Net Widening
Some fear that restorative programmes could result in sanctions imposed
on people (especially youth) who would have "simply been left alone if
[restorative] sanctions did not exist" (Walgrave, 1992 at 348).
Restorative justice may widen the net of social control by receiving
cases that the formal court-system would not have received, or by
imposing sanctions not utilized by the formal justice system (Hudson
and Galaway, 1996 at 12-13). The use of informal processes and
community service sanctions gives rise to a new professionalism,
expanding the sphere of social intervention (Walgrave, 1992 at 348).
In application, some have found that restitution programmes widen the net of social control because they are not used as alternatives to incarceration (Weitekamp, 1992 at 96-100). Those offenders who would not have otherwise been processed by the formal system, are ordered to pay restitution. If they fail to do so, the system resorts again to incarcerating them.
This widening of the net of social control can be encouraged by programme administrators who desire to achieve high success rates and therefore turn away tough cases. The result is that low-risk offenders who would not have otherwise been prosecuted in a formal proceeding are taken into restorative programmes (Orlando, 1992 at 338-339).
Sometimes widening the net of social control may not be an undesirable thing. Victims of first-time offenders are not less injured than victims of offenders who have committed similar crimes in the past. Although some of these offences would be thought to be too trivial to pursue in a formal process, they still would be appropriate for restorative programmes because injuries have resulted, parties need restoration. Moreover, to stave off future offending, perhaps the first-time offence needs to meet with a societal response. Finally, sanctions imposed under conditions of net-widening would be agreed upon by the parties directly involved, instead of by the State apparatus (Galaway and Hudson, 1996 at 12-13).
Braithwaite posits that net-widening is not undesirable if it is accompanied by institutional restructuring. That is, if social control by State-run institutions are decreased with a concomitant increase in social control by victims, offenders and communities (Braithwaite, 1994 at 202-203). Under these circumstances, expansion of restorative processes narrows the net of State social control (Moore and O'Connell, 1994 at 64). Evidence of this effect exists. Some researchers have reported that FGCs reduced the numbers of juveniles in court and custody (Maxwell and Morris, 1996 at 95).
This document prepared by Christopher Bright. Copyright 1997 by Prison Fellowship International.
In application, some have found that restitution programmes widen the net of social control because they are not used as alternatives to incarceration (Weitekamp, 1992 at 96-100). Those offenders who would not have otherwise been processed by the formal system, are ordered to pay restitution. If they fail to do so, the system resorts again to incarcerating them.
This widening of the net of social control can be encouraged by programme administrators who desire to achieve high success rates and therefore turn away tough cases. The result is that low-risk offenders who would not have otherwise been prosecuted in a formal proceeding are taken into restorative programmes (Orlando, 1992 at 338-339).
Sometimes widening the net of social control may not be an undesirable thing. Victims of first-time offenders are not less injured than victims of offenders who have committed similar crimes in the past. Although some of these offences would be thought to be too trivial to pursue in a formal process, they still would be appropriate for restorative programmes because injuries have resulted, parties need restoration. Moreover, to stave off future offending, perhaps the first-time offence needs to meet with a societal response. Finally, sanctions imposed under conditions of net-widening would be agreed upon by the parties directly involved, instead of by the State apparatus (Galaway and Hudson, 1996 at 12-13).
Braithwaite posits that net-widening is not undesirable if it is accompanied by institutional restructuring. That is, if social control by State-run institutions are decreased with a concomitant increase in social control by victims, offenders and communities (Braithwaite, 1994 at 202-203). Under these circumstances, expansion of restorative processes narrows the net of State social control (Moore and O'Connell, 1994 at 64). Evidence of this effect exists. Some researchers have reported that FGCs reduced the numbers of juveniles in court and custody (Maxwell and Morris, 1996 at 95).
This document prepared by Christopher Bright. Copyright 1997 by Prison Fellowship International.
