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

depends on the crime.

Yes for lower level or non-violent offences. For knife crime offences involving young people, a combination of traditional incarceration and restorative justice may be beneficial in changing the culture around knives.

Needs to be done on a case-by-case basis - and only for non-violent crime.

Dependent upon individual factors

Yes for non violent and not for paedophiles

Yes, but only if public are protected including prison instead if the offender is still violent threat

only if i can beat him as well.

Yes, but for very low level, non-voilent crimes, and only for the first offence. If this person continues to offend they should be incarcerated and have to complete a Restorative Justive Program

Depends on the crime. Pedophiles, zoophiles, necrophiles and rapists should simply be incarcerated. People who have committed different crimes have the potential to become better people.

No, the government should increase the use of punishment

Only for non-violent offences and not for repeat offenders..

Yes, but not to repeat offenders or serious violent crimes offenders.

When deemed appropriate and in agreement with the victim. For example, sexual crimes may not be considered violent but restorative justice is not suitable in these instances. Again, repeat perpetrators of certain crimes, ie vandalism, may not be suitable but one off instances it may be

it's spelt programmes

if its a non-violent crime, have restorative justice programs as an alternative to incarceration, although if it is a violent crime, have restorative justice programs alongside incarceration.

Yes but it must be proportional and still a punishment, not just a tool to lower the prison population. If you are anti social in an area you should have community service working in that area as a form of public shaming

Yes, reparatory restorative justice is an ancient English form of jurisprudence, that worked in Anglo-Saxon England for centuries. It prioritised what the perpetrator owed the victim as restitution not what they owed the state

for non violent crimes, and for violent more more serious crimes should be in addition to incarceration or if the person could pose a danger to themselves or the public

Yes but i do believe there should also be a short space of time that they go to prison on top of that as well depending on the crime

If the crime is minor and its their first offense, I think a restorative justice program is the best response rather than incarceration. Also depends on the crime and what happened leading to that crime.

I think that people in prison should be made to do community work i.e. pick up litter and or make items for the governement at minimum wage. That money should be held for them when they are released.

Yes, as long as the offender does not present patterns of persistent violent behaviour, is not an active danger to society and the crimes were not rape or murder. Also more focus on rehabilitation, mental health and other types of support where necessary.

Will have to depend on the crime - no chance for violent crime, ultimately it should be down to the victims family to decide - but absolutely no chance for any violent offenders, sexual offenders, stalkers etc

A mix of implementation for non-violent crimes and implementation in addition to incarceration for violent crimes

people should be sent to labour camps for rehabilitaion is they cannot afford to go to praion. inder my prison system people must pay as set fee to enter prison and have 50% of all their assets taxed or taken.

Yes, but only if it can be proven that the criminial does not have a history of being violent and/or cause harm to society

Restorive justive should be mandatory for all crimes except capital crimes and used as a alternative to small or first time crimes

As long as the crimes are minor or petty then yes, anything more extreme than a brawl should be met with actual punishment and not just trouble

Yes, but if the crimes are hyper violent with undeniable evidence, the rehabilitation for an indefinite time forever.

No provide restorative justice programs in addition to incarceration and to criminals convicted of non-violent crimes which also covers verbal harassment.

Yes if the crimes are non-violent. Those convicted of serious offences should be incarcerated but restorative justice should form part of their criminal justice journey, at the end of it.

Yes, if violent crimes, it should be in addition to incarceration. But for petty crimes, it should be an alternative.

Depends on what you have done, murdering someone under the influence of alcohol vs brutally killing people for no reason at all while not being mentally ill is different.

We are of the opinion that restorative justice is a powerful thing that ought to be implemented carefully, but we are generally in support of it, so long as it is in accordance with any potential victims' wishes.

Yes, for offenders at low-risk of violent behaviour if they remain within a community and in conjunction with measures such as house arrest and mandatory check-ins

it should depend on the persons condition and how stable they are as if they are drug addicts just talking to them will not change anything

Prisoners should work for a living within prisons, focusing on rehabilitation and training for life outside prison. The death penalty should replace all life sentences.

It depends on the judges perspective on the person’s circumstances as to why the committed the crime.

They should add it but keep prison for life sentences and things like that and keep prison for crimes as small as carrying a knife etc (this is an example, carrying a knife is not worthy to be sent to prison)

Yes, unless it’s for people who have committed the most heinous crimes and it would be a waste of time trying to rehabilitate.

This should not be applied to all criminals, though maybe this would be good for those guilty of lesser crimes.

No, but they kind of have to with many prisons now being overcrowded. So it really depends on the crime.

Yes, when advanced technology is available to rehabilitate prisoners and criminals more effectively to prevent violent disorder after finishing their sentences.

Yes for non violent crimes ONLY - if you hurt an innocent person, you should be locked up as a matter of course

Sentences should be stricter and appropriate to the crime at the moment there is no fear of gang and knife crimes or murder

Depends on the conviction, so called petty crimes i.e petty theft, certain driving offences etc should have some sort of rehabilitation. Perhaps a stint in the forces?

I think if you are a young offender up to the age of 21 then there should be educational, and better ways of influencing these young people into the working life style, and no University scam promotions for these young people

This question is a distraction from the problem that lies within British prisons. They are full and this is a problem that needs solving.

This may be applicable for certain crimes, but not all. Restorative procedures could be employed during incarceration.

They should be made to go through this whilst serving prison sentence and rehabilitation, re education etc.

No but they should reinstate the death penalty for the most serious crimes where the evidence is absolute. This would free up space in our prisons.

On very minor issues like petty theft first offence for instance I agree, but stronger offences or repeated offences then No.

Other counrtys do this and it works ,70% of the time we do nothing and let them loose no idea how to interact outside prison is home

In some cases for minor offences , but major criminal offences such as murder, rape, drug trafficking, kidnapping, people smuggling etc should involve incarceration

No, but increase funding for reform programmes to tackle recidivism after an offender has been released.

Dependent on the crime and used in addition to incarceration as there are probably few instances when it should be used instead of incarceration.

Only if the crimes they have done are guaranteed to not be repeated (excluding rape, no justification)

Yes and no. It all depends on the crime commited. For example with violent crimes, the perpetrators need to be incarcerated.

Yes, but only for less serious offences. Capital crimes and crimes against the person such as sexual offences and assault should remain subject to an appropriate period of incarceration.

Back in the early 2000's the Police were involved in restorative justice programmes. I worked for them so I am aware. They fizzled out due to lack of continued government funding. So yes.

Yes, but only for petty crimes. Rape, murder, abduction, violent behaviour, domestic abuse ect should still come with a hefty prison sentence

Yes, but there would need to be a careful consideration of the level of crime which is eligible for such a program.

Yes they should but for those who aren’t willing to become better e.g immigrants blacks etc should only be punished

For young and first time offenders to prevent them from being marginalised into a repeat offender pathway

This would depend on the crime and the individual. This could be useful in some cases and would be interesting to trial small scale.

Only for minor offences, robbery, burglary where no violence above assault/ABH is used. GBH or worse must result in incarceration.

for lesser crimes or repeat offenders of lesser crimes then programmes could be introduced to offer a way out of their current lifestyle

Yes, but dependent on the crime committed. Anyone who has killed/seriously injured people and/or animals or by their actions has indiscriminately done so should lose the opportunity and face the full extent of the law.

Whilst in incarceration, inmates could be completing restorative justice programs for time off sentances?

Yes for non violent crimes. The only people incarcerated should be those who commit violent offences and sexual offences.

Yes but would require research and careful monitoring to minimise re-offending and maintenance of public safety.

Yes, but only in cases were it would be genuinely effective and with permission of victims of said crime. Restorative justice is only helpful in cases were the criminal is genuinely remorseful.

Yes if they can demonstrate what they have learnt at the end of it, if not have to go to prison for some of their sentence.

For certain crimeswhere this would be relavent ( vandalism, shoplifting, other crimes where it would give an idea of howbtheir crime.may impact the victem)

Yes, but only for less severe crimes. Heinous crimes like murder and rape should result in incarceration

In certain situations restorative justice would make for a better alternative such as non violent crimes

No, Bring back the death penalty and corporate punishment. A life for a life, offenders lead a live of luxury and this has to change. Punishment should fit the crime

Restorative program as part of their included incarceration sentence and only if in agreement with the victim/and/or families

Yes, but this should be dependent on the type of crime committed- restorative justice isn’t suitable in all cases

Depending on the crime, I think this could be a helpful justice programme. But depending on the crime I must implore! As well as consent (in the first place) from the victim party it there was one.

Again, depending on the crime. 'Petty crimes' not involving violence etc should be allowed. People servicing life sentences/ not eligible for parole should not.

It is important for the ones who actually want to improve and develop from the programme but not the ones who just want a lower sentences and don’t care about the programme

I can understand why in theory it sounds like a good idea, and if you've never had experience with it it would sound good. But I've had experience with it and can explain why it is so bad. The police misuse it to get an easy resolution so it doesn't have to go to court. The suspect is presented with an option to settle it out of court by admitting to the offence and agreeing to apologise but unlike a caution, where the defence has a right to legal advice and the police have to present their evidence against the suspect, the police can overexaggerate the evidence without reveali…  Read moreng it and threaten to arrest the suspect unless they comply. They can also be more abusive as the initial encounter is not recorded and the records are not kept as strongly where as with an arrest, the suspect has more rights, is read their rights and the interview is recorded formally. The restorative justice can lead to false confessions which put the suspect in a precarious position because if they were to retract, the police can always use the confession as stronger evidence than their original weak evidence. If they had strong evidence originally, they would have just arrested the suspect. And no, the victims are not given the choice whether to accept it or not, it is the suspect that accepts it or is arrested. Maybe my experience was an anomaly, but given the knowledge that has arisen as to police corruption, I think this restorative justice has more potential for corruption than traditional arrests. And the part where both parties come together and "mediate" never happened.

if the crime is not a felony, violent, or sex related crime

Depending on the severity of the crime, for example, for possession of carrying drugs then yes.

Yes but only where suitable and it matches the crime.

If they are implemented well and efficiently with adequate resources and funding

For first offenders may be useful but not for repeat/escalating crimes

No, it should be encouraged for the duration of and after incarceration to reduce term lengths

depends on the crime, if it is something minor like theft, then yes, if it is something like murder/rape then no

Depends on the crime the person and the chance of it working

Appropriate in some cases where offender is redemable and able to alter behaviour and prevent escalation

Yes, but not for violent crimes such as rape and murder.

Yes, but only as an option with approval and decision made by the victim or victims family.

Yes, but on a case by case basis and only for minor non-violent offences.

Make them repay the amount they have damaged or committed to help their local town villages