Should the government implement restorative justice programs as an alternative to incarceration?

Yes, but only if the programs are operated by an independent agency and cannot be manipulated by any political organization.

Yes, but only if the program is independently operated and cannot be manipulated by any political group or organization and the program should include community service, Church attendance, Job and education, opportunities, and affordable counseling .

I can support a program like this, but only for certain criminal cases, and for certain people. There are some cases that are far beyond reconciliation, and there are some people who are far beyond rehabilitation is that we punish those who commit acts of criminality and cruelty, And it is important that we separate those who are career criminals, or those who beyond redemption, from those who Are more salvageable.

Restorative justice in addition to incarceration, but not in replacement of incarceration (with the exception of minor crime)

It depends on the crime. Drug possession, vandalism, etc yes. Murder, rape etc, no, that will not work with those criminals.

Ban Private prisons, number 1. Then allow restorative justice programs as an alternative to incarceration, for non violent crimes, taken on a case by case basis. A multitude of factors should be considered, if the person is a first time offender, what was actaully happening during the crime, ect.

Yes, a criminal will not learn anything if they're trapped behind bars for a majority of their sentence.

Yes, but only if the crimes are non-violent and the person is struggling or provide restorative justice programs in addition to incarceration, not as an alternative depending on the crime

If the person is caught the first time, they are offered justice programs instead of incarceration. However, if a crime is committed again, they are arrested and sent to jail.

I think it depends on the criminal and if the victims or victims family consent to it or not as well maybe

This should be the norm, but there should be exceptions. For instance, I'd be highly opposed to letting people like Diddy or Epstein or Trump or the columbine school shooters use the program. If a fair court of law finds that someone engaged in activities which severely harmed other people unjustifiably, there should be no opportunity for redemptive justice programs. In other words, we all commit acts of ordinary evil, but if someone does something which was radically evil, there should be little mercy given besides the core rights all humans are entitled to.

Depends on the crime. Non-violents offenses, traffic infractions, petty theft, yes but sex crimes, robbery, more of those crimes, you must serve a sentence.

The Government should both implement restorative justice programs as an alternative (just rehabilitation programs) and after incarceration (Incarceration THEN rehabilitation).

Yes, and people or criminals with disabilities should do their time at home because of discrimination

I don't believe that they should be an alternative, they should be implemented alongside jail time. And only offered if and only if their crime is non violent.

Yes, but only if the crimes are non-violent and the restorative justice programs is in addition to incarceration, not an alternative

Restorative justice programs should be implemented to some individuals, but not all. And even then they should not be used as an alternative to incarceration.

Yes, but only with consent of the victim\victim's family, and for people with no record of repeated violent offenses.

Provide them along with incarceration, however it depends on the circumstances, context, and nature of the crime.

yes it would be a better alternative but only for those who show an ability for the restorative programs and not those with extremely violent crimes

Yes, but only if the crimes are non-violent and in the case where it will be likely to prevent individual recidivism or for first-time offenders

Yes, but only in the case of nonviolent crimes and psychological screenings that show offenders considered for such programs would benefit in a way that increases their perceived societal worth

Nonviolent criminals should be either sent to restorative programs or monitored closely after good behavior with community service. Incarceration should also be still implemented for the hopeless.

This could be a good option, but it's tricky. It would be good as an alternative to non-violent/severe crimes, but it would be better to use alongside incarceration for violent/severe crimes instead of as a replacement.

It should be an alternative for non-violent crimes but an additional program for violent criminals who are incarcerated.

Yes, but if the crime is violent, provide restorative justice programs in addition to incarceration, not as an alternative

No, for the sake of law and order, low taxes, low national debt, freedom, capitalism, weak government, checks and balances, and federalism.

Depends on the criminal history towards criminal did as their first time doing something terrible but with some execptions like the crime is very serious like murder, terrorism or is the second time they commit it and that would be eligible for punishment like life in prison or death

Yes, but for non-violent criminals such as vandals, but not to any crime that harms any other individual or infringes on property such as carjacking.

Well, obviously I would not say we should have restorative justice for something like murder, rape, or insurrection, but I think it would be important for non-violent crimes, yes.

Yes, and abolish the prison system completely and replace it with an entire rehabilitation-based system.

No, we need to preserve law and order! That is like asking "Should a pedophile who molested a child be let loose because he/she is attracted to little kids?" Heck no!!! That is so unfair towards the age gap, the age of consent, and the poor little kid who had to endure the molestation! We need to protect everyone and continue law and order!

However, I do believe for the sake of freedom, federalism, weak government, checks and balances, and the constitution, rights to attorneys and fair trials should still be valid.

Also, this would hurt the economy such as resulting in a higher unemployment rate, paycuts, higher taxes, and a higher national debt.

Yes, restorative justice programs can be an effective alternative to incarceration, according to research. Restorative justice programs can:
Reduce recidivism
Offenders who participate in restorative justice programs are less likely to re-offend.
Improve victim satisfaction
Restorative justice programs can increase victim satisfaction and faith in the justice system.
Create safer communities
Restorative justice programs can help create safer communities.
Empower victims
Restorative justice programs can provide victims with a voice and a more empowering experience.
Repair harm
Res…  Read moretorative justice practices focus on repairing the harm that has been done, rather than simply punishing someone.
Restorative justice practices include:
Victim-offender conferencing
Family group conferencing
Arbitration/mediation programs
Circle sentencing programs
Peacemaking circles
Family conferencing
Restorative justice programs can be most effective when combined with offender rehabilitation programming.
However, restorative justice programs can face challenges, such as:
The risk of replicating existing biases
The risk of exacerbating differences in outcomes for people

Yes, but only if the crimes are non-violent, their perpetrator is non-recidivist, and is paired with a jobs program.

Should french president revolution in based for program and non violent additional issued by Wales minister gives not allowed cover body's areas courts

No, but increase aid on those who are prone to committing crimes, like mental health issues or poverty

Yes, if the crimes are non-violent. If the crimes are violent, provide restorative justice programs in addition to incarceration, not as an alternative.

Yes, but only if the crimes are non-violent with the exception of crimes that have victims who are under 18 or animals.

Test with non-violent crimes and do more research. If it's successful, then we can slowly expand it as an alternative.

Yes but depends on the severity of the crime. White collar crime often goes unpunished in loophole programs such as these.

I believe in a mixed approach between punishment and rehabilitation as it's case by case depending on the crime

Have restorative justice programs as another option, if they believe that this certain person can be redeemed

Both yes and no. Yes if it is safe to do so, but also provide restorative justice to all incarcerated. Not just either,or.

Yes, but only if they are operated by an independent agency and cannot be manipulated by any political group.

Yes, but only if the crimes are non-violent, no other peoples were financially harmed by the offense, and the offender was not acting in the capacity as a public official

If the criminal agrees to join a restorative justice program, they should get less jail time, but only if the crime was non-violent.

Depends entirely on the crime committed, if there is to be rehabilitation programs for criminals it should be done along side prison time.

Probably not. I don’t know much about this, but people who commit crimes that deserve to be in Jail should be and not just given an out.

Yes, but only if the crimes are non-violent, while restorative justice programs should be provided in addition to incarceration for violent crimes

I think that yes, this is a good idea, but also, no, not for everyone. It should be based individual and specific people and their crimes.

any crime on a non federal leavle should be eligible for rehabilitation, although i believe change need to be made to what is considered a "federal Crime.

No, judges already have the ability to sentence criminals to restorative justice programs or incarceration.

No - in most cases committing a crime is an impulse control issue. The focus should be research on how to identify why some are unable to control impulses and look for a manner to treat that.

No, the government should expand incarceration, especially in terms of recidivism. Furthermore, government should expand the death penalty to aid in deterring crime. The more people fear punishment, the less apt they are to commit crime.

Yes, non-violent crimes should be able to be paid off by doing public service and learning skills useful to the community and equal to the payment set by court.

Yes, but It depends on the situation. If there is good intent and for the purpose of protecting others yes. People shouldn't get away with doing wrong but some things are doing the wrong thing for the right reason.

Yes but only with continued supported supervision and ongoing regulations that ensure the offender is making efforts to correct and change behaviors that would lend to reoffending behavior.

Yes, in the vast majority of cases. Plus, rehab programs, community service programs, job after probation programs, skills and education programs, and record wiping on non-violent crimes with time served and success in restorative programs.

Possibly if it works as I believe in a mixed approach that goes case by case, person by person, situation by situation. Not too heavy on punishment but not too heavy on rehabilitation

Yes! Our current carceral system has extremely high recidivism rates because it focuses more on punishing criminals than prevention and rehabilitation.

Yes, but only if it is operated as an independent program and cannot be manipulated by any political group and the program should include church attendance, community service and vocational opportunities.

Yes, but the crime committed should be taken into account when deciding who deserves to be in such a program.

No, implement rehabilitation for crimnals and release based on phycological and moral rehabilitation.

Yes but not for violent crimes, human trafficking, rape or drug dealers. Maximum sentences for these crimes without parole

In some cases for things such as small crime people can be reformed. Unfortunately people are sometimes sick and are better being kept away from society as a whole

Depends on the people, or the severity. If it's very low risk, sure implement restorative justice programs, if its more medium or high risk or higher severity, I would not implement them.

Yes, and make reoffenders ineligible for programs after failing the program(s), and allow victims options on how to be approached by offender

Yes, but it should depend on the severity of the case. For example, if someone murders another human, maybe don’t put them back into the community right away.

Yes, but only if it is a minor offense. If someone is in jail for murder or something more serious like that they should have to serve time for their actions and not be allowed to just talk about it.

This should be dependant of the crime. For example felons should not be allowed in these programs, but lesser sentences in for non violent crimes should be allowed.

Humans are too random to do so but also random enough to put a policy in place. So yes and set very high restrictions

It depends on what the crime that person was charged with, some people should have the chance while others should not.

Yes, if determined by the presiding official that incarceration is detrimental to society or the individual.

YES. But it may not be suitable for all crimes, or criminals, and could be perceived as too lenient, and may not adequately deter future criminal behavior.

Yes, but only for those who show serious remorse and regret that haven’t commited violent-sex crimes

Yes, but only for those who are not a threat to public safety and subsequently for those who commit misdemeanors with higher chances of reoffending.

People need to have consequences when it is a harsh crime. But I also believe that prisons are not reformatory at all. We have a LOT of work to do there. I once watched a program where this prison had a program that put incarcerated people through deep sea training to work on oil rigs and other situations where deep sea divers were needed to fix equipment. Once through the program, they were released to work. They made really good money and I cannot remember the stats however hardly any of them went on to commit crimes again. Only one person maybe and it was drug-related. So in addition to the work programs, they should receive emotional support.

Yes, on a case by case basis and only if the family and community are willing and open to having that conversation.

The question incredibly vague blurring any difference between a kid getting into fights or a child rapist or killer.