Restorative Prisons?
Downloads
Restorative Prisons?In collections
Metadata (MODS) |
|
|---|---|
| Titles | Restorative Priisions?: |
| Name | Justin Piche |
| Type of Resource | text |
| Genre | Thesis |
| Abstract | --Description taken from "Restorative Prisons?"-- In its infancy, restorative justice emerged not only as an ‘alternative’ to prison but also as a competing justice model that sought to reduce our reliance on the existing retributive ‘criminal justice’ system. It is said that restorative justice initiatives distinguish themselves from the prevailing punitive approach to ‘crime’ as they are guided by a different set of questions, objectives, values and principles that provide opportunities for restorative outcomes. In theory, these community-based ‘alternative’ programs were to divert cases away from the retributive ‘criminal justice’ system’ so that reparations between ‘offenders’, victims and affected community members could be made possible. In my study, I have identified 277 initiatives that claim to be in the business of restorative justice, many of which are either funded, administrated or receive their case loads from institutions within the existing ‘criminal justice’ system. In these cases, we must ask ourselves whether the restorative justice initiatives operating within the parameters of the ‘criminal justice’ system adhere to the objectives, values and principles outlined in the philosophy of restorative justice. To begin to address this very question, which is the central objective of this study, I examine one particular pilot project administrated by Correction Service Canada (CSC) from April 2001 to November 2005 called the Restorative Justice Unit (RJ Unit). This program, which was housed in Grande Cache Institution (GCI), was created by CSC to determine whether or not it would be feasible to transform the prison into a restorative correctional environment. In my analysis of this program, I unpack this notion and demonstrate that CSC has merely adopted the descriptors of the restorative approach to legitimate punishment and control under the guise of restorative justice and the rehabilitative rhetoric of the cognitive behavioural approach. In a story that reads more of the same, I conclude that the RJ Unit failed to adhere to the objectives, values and principles of the restorative approach due to the clear absence of political, relational and operational changes at the structural level of the organization and of the prison in which the program participants were housed. As such, I argue that CSC has and continues to be involved (with its other ‘restorative justice’ initiatives) in a process of absorption, whereby only the descriptors and practices of the restorative justice model that do not threaten the interests of the organization are incorporated into its existing framework. I contend that such a process allows CSC to maintain the dominant punitive character of its prisons by employing the language of restorative justice to deflect criticism from those who argue that the ‘criminal justice’ process, especially imprisonment, does not address the needs of ‘offenders’, victims and affected members of the community and also further contributes to the pain and marginalization experienced by these parties. |
| URL | https://search.proquest.com/pqdtglobal/docview/304920060/E5BF5A2284A24E76PQ/25?accountid=14739 |
| Form | text |
| Access Condition | Responsibility regarding questions of copyright that may arise in the use of any images is assumed by the researcher |
| Subject Hierarchical Geographic | North America--Canada------ |
| Subject Local Name | --Saskatchewan--Ottawa--study--Criminal Justice-------- |