Immediate sanctions are basically diversion mechanisms that hold youth accountable for their actions by sanctioning behavior and in some cases securing services, but at the same time generally avoiding formal court processing. They are appropriate for most first-time misdemeanor offenders, many minor repeat offenders, and some nonviolent felons. The concept of diversion is based on the theory that processing certain youth through the juvenile justice system may do more harm than good (Lundman, 1993). The basis of the diversion argument is that courts may inadvertently stigmatize some youth for having committed relatively petty acts that might best be handled outside the formal system. It also may increase some risk factors for delinquent behavior such as delinquent peer associations. Finally, diversion is also designed to ameliorate the problem of overburdened juvenile courts and detention facilities so that they can focus on more serious offenders (Sheldon, 1999).

These types of sanctions generally adhere to restorative justice principles. The essence of restorative justice lies in the perspective that crime harms people, communities, and relationships. Consequently, if crime is about harm, then the justice process should emphasize repairing the harm (Bazemore et al., 2000). A restorative justice approach differs from the traditional juvenile justice system in the way it views and addresses crime. The traditional system focuses on the offender’s culpability and need for sanctioning and/or treatment. A restorative system takes a broader approach. Howard Zehr (1990) argues that in a restorative system three questions receive primary emphasis: What is the nature of the harm resulting from the crime? What needs to be done to repair the harm? Who is responsible for the repair? As a result, a restorative system places a greater emphasis on victims and views the offender as more than an object of punishment. Indeed, it holds the offender accountable for repairing the harm caused by the crime. (Bazemore et al., 2000).

While restorative justice is not a “program” in and of itself, it does offer an ideal model for dealing with first time and minor repeat offenders by providing a mechanism that holds youth accountable, but at the same time bypassing formal court proceedings. The restorative justice practices include but are not limited to victim–offender mediation, various community decision making and conferencing processes (for example, reparative boards, family group conferencing), restorative community service, restitution, victim and community impact statements, and victim awareness panels. These practices are discussed below.

Family Group Conferences: Family group conferences (FGCs) are facilitated discussions that allow those most affected by a particular crime—the victim, the offender, and the family and friends of both—to discuss the impact of the crime and decide how the offender should be held accountable for it.

Peer Mediation/Conflict Resolution: Mediation involves solving a dispute through peaceful ways, but there are several different types of mediation processes. Peer mediation is a specific type of mediation that uses youth in key roles to mediate a dispute among peers to identify mutual solution. Conflict resolution, on the other hand, teaches young people decisionmaking skills to better manage conflict in juvenile facilities, schools, and communities. Individuals learn to identify their interests, express their views, and seek mutually acceptable solutions to disputes. It differs from mediation by moving beyond the treatment of individuals by involving the entire facility, school or community and integrating the culture into the institutional environment.

Restitution/Community Services: Restitution is a process by which offenders are held partially or fully accountable for the financial losses suffered by the victims of their crimes. Community service is work performed by an offender for the benefit of the community. It offers a way for the offender to be held accountable and to repair some of the harm caused by his or her criminal conduct.

Teen/Youth Court: Teen (or youth or peer) courts are much like traditional courts in that there are prosecutors and defense attorneys, offenders and victims, and judges and juries, but young people rather than adults fill these roles and, most important, determine the disposition. The principal goal of a teen court is to hold young offenders accountable for their behavior by imposing sanctions that will repair some of the harm imposed on the victim and community.

Victim Impact Panels: Victim impact panels are forums for crime victims to explain the real-world impact of crime to offenders. Unlike group conferences, victim impact panels do not involve direct personal contact between the offender and his/her victim. Instead, victim impact panels generally use surrogate victims, or family and friends of victims of similar experiences. The purpose of the panel is to help offenders individualize and humanize the consequences of their crimes on victims and the community.

Victim Offender Mediation: Victim–Offender mediation is a process that provides victims the opportunity to meet their offenders in a safe and structured setting for dialogue, negotiation, and problem solving. The goal of this process is twofold. The first is to hold the offenders directly accountable for their behavior, learn the full impact of their actions, and develop plans for making amends to the person or persons they violated. The second goal is to foster a sense of empowerment for the victim. Overall, this process is designed to develop empathy in the offender (which can help prevent future criminal behavior) and address the emotional and informational needs of the victim.

References