According to the Restorative Justice model, there should be an encounter between victim and offender, where the victim is given a chance to tell the offender what damage was done, and the offender is given a chance to tell the victim why he or she did what they did and how it affected them. There should be an effort on the part of the offender to provide restitution to the victim, or, if that is not a possibility, the victim is to be involved in the sentencing of the offender.

Under the current system, criminals are punished based on their perceived threat to society, not necessarily based on the harm they did to their victim. Whatever their reasons for committing the crime doesn’t change the damage that was done to the victim. In the case of theft, they can return the stuff they stole or reimburse the victim a value based on the cost of replacement, and not the fair market value.* In other cases, there may be therapy, medical expenses, etc. The burden should fall to the criminal, not the victim.

Sentencing should be left to the jury and judge, though the victims could be allowed to testify. The actual sentencing should be done by a unbiased jury and judge. Restitution can be determined based on estimates of value/replacement/repair, bills incurred, etc.

In some cases, restitution may even serve as a better deterrent than actual jail time. And, you’ll avoid stuff like people learning to be better at committing crimes by learning from professionals they encounter while in prison. For a young offender, a bill he or she has to pay off may make more of an impact than 30 days in jail. Too often, just sticking people in jail is considered sufficient. Thirty days for this, sixty days for that, a year for this. Heck, sometimes we even have non-violent offenders spending more time than violent criminals!

*In some cases, the “fair market value” of an item may not be sufficient to replace the item. This is especially important for business or any work-related equipment, automobiles or machinery. For example, an old machine may no longer be available. It’s “fair market value” may be $500, but the cost of a new machine may be $5000. Unless the victim is fortunate enough to find an available used machine for sale at $500, he’s going to need $5000 to replace it. Thus, the criminal needs to pay him $5000 rather than the “fair market value” of the equipment.

Basically, proponents of Restorative Justice feel that the victim should have more of a participatory function in our criminal justice system. According to the Restorative Justice model, there should be an encounter between victim and offender, where the victim is given a chance to tell the offender what damage was done, and the offender is given a chance to tell the victim why he or she did what they did and how it affected them. There should be an effort on the part of the offender to provide restitution to the victim, or, if that is not a possibility, the victim is to be involved in the sentencing of the offender.

It’s an interesting theory, but I think proponents of it will need to work out some kinks relating to human nature.