Source: (2005) Paper presented at the Ã¢Â€ÂœSafety, crime and justice: from data to policyÃ¢Â€? conference, organised by the Australian Institute of Criminology in conjunction with the Australian Bureau of Statistics, ABS House, Canberra, Australia, 6-7 June. Downloaded 14 September 2005.
Punishment of environmental “crimes” differs from other prosecuted offenses, because the harm done is
often irreparable, and because there is often no victim, in the ordinary sense of criminal justice.
Consequently, statutory enforcement mechanisms must be flexible, proactive, and arguably more preventive
than punitive. Relatively new “green” sentencing options in Australia, for example, include restoration or
enhancement of the environment in public places, as well as other creative punishments, including
environmental audits of company activities, publication of the offense, and a requirement for notification in
company annual reports. In this study, we examine the applicability of a restorative justice approach to
environmental offenses under New Zealand’s Resource Management Act 1991. The benefits of Ã¢Â€Âœrestorative
justiceÃ¢Â€? and Ã¢Â€ÂœdiversionÃ¢Â€? schemes are discussed, as these have been applied by one New Zealand district
council. It suggests that a restorative justice approach may offer useful, additional discretion to local
authorities when prioritising the resource-intense effort required to successfully prosecute environmental
offenses as the means for re-dressing the damage to the environment. (Author’s Abstract).
Your donation helps Prison Fellowship International repair the harm caused by crime by emphasizing accountability, forgiveness, and making amends for prisoners and those affected by their actions. When victims, offenders, and community members meet to decide how to do that, the results are transformational.Donate Now