@ISIDEWITHQuestionsCriminal Issues10mos ago

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

Restorative justice programs focus on rehabilitating offenders through reconciliation with victims and the community, rather than through traditional incarceration. These programs often involve dialogue, restitution, and community service. Proponents argue that restorative justice reduces recidivism, heals communities, and provides more meaningful accountability for offenders. Opponents argue that it may not be suitable for all crimes, could be perceived as too lenient, and may not adequately deter future criminal behavior.

Answer Overview

Response rates from 43 Malaysia voters.

70%
Yes
30%
No
53%
Yes
21%
No
16%
Yes, but only if the crimes are non-violent
9%
No, provide restorative justice programs in addition to incarceration, not as an alternative

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 43 Malaysia voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 43 Malaysia voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Malaysia voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @9NDTRT6 from Guam  answered…9mos9MO

Yes, as long it works, not simply there for decreasing the incarceration rate for a certain ethnic group.

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…4mos4MO

House Democrats Filibuster Flip-Flop: Keep It When the GOP’s in Charge, Kill It When We Are

Filibuster for me, but not for thee. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), an outspoken critic of the Senate filibuster, indicated Monday that she will not support axing the procedural hurdle as long as Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress. “Am I championing getting rid of the filibuster now when the Senate has the trifecta? No,” the chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus said at a press conference on Capitol Hill. “But had we had the trifecta, I would have been, because we have to show that government can deliver,” Jayapal added. The Senate filibuster rule, which requires a 60-vote threshold to end debate and pass most types of legislation in the upper chamber, is seen as the best chance Democrats have at blocking the adoption of President-elect Donald Trump agenda – with Republicans taking a 53-47 seat advantage in the Senate and expected to retain a slim majority in the House. Jayapal, as recently as September, was pushing to “abolish” what she called the “Jim Crow filibuster.” “The filibuster was originally created *by mistake* in 1806,” she wrote on X. “Every day we don’t abolish it is just as big a mistake.”The Washington Democrat dislikes that the procedural tool makes it difficult for progressives to ram their agenda through Congress. “It’s the filibuster OR an assault weapons ban. It’s the filibuster OR codified abortion access. It’s the filibuster OR raising the minimum wage. It’s the filibuster OR protecting voting rights. The choice is clear. Abolish the Jim Crow filibuster,” Jayapal tweeted. The progressive rep argued Monday that passing a liberal agenda would’ve “built some trust with the American people.”“If we had had control of the trifecta and gotten rid of the filibuster to pass minimum wage, to pass paid sick leave, to pass many of these things that are passing – abortion access – that are passing on ballot measures that are so popular … then I think we would have built some trust with the American people,” Jayapal argued.

▲  226 replies