Answer:
Explanation:
Pros:
Repair: Rather than simply dealing with crime in a clinical way, restorative justice acknowledges that it causes real harm to real people and real communities, helping everyone involved better understand a holistic view of the effects of crime.
Encounter: By bringing the victim and offender together in a safe way, the offender is given the chance to make amends rather than only deal with the legal consequences of their actions.
Transformation: The restorative process is designed to help bring about transformation in both parties. Some studies have indicated that restorative justice methods are more effective in improving victim-offender satisfaction, increasing the likelihood that the offender will comply with consequences or restitution, and decreasing the chance that offenders will reoffend in the future.
Cons:
In the case of a violent crime in which the victim and offender knew each other before the incident took place, the victim may want no further contact with the offender. In cases in which violence became a pattern, such as in a domestic abuse situation, attempts at preserving a toxic victim-offender relationship may be much more dangerous than potentially helpful.
Restorative justice also assumes that the offender is remorseful and willing to make amends, which may not always be true. In the case of in-person meetings, even if they’re monitored, there’s always the possibility that communications will deteriorate and cause the victim additional emotional or mental trauma.
On the other hand, even if the offender is remorseful, there’s no guarantee that the victim will be open to receiving an apology. Things may take a very different turn, and the victim or victims may interrogate the offender in a way that doesn’t turn out to be beneficial.
In instances of minor crimes, sometimes attempts at restorative justice may lead to a criminal receiving a lighter sentence or avoiding a criminal record altogether. Whether or not this is just can vary on a case-to-case basis.
Answer:
For long it has been the received opinion that judges filled in the gaps left by rules by using their discretion. Positivistic jurisprudence from Austin to Hart placed strong emphasis on the part played by judges in the exercise of their discretion. "In these cases it is clear", Hart has said, "that the rule-making authority must exercise discretion, and there is no possibility of treating the question raised by the various cases as if there were one uniquely correct answer to be found, as distinct from an answer which is a reasonable compromise between many conflicting interests". A competing view was espoused by the realists who placed absolute emphasis on the discretion of judges and relegated the "rules" to an obscure position. Earlier, little attention was paid to the analysis of discretion. However, a determined effort has been made lately by Ronald Dworkin, who has cast serious doubts on the orthodox opinion and has emerged as the principal opponent of Hart. Dworkin's views have posed a sustained challenge to the positivist account and have received critical acclaim by leading jurists of the world.
Answer:
Legislative—Makes laws (Congress, comprised of the House of Representatives and Senate) Executive—Carries out laws (president, vice president, Cabinet, most federal agencies)... <u>Both have to deal with laws.</u>
Explanation:
Answer: Hello, Yes, because it is a statement by an opposing party.
Explanation:
