RE: More on the paradigm

["Tom Hansen" <thansen@moscow.com>]

Mr. Brown -

 

Your evaluation of our current system is extremely biased and poorly informed (at bed).  I suggest that you conduct a more thorough research into our current system before you present your opinion as fact.

 

Tom Hansen

Moscow

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony C. Brown [mailto:tony@fcrjquaker.org]
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 5:41 AM
To: vision2020@moscow.com
Subject: More on the paradigm

Hello- I've received several private notes wanting me to talk more about the idea of a paradigm shift toward restorative justice. Plus, a little about the paradigm that defines our current vision of justice and the principles which are reflected in restorative justice. Below is a chart which does offers an excellent comparison of the two paradigms.  I want to include a tool that Howard Zehr has created to help understand the thinking behind restorative justice. Zehr says our current model of justice there might be three questions.

 

1) What laws were broken

2) Who broke them

3) How do we punish the offender

 

In restorative justice we might have three questions:

 

1) What harm has been done

2) What needs to be done to heal the harm

'3) Whose responsibility is it to heal the harm

 

Keep these questions in mind as you look through this chart and see if you can visualize a process of restorative justice.

                                

Crime Defined as a violation of the state.	Crime defined as violation of one person by another.
Focus on establishing blame, on guilt, on past (did he/she do it?)	Focus on problem-solving on liabilities and obligations on future (what should be done?)
Adversarial relationships and process normative.	Dialogue and negotiation normative.
Imposition of pain to punish and deter/prevent.	Restitution as a means of restoring both parties; reconciliation/restoration as goal.
Justice defined by intent and by process: right rules.	Justice defined as right relationships; judged by the outcome.
Interpersonal, conflictual nature of crime obscured, repressed; conflict seen as individual vs. state.	Crime recognized as inter-personal conflict; value of conflict recognized.
One social injury replaced by another.	Focus on repair of social injury.
Community on sideline, represented abstractly by state.	Community as facilitator, restorative process.
Encouragement of competitive, individualistic values.	Encouragement of mutuality.
Actions directed from state to offender:               • victim ignored.               • offender passive.	Victim and offender's roles recognized in both problem and solution:                 • victim rights/needs recognized                 • offender encouraged to take responsibility
Offender accountability defined as taking punishment	Offender accountability defined as understanding impact of action and helping decide how to make things right.
Offense defined in purely legal terms, devoid of moral, social, economic, political dimensions.	Offense understood in whole context-moral, social, economic, political.
"Debt" owed to state and society in the abstract.	Debt/liability to victim recognized.
Response focused on offender's past behaviour.	Response focused on harmful consequences of offender's behaviour.
Stigma of crime un-removable.	Stigma of crime removable through restorative action.
No encouragement for repentance and forgiveness.	Possibilities for repentance and forgiveness.
Dependence upon proxy professional.	Direct involvement by participants.

   

____________________________________________________
  IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here