|
|---|
HISTORY OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE The roots of restorative justice extend back prior to the time of Christ when crimes were viewed as injurious to individuals rather than as an offense against a state. The Wikipedia Encyclopedia shares many of these examples. In 2060 B.C., the Code of Ur-Nammu in Sumeria required restitution for any offences of violence. In 1700 B.C., the better known Code of Hammurabi of Babylon prescribed restitution as a sanction for each property offense. It was not till the 11th century when states started to view crimes as assaults on themselves rather than an offense against a person. Some restorative justice historians refer to the Norman invasion of Britain as this turning point. After the invasion, William the Conqueror’s son, Henry I, developed laws detailing specific offenses against the king. Although countries and governments continued to appear and disappear, the roots of restorative justice remained firmly planted. There were many inspiring examples of restorative justice throughout early civilization and many were independent of western culture. Early indigenous people in the New World countries as North America and New Zealand developed concepts of “community justice.” The Native Americans in North America used Native American sentencing circles while the Maori’s of New Zealand used “Maori Justice.” These indigenous examples helped frame restorative justice programs as community- orientated rather towards focusing on the individual. Restorative Justice’s modern development can be linked partially to Canada and the country of New Zealand. Victim Offender mediation programs first began in Canada during the mid-1970s. New Zealand was the first country to integrate many restorative justice programs into their court system. (Cavanagh, T., (1998)) In the past 20 years, restorative justice has become an influential movement in many countries including America. In Restorative Justice: An Overview (1998), Tony Marshall described some of the reasons why. He stated, “These principles have been developed over time, as commentators have thought them through further, and as other innovative practices have been taken into account. However, their basic justification is still grounded in practical experiences. Innovation in our current criminal justice system has mainly been in response to frustrations that many practitioners have felt with the limitations, as they perceived them, of traditional approaches. In the course of their normal work these practitioners started to experiment with new ways to deal with crimes. Practice developed through experience of “what worked” in terms of impact on offenders, satisfaction of victims, and public acceptability. In particular, it was realized that the needs of victims, offenders and the community generally were not independent, and that justice agencies had to engage actively with all three in order to make any impact.” |
|---|