Restorative Justice System

In the proceeding process of the justice system, suspects rarely have the opportunity to tell their side of the story. The proceeding process focuses on establishing evidence of crimes and making a ruling. However, the evidence presented may be inaccurate, leading to the sentencing of innocent people or walk-away of criminals. Through the restorative justice system, both the accused and the offended have the opportunity to tell their side of the story, in an open discussion (“Justice and Reconciliation”, 2019). That way, it is possible to establish falsehood or truths that may change the perception of the case.

Notably, such as process is the basis for eliminating sentencing of innocent people and allowing criminals to walk away. Both are unethical as they challenge the civil rights, and favour criminal motives. It is against the spirit of the justice system to repair, encounter, and transform wrongdoers. Besides, interacting with both offender and the accused leads to a consensus agreement for all parties, about the case conclusion and appropriate actions after that. Therefore, the restorative justice system is a favourable flame for making ethical decisions.

The restorative justice system may apply to the Drug Court. Particularly, cases involving drug addicts or criminals under the influence of substances. Records reveal that the restorative justice system has scored a reduction of drug crimes, helped drug addicts reform, as well as restored families (Fulkerson, 2009). Persons under substance abuse are tensed and biased or emotional, which reduce the chance for a rational description of their side of the story during the proceeding. However, a restorative justice system makes everyone at ease and opens room for open discussion concerning the case. Hence, the accused are impacted to transform and make positive impacts on society.


“Justice and Reconciliation”. (2019). Encounter. Retrieved 14 December 2019, from

Fulkerson, A. (2009). The drug treatment court as a form of restorative justice. Contemporary Justice Review12(3), 253-267. doi: 10.1080/10282580903105772