compares the Navajo process to other tribal resolution methods. Using the Ojibwe example of cleansing the spirits of offenders and victims of

Fagliano, S. (2008, May 19). How Victim-Offender Mediation Impacts Juvenile Offenders. Retrieved from Stanford.edu: http://web.stanford.edu/dept/URBS/programs/documents/faglianothesis.pdf

A family partnership meeting (FPM) is a “deliberate and structured approach to involving youth and families in decision-making through a facilitated meeting of family, their identified supports and professionals working with the family” (Family Partnership Meetings, 2013). Virginia Department of Social Services uses FPM to engage families in the decision-making process when a child is at risk of coming into foster care, foster home placement disruption, and permanency planning (Family Partnership Meetings, 2013). With that said, foster parents are considered as professional members of the multidisciplinary team, working together to meet the needs of foster children (Child Welfare League of America, 2008). This

Like the media, the criminal justice system and organisations in and around the criminal justice system play a major contribution in the construction of an ‘ideal victim’. As stated by ‘….Rock (2006), Institutional practices shape the public representations and private understandings of victims of crime’. For instance, in Australia there are many organisations that help victims and their families of serious crimes. Although on the other hand, there are limited or no services available to victims of minor crimes.

When looking at the current criminal justice system in Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, it is clear that it has failed in the treatment of aboriginal people. This problem has strengthened the idea of restorative justice as a replacement of the traditional system. When looking at implementing circles into that realm of restorative justice, there needs to be an agreement that their practices are diverse, and therefore not to force the issue. Many traditional practices are very spiritually based, and it needs to be evident that

As the father of modern family studies, Whittaker, J. K. and J. Garbarino. (1983) observed, 'We know too much about the family to be able to study it both objectively and easily 'Some family needs could be considered as being met through a combination of expressive and instrumental functions, such as child care, and health-related supports. This applies on both Case Studies.

Family Group Conferencing is a meeting between family members, the victims and other people like a social worker or an advocate are gathered together to talk about how to take care of their child and also discuss the best way of supporting their family. The people closely work together in order to help find the victims the best decision for their problem. This consists of four stages, which are

This “coming together” may be one single event or may occur through a series of meetings, depending on the case. The mediator is trained with skills to prepare people for the process, and is there to ensure it progresses in a safe and civilized manner. The goals of the meetings are ensuring the satisfaction and well-being of the victim, with attention to his/her emotional needs, resolution of any lingering conflict between the victim and offender, and giving the offender a chance to absolve their feelings of guilt through apology and reparation. Looking toward the future, other steps taken at the proceeding are taking on offenders reasons for the crime, making a rehab plan, and the families agreement on a system of support to ensure the offender will adhere to the plan.

During this type of healing circle, the offence will be discussed as well as how it affected the victim and the community and the relationship between them and the offender (Justice Education Society, 2016). Not only does the circle attempt to heal community ties, the circle also focuses on the offender and the fundamental causes of their offence (Justice Education Society, 2016). Following a healing circle that is directed towards offenders and victims, a consensus is taken to decide the subsequent steps that should be taken by the offender to correct the harms caused by their actions (Justice Education Society, 2016). These steps could include specialized counseling or treatment programs, community work service, potlatch or other traditional remedies, direct restitution to the victim or community and in some cases, unique and creative solutions emerge (Justice Education Society, 2016).

Restorative justice has some key restorative values that are vital in the restorative justice conference to make the experience ‘restorative’. Concerning addressing victim needs and concerns means for listening, respecting, being non-judgmental, not blaming the victim and apologizing. The RJ system was bought as an alternative to the criminal justice system to give greater emphasis on victim rights and needs, offender accountability and community involvement. Throughout the essay, there will be an insight into how Restorative Justice addresses needs of victims in terms of the different proponents such as Information provided to victim, restitution/compensation, emotional and practical needs met, participation and involvement of victim and protection of victim, which (Wemmers and Marisa, 2002) as essentials to victims participating in the practice. The two countries that will be addressed will have had restorative justice built out of injustices and over-representation of the current criminal justice system to the indigenous peoples of those countries.

Victims of crime, particularly those violent in nature, have their rights violated and experience exceedingly high level of trauma and stress (Appendix B, 2015). It is surprising then, that Criminal Justice Systems (CJS) around the world forgo many victims’ rights and provided limited space for them to interact with the system (Sarre, 1999). Rather systems are built around balancing the rights of offenders against the greater safety and need of the community whilst neglecting individual justice needs of the victims (Sarre, 1999). With limited rights and minimal involvement a victim often becomes a disposable utensil to the CJS (Clark, 2010). They are used by the courts to determine the ultimate truth so justice may be served, with no care for the damage that may be caused in the process and then disposed of the case is concluded (Braun, 2014). In 2011-2012 a victimisation survey revealed that 1.2 million Australians were victims of personal crimes, such as assault, robbery and sexual assault (Australian Institution of Criminology, 2013). Of these victims, only half of the crimes were reported to the police (Australian Institution of Criminology, 2013). Such low reporting rates have been contributed in part to this notion of imbalance offender VS victims’ rights (Braun, 2014). Due to the sensitive nature of sexual crimes, the limited available evidence and victim rights, these crimes tend to carry the lowest reporting rates (Braun, 2014). During the latest Australian