[Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] |
[Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Author Index] | [Subject Index] |
Changing the paradigm through which we view justice will require a
true vision and commitment from all members of the community. It is one
thing to talk about this new paradigm and quite another to see it
beginning to transform our communites. This week a seed was
planted on the Palouse which opens a new door to
justice-especially for our youth. I want to share an essay written by Kay
Pranis of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.
This week I received a telephone call from a college student who had
a question/suggestion regarding transforming the justice system. Before I
respond directly to him I have a question for whomever might know the
answer. Last year there was an uproar regarding a half way house in Post
Falls. Was the squabble because they were planning on sex offenders
being there or the general idea of a half way house?
TB
Building Community Support for Restorative Justice Principles and Strategies by Kay Pranis, Director of the Restorative Justice
Program of Minnesota DOC INTRODUCTION Throughout the United States the criminal justice system is in a state
of crisis. The public is fearful and angry. Practitioners are weary and
frustrated. Criminal justice policy is driven more by anecdote than
systematic information. Costs of current policies are not sustainable over
long periods. Victims are often re-victimized in the process. This
widespread sense of dissatisfaction has caused a fundamental rethinking of
our criminal justice system and the formulation of an alternate approach
to criminal justice called restorative justice. For over a decade concerned individuals have been working to develop
the theory and practice of restorative justice, but despite the obvious
shortcomings of the current system, these efforts have left the mainstream
of criminal justice practice largely unaffected. The potential of
restorative practices to transform criminal justice can only be realized
if those practices move from the periphery to the mainstream. To
accomplish this, it is necessary to build a broad base of support for
restorative justice principles and practices. Because restorative justice
is grounded in community involvement, it is not possible to implement a
comprehensive restorative system without community ownership and support.
Efforts to promote and assist implementation of restorative justice have no explicit model to guide their development. Though there is no single blueprint to describe the path for building community support, these efforts nevertheless need to be guided by a clear set of principles and informed through the identification of effective strategies. The purpose of this paper is to specify some guiding principles for building community support for restorative values, to identify some promising strategies, and to describe some actual experiences where these approaches were employed. Restorative justice is defined by several key principles around which community support can be built. Restorative justice is not a specific program or set of programs; it is a way of thinking about responding to the problem of crime, a set of values that guides decisions on policy, programs and practice. Restorative justice is based on the redefinition of crime as injury to the victim and community, rather than as effrontery to the power of the state. The primary purpose of justice in the restorative model is to repair the harm of the crime to whatever degree possible. Victims' involvement and perspective are essential to the processes of
defining the harm of each crime and identifying how that harm might be
repaired. A comprehensive restorative response to crime engages the
community as a resource for reconciliation of victims and offenders and as
a resource for monitoring and enforcing community standards of behavior.
Restorative justice defies traditional 'liberal' and/or 'conservative'
labels, and embraces values found in both perspectives. A restorative response to crime is a community-building response.
CHANGING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CORRECTIONS SYSTEM AND THE
COMMUNITY Efforts by a corrections agency to stimulate change toward the
restorative paradigm must of necessity present particular challenges. The
restorative justice framework calls for the inclusion of all stakeholders,
especially victims and community members, in designing and implementing
local justice practices. It is an empowerment model that must clearly be
grounded in grass-roots commitment at the local level. However,
corrections agencies are not typically oriented toward grass-roots
participation and are generally very hierarchical organizations.
Restorative justice, on the other hand, is based upon highly participatory
decision making, from individual cases to system design. Thus the
corrections agency promoting changes toward the restorative justice model
is challenged to provide leadership while not usurping the power of other
participants. Any agency promoting change must model the values of restorative
justice in its process by providing vision and encouragement to all
stakeholders while avoiding specific directives. There is an inherent
tension between the desire by traditional stakeholders for details of
implementation in order to understand the functional framework, and the
need for the leading agency to leave the details of implementation to the
participatory process. At early stages of discussion participants may
become impatient with philosophy and just want to be told what to do. The
question of 'how to' can be turned back to the participants asking them to
apply the principles and identify practices which fit the principles. Over
a period of time the responses from participants can become the basis for
providing multiple examples of restorative practice to bring life to the
concepts. However, at all times the leading agency should resist the urge
to develop detailed plans unilaterally because that might supplant the
development of plans based on the participation of all the
stakeholders. BUILDING COMMUNITY SUPPORT IN THE CONTEXT OF OTHER SOCIAL CHANGE The shift represented by restorative justice is part of a larger shift
in our social institutions from power-based structures and practices to
relationship-based structures and practices. On one level it appears that
this movement is toward greater centralization of authority and greater
use of retributive approaches, but at another level there are powerful
forces moving in the opposite direction. This shift is evident in several
fields: * Community based policing is based on building community relationships
and using proactive problem solving instead of brute force responses
designed to demonstrate power over others. * The field of social services is struggling to shift from a deficit
model, in which a beneficent outside power rescues an individual or
community from weaknesses, to a capacity building model, in which
individuals or communities rescue themselves based on their own strengths
and relationships in the community. * In the field of education, a new approach to discipline called
judicious discipline involves students in setting standards and
maintaining them. * The total quality management (TQM) transformation in business and
industry is fundamentally a shift from motivating workers based on fear
and power over them to motivating workers based on relationships and an
opportunity to shape their own work lives. * In the legal field the movement toward greater use of alternative
dispute resolution processes rather than court processes represents a
similar shift from reliance upon the power and authority of the abstract
law to reliance upon human relationships and interaction to reach
agreement. All these processes give more power for finding solutions to those most
directly involved (rather than a distant authority), and decrease reliance
on fear of consequences as the primary mechanism of achieving desired
behavior. Efforts to expand the use of restorative practice in the criminal
justice system and build community support for those practices will be
more effective if they are understood in the context of this substantial
social change that is reshaping many of our institutions. Drawing
parallels between those changes and the restorative framework gives
legitimacy and viability to restorative justice, and places restorative
justice at the center of some the most hopeful (encouraging) changes
occurring in our nation. It also assists those not in the criminal justice
system in relating these changes to something familiar in their lives.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES The following principles should guide efforts to gain greater
commitment to restorative justice values in the community: * Restorative justice should not be mandated in a top-down
authoritarian process. The work of implementing the principles of
restorative justice must be done at the local level and must involve all
stakeholders. * There is no single road map or blueprint for building a restorative
system; nor do we have answers to all the questions raised by the
principles of restorative justice. The process of searching for answers
should involve dialog with all who have an interest in the question.
* The appropriate role of state, national or regional leadership is to
articulate the vision, disseminate information, and provide support and
technical assistance to jurisdictions attempting to evolve to a more
restorative approach. State and national agencies can also carry out pilot
programs to demonstrate application of the principles. State and national
governments are responsible for monitoring outcomes to insure fairness,
equity and effectiveness of processes designed at the local level.
* Special outreach efforts to victims groups are important because
victims have historically been left out of the criminal justice process.
Victims' groups have had to fight the system for nearly every gain they
have achieved. Consequently, many are skeptical that an initiative of an
agency serving offenders can genuinely have victim interests at its
center. An unwavering commitment to involve victims despite obstacles that
may be encountered is critical to insure that the outcomes are genuinely
restorative. * A clear understanding by practitioners and stakeholders, including
the community, of the philosophical underpinnings of the approach is
essential to ensure that changes are substantive and not merely cosmetic.
Program implementation without an explicit understanding of underlying
values often leads to undesirable results. * The process of implementing restorative approaches must model the
principles themselves, e.g.,: victims must have a voice, the community
must be involved. In fact, every citizen should be given opportunities to
contribute to their community's vision of restorative justice. * The community contains natural allies in fields outside criminal
justice who can bring depth and credibility to the advocacy of a
restorative approach. * Energy is most effectively expended working with those who are
actively interested in trying restorative approaches. Seeds sown in
fertile soil produce the most impressive results which, by example, will
convince skeptics more readily than direct persuasion. * A feedback loop between stakeholders and leadership is very
important. * All persons involved must be prepared to make mistakes. Thus the work of promoting and supporting the use of restorative
practices in criminal justice must be carried out across multiple
organizational systems and levels. In particular, since the lead agency in
change efforts will have direct authority over only a small percentage of
those who shape criminal justice practice, progress toward a restorative
approach requires engaging voluntary participation and interest. Beyond
the traditional 'players' (corrections, police, judges, prosecutors, and
defense lawyers), efforts to promote restorative justice should involve
all levels of government (state, county, city) and multiple sectors of the
community (schools, social services, civic organizations, faith
communities). Moreover, besides those community entities whose missions
and interests are logically part of, or related to, the justice process,
it is also essential to involve a diverse variety of other organizations
from all cultural perspectives, with the objective of achieving
proportional representation from cultural subgroups and ethnic
communities. STRATEGIES Education about restorative justice is the primary strategy. Building
community support requires building the capacity among all peoples at all
levels to think about criminal justice issues from a restorative
perspective. Public speaking and distribution of written materials are key
elements for this public education. Succinct one-page informational pieces
are essential, with more lengthy written materials available for those
interested in more detail. Radio interviews are an effective way to reach
a broad audience and are fairly accessible in most communities. Local
cable access TV shows can provide opportunities to reach some people.
Contacts with local press can sometimes result in coverage of a major
public speaking event, thus reaching a much broader audience. It is very important to talk about the conceptual framework, but
stories of real experiences are also vital to the process of education.
Look for stories that relate to local personalities or local conditions.
Especially effective are stories that show (more than the retributive
system would have) a restorative resolution that involved the community
and victims. It is also useful to have stories that prove the failure of
the retributive system. With small audiences contrasting stories can be
presented, with the audience asked to identify the differences in the two
cases. Having victims tell their own stories can be very powerful in
communicating key messages about dissatisfaction with the current system
or satisfaction with a restorative process. Opportunities to speak about
restorative justice in the community may come from churches, civic groups,
college or high school classes, violence prevention groups or policy
makers. Secondary strategies include linking people with common interests and
complementary strengths and engaging community leaders in discussions
about creating safe communities. Once the community's interest in the
conceptual framework is engaged, it becomes very important to be prepared
to provide technical support for developing restorative practices within
the community. Strategies for technical support include providing
responses to proposals, identifying expert resources for additional
opinions, providing forums for collegial interaction and maintenance of a
resource library. It is also important to be an enthusiastic 'cheerleader'
for the process to maintain volunteers' enthusiasm and energy. Leadership toward a restorative vision in response to crime can come
from a variety of directions. In Polk County (Des Moines), Iowa, and
Travis County (Austin), Texas, the prosecutor's office is providing key
leadership. At the national level the National Organization for Victim
Assistance has produced a paper describing a comprehensive restorative
system. In Minnesota and Vermont the State Department of Corrections has
initiated movement toward a restorative system. In Oregon, Florida and
Pennsylvania some county corrections units have started the process. In
other communities around the nation private community groups have been
working for years to create a more restorative process through programs
like victim offender mediation. Putting the principles and strategies to work to build community
support requires several basic community organizing skills: * Finding your natural allies in the community: Listen to peoples' interests, and find out how restorative justice fits with their interests. Using language that 'connects' with your audiences, talk to people who are interested in violence prevention, underlying causes of crime, social justice, building stronger neighborhoods, regaining a sense of community, children's issues, etc. Among them you are likely to find some who 'resonate' with restorative justice values and see in restorative justice some potential for addressing their interests. Educators will care about the connections between restorative justice and school discipline problems. Law enforcement officials will care about the natural fit between community based policing and restorative justice. Business people will understand restorative justice in the language of total quality management or of effective government and fiscal issues. Engage people in a discussion of their own worries, fears and concerns, and identify (where possible) how a restorative approach provides a potential solution to their problems. For example, the Minnesota League of Women Voters, in conducting a study on violence, identified the restorative justice approach as part of the solution to the problem of violence. City planners involved in a major effort by the City of St. Paul to develop a long range plan for public safety found restorative justice to be a useful framework. Educators have identified the framework as useful in approaching school discipline procedures. * Avoiding becoming identified with a particular political label: Find
community allies on both ends of the political spectrum. Some conservative
Christian groups actively work for restorative justice. Restorative
justice is consistent with fiscal conservatism, the call for a reduced
role for government and an emphasis on personal accountability. On the
other hand restorative justice's reduced emphasis on physical punishment
and call for community accountability are consistent with traditional
liberal values. Seek out respected leaders from divergent points of view
as key supporters of restorative justice. * Listening to those who disagree: The entire community is a stakeholder in the issue of community safety so everyone deserves to be respectfully heard while deciding the direction of the system. Listen carefully so that you can understand the objections. Develop an explanation responding to the objection to use when speaking to other groups. Acknowledge the need to have dialog and explore further on issues for which you don't have answers. Be prepared to learn from the objections raised. This is a model in formation and should be responsive to valid objections. Probe beneath surface objections to identify underlying issues that may be more readily resolved than is initially apparent. For example, what may seem a desire for retribution is often actually a
concern for public safety. A restorative approach cannot deliver
retribution but can potentially deliver at least as much public safety as
the current system. * Putting victims first: If those raising objections are victims'
groups or advocates, then do all of the above repeatedly. Be willing to
travel to engage them in dialog on their own home territory ... make a
point of offering to come to hear their concerns. In order to be sure you
understand them, ask them to listen as you re-articulate their concerns in
your own words. Ask a sympathetic victim supporter to help you understand
the issues being raised. Seek victim ideas for any proposed change. Learn
about victims issues and the experience of victimization. Listen to victim
stories. Use victim stories in your public speaking. In written materials,
overheads, etc. list items related to victims before those related to
offenders. * Balancing focus with flexibility: It is critical to be clear and
consistent about the values and vision but there are multiples ways to
achieve the vision. Be prepared to modify your approach if it is not
working and other more promising avenues appear. Success may be more
dependent on responses to opportunity than on detailed long range action
plans. * Monitoring your own assumptions and stereotypes: Promoting a new
paradigm requires breaking out of your own paradigms in many ways.
Unexpected sources of support and opportunities may be missed if you don't
become aware of your own assumptions about others and consciously put
those aside. PRINCIPLES AND STRATEGIES IN PRACTICE The case examples presented below describe specific activities used to
build community support. These examples are intended to illustrate how the
leading agency can work with multiple partners based upon their expressed
needs or interests. A detailed case example from Ramsey County, Minnesota: One of the most extensive efforts at building community support for
restorative justice has occurred in Ramsey County, Minnesota. Ramsey
County is an urban county that includes the city of St. Paul and the
surrounding suburbs. Local correctional services are delivered under the
Community Corrections Act, and are largely independent of the State
Department of Corrections. The area has experienced dramatic demographic
shifts in the past ten years with the growth of the Southeast Asian
population. Crime rates are relatively low but there are increasing levels
of firearms violence and gang related activity and, consequently,
increasing public anxiety. The leading agency in this case has been the
Minnesota State Department of Corrections Restorative Justice Initiative.
Building a foundation of community support for restorative justice in Ramsey has involved concurrent activities in several arenas. One of the first steps in the process was a meeting with the Director of Community Corrections to share information about restorative justice and offer assistance. At that meeting an opportunity surfaced to provide the director with written material on related issues (violence prevention) to use at a County Board meeting within a few days. Gathering and copying the material on short notice took a significant effort, but presented an immediate chance to be of service around the Director's needs. Another early step in the process was the appointment of a St. Paul police officer to the Statewide Restorative Justice Advisory Board. This officer is knowledgeable about and committed to community based policing and could immediately identify the common links between restorative justice and community based policing. The restorative justice philosophy serves his interest in promoting community based policing. Common links were also identified with other existing efforts. The City of St. Paul recently launched an initiative called Safe City that is promoting long term solutions to public safety which are oriented to the underlying causes of crime. A meeting was held with the coordinator of Safe City to explain restorative justice and seek ways to strengthen the work of each effort through collaboration. Contact was also made with the coordinator of the Ramsey County Initiative for Violence Free Families and Communities which has been very successful at engaging broad participation in activities related to violence prevention. It was important not to compete with or duplicate the efforts of other groups whose goals are consistent with restorative justice. A neighborhood crime prevention specialist and a neighborhood beat
officer from a high crime inner city neighborhood of St. Paul contacted
the DOC to learn about restorative justice and became part of the network
of community people exploring ways to implement the ideas. The crime
prevention coordinator has requested that the county diversion program
assign offenders from the community to local block clubs to do their
community service. She hopes to provide a process for reintegration into
the community and accountability through community service. She is also
exploring ways for the community to keep track of the court process for
crimes that affect the community. Early in the process a staff member from Hmong American Partnership, a
private organization that has programs for at risk youth in the Hmong
community, contacted the DOC for information about restorative justice.
This approach is consistent with cultural values of the Hmong and the
agency is exploring applications to their programming. When a police officer from Australia visited Minnesota in July, 1994,
the Department of Corrections arranged information seminars on Family
Group Conferencing, a police agency program used in Australia and New
Zealand that fits restorative principles. Two members of the St. Paul
Police Department were recruited to attend the seminars. The DOC also
arranged a meeting between the Australian officer and a St. Paul police
officer in charge of one of the city's community policing units. The DOC
also recruited several local people to attend a training session on
Conferencing in Pennsylvania, including a St. Paul Police school liaison
officer, and board and staff members of the Hmong American
Partnership. In the fall of 1994 the Ramsey County Community Corrections Department
included a session on restorative justice at their annual staff meeting
which provided a basic introduction to the entire staff. In late winter
and spring of 1995 the DOC restorative justice planner conducted staff
training sessions for a private corrections agency in St. Paul which
operates half way houses, electronic monitoring and community service
programs, and for another private agency which provides pretrial services
and diversion for Ramsey County. The restorative justice language and core
concepts have become common currency in the corrections field. A critical factor in the success of the Ramsey County effort has been
the interest of the St. Paul Area Council of Churches which sponsors a
chaplaincy program in the Ramsey County detention facilities. The chaplain
requested the help of the Department of Corrections Restorative Justice
Initiative in organizing a Ramsey County conference on restorative
justice. Working together the DOC restorative justice planner and the
chaplain recruited representatives of all parts of the community to
participate in the planning process for the conference. Participants
included clergy from a variety of faith communities, corrections
professionals, victims, members of communities of color, police officers
and a public defender. The group organized a one day conference whose goals were to educate
diverse religious, citizen and professional community members about the
concept of restorative justice and identify the prospective roles of
various community members in a restorative response to crime, and to
enlist interested participants in follow-up planning to expand the use of
restorative approaches in Ramsey County. A very focused recruitment effort
attempted to get key leaders from all parts of the community to attend.
Specific invitations were sent to a list of people identified by the
planning group. The invitation list included judges, corrections leaders,
prosecutors, public defenders, law enforcement, lay and clergy church
leaders, mayors, county commissioners, legislators, school principals and
key staff, victims service providers and victims groups such as MADD,
neighborhood community organizers, culturally specific organizations, the
Chamber of Commerce and civic groups such as the League of Women
Voters. The agenda for the conference was designed to engage the audience
through a very short theater piece that captured the frustrations with the
current system, and to provide basic information to educate people about
the restorative justice framework through a traditional lecture format and
then use storytelling to bring the concepts to life. The participants then
'processed' the information thus imparted through a series of small group
discussions whose results they then reported back to the entire
group. The conference attracted 150 participants, approximately one third of whom were from the criminal justice system. The remainder if the participants were from schools, local government (including a few county commissioners and city council members), crime victim service organizations, faith communities, and community groups. The energy level of the conference was very high, and the participants found themselves seriously engaged in identifying a more restorative response to crime, especially at the community level. Most participants asked for a process for continuation of the discussion begun at the conference. A call for volunteers to coordinate the continuing process added several new members to the original planning group. The planning group decided that while a broad discussion of restorative
justice was appropriate as the first step, there was need for the next
step to narrow the focus in order to begin to move toward action.
Follow-up 'round tables' were organized for four focus areas: youth
issues, criminal justice, faith communities and community groups. A
mailing was sent to all conference participants. It included a summary of
information generated from the small group discussions, a list of positive
developments since the conference and an invitation to attend one of the
'round tables'. For perspective, some organizers also recruited new
participants who had not attended the conference. Small, committed groups
of people attended these sessions. Because the restorative framework
centers on repairing the harm of crime, it was presumed that each of these
groups needed a victim perspective in the deliberations. In those groups
where victims or victim advocates were not present, there were specific
recruitment efforts designed to bring that perspective to the
table. As an additional outcome of the conference, the DOC restorative justice
planner was invited to make a presentation on restorative justice to the
Ramsey County Board of Commissioners Criminal Justice Committee.
Additional public education opportunities came through interviews on two
local access cable TV shows. Another presentation was made to a group of
agency representatives who provide community service sites for the St.
Paul Youth Services Bureau. One of the striking characteristics of the experience in Ramsey County is the combination of planned, initiated activities and opportunistic responses to the initiative of others. Both outreach to key 'players' who might not otherwise develop this interest on their own and the nurturing of natural allies and those who express interest of their own accord are critical. Organization of the conference was an intentional, planned process with clear goals and discrete steps designed to engage the interest of key leaders in the community. However, significant parts of the total effort in Ramsey have been 'ad hoc', guided by perceived opportunities to advance the restorative justice agenda. Several active participants first made contact on their own after hearing about restorative justice in their own networks. This combination of planned activities and opportunistic responses to unplanned events is a core element of community organizing. It requires a careful balance of leadership and following which encourages people to pursue change toward a described vision, but insures that the change will be locally directed. Though there is a great deal of interest among various groups in Ramsey
County, no single organization is yet able to provide the leadership to
organize a systematic process to move toward a more restorative response
to crime across multiple systems. The role of the State Department of
Corrections in providing that leadership has been crucial. Though housed
in the Department of Corrections, the restorative justice planner position
has been guided from its inception by a vision far beyond corrections; a
vision that allows the resources of that office to be used for any
interested organization. Other case examples In a variety of other communities similar efforts at engaging community support have effectively raised awareness and interest among broad groups of people. In two of these examples the local corrections staff played a lead role in collaboration with the Minnesota Department of Corrections. In the spring of 1994, corrections staff in the Bemidji office began a broad community education effort about restorative justice and arranged for the restorative justice planner to speak to the advisory board of the Sentencing to Service (supervised community work service) program and to the Beltrami County anti-violence committee (which included representatives from schools, human services, victim services, clergy, the courts and local policy makers). In another public education effort, the restorative justice planner spoke at the annual campus community breakfast at Bemidji State University. An article in ,,the local newspaper extended this address' impact beyond the breakfast's attenders. In these and other efforts, the restorative justice planner was able to provide legitimacy and broad context for new initiatives and help build local support. Other staff met with key community leaders representing different parts of the community to explain a new program based on restorative values. This new program involves the use of community intervention teams that meet with offenders, providing an immediate role for the community in this new approach. Linking the ideas of restorative justice to community processes, information was provided to Bemidji State University staff concerning local and national resources for the creation of a campus/community mediation program. Court services in Carver County and Scott County in Minnesota are under
the leadership of one director who has organized advisory groups with
broad community and system representation. In the first step of the
process of moving toward a restorative approach, the director of court
services arranged for the restorative justice planner to provide a
presentation to each advisory group. Then, under the sponsorship of the
advisory groups, a three-hour seminar for 125 key community leaders and
criminal justice system professionals was held. The DOC restorative
justice planner provided assistance in planning the seminar, recruiting a
national keynote speaker and coordinating the program. Local corrections
staff identified the key players and conducted a very focused recruitment
effort that resulted in attendance by leaders from all parts of the
community. The seminar provided basic education about restorative justice
and enlisted support among key community leaders. Coverage by local
newspapers delivered the message to a wide audience beyond the seminar. A
church pastor who attended the community seminar requested assistance in
organizing a training for clergy of the area. The restorative justice
planner provided a program format, speakers, a video and handouts for that
training. The restorative justice planner contacted the school liaison officer at
the Carver County Sheriff's Department and the director of the Carver
Scott Coop Center, an alternative education institution, to encourage the
development of a pilot project using family group conferencing, a process
that incorporates multiple restorative dimensions. Subsequently, the
school liaison officer and a probation agent from court services attended
a three-day training on conferencing. Building on the success of an
existing joint program of the Carver Scott Coop Center and DOC Sentencing
to Service, the restorative justice initiative is working with staff from
the Coop Center and the State Department of Education to explore further
ways to integrate service learning and community service as a part of
community accountability for juvenile offenders. Links with law enforcement have been forged through collaboration with
the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, a division of the Minnesota
Department of Public Safety. There are clear parallels between the
philosophy of community oriented policing and the restorative justice
framework. One of the responsibilities of the BCA is statewide training
for police. The restorative justice planner first networked with one staff
member of BCA Training who is a member of a victims' advisory council,
sharing materials about restorative justice and discussing common agendas.
That staff member then shared the information with another who was
assigned to organize a training on school violence for law enforcement and
school personnel. With the assistance of the restorative justice planner,
she designed the training around the restorative justice framework.
Besides incorporating a presentation on restorative justice, she
encouraged speakers on other topics to read background material and make
connections to restorative justice in their presentations. The director of
the training unit at BCA attended the training and became familiar with
the restorative justice framework. Information was shared with the training staff about family group conferencing, a restorative program model that is used by law enforcement in parts of Australia. The training unit staff members were linked with others in the field who are interested in exploring this model. BCA staff are involved in continuing efforts to develop possible modifications of the model, seek implementation opportunities, support training opportunities and address quality control concerns and training requirements. The BCA training unit staff members were also identified as key people
in advancing restorative justice and were invited to participate in a
'think tank' originally convened by the Wilder Foundation, a nonprofit
group providing a wide array of human services in the St. Paul area. The
BCA hosted the second meeting of that group. The staff from BCA involved
the restorative justice initiative in the co- sponsorship and planning of
the annual conference of the Minnesota Association of Women Police. The
first day of that conference focused on restorative justice, including a
keynote speaker, workshop presentations and a theater presentation
followed by an animated discussion with the audience. It is clear from the case examples that most of the activities of
building community support fall in the arena of community organizing, i.e.
identifying the most likely allies, providing them with information,
linking interested persons with one another, maintaining a high level of
enthusiasm, and providing support and encouragement for taking risks with
new ideas. That process leaves plenty of room for individual professionals
and community members to exercise their own creativity and power in
working for change. Many practitioners and many community members want to
act in a more restorative way, but have lacked a clearly articulated
vision and permission to pursue that vision. CHALLENGES AND OBSTACLES TO RESTORATIVE REFORM Though the restorative justice movement has recently experienced
remarkable growth of awareness and interest, there are very serious
problems ahead. Even where there is a high level support for the
restorative philosophy in the criminal justice system or community, the
broader public policy trend around the nation is in the opposite
direction. Prison populations are growing rapidly and the cost of that
expansion threatens the availability of resources to work with victims and
offenders in the community. Increasing dependence on incarceration may
further paralyze the system making change much more difficult.
Practitioners are frequently so overloaded that it is very difficult for
them to think about questions of underlying values or philosophy. There is also great risk that the existing system, with its
overwhelming orientation to offenders, will be unable to shift to a truly
victim centered approach to resolving crime. The habits of the system are
strong. Even in jurisdictions committed to shifting to restorative
justice, corrections practitioners frequently forget to involve victim
representatives in their planning at the beginning. It will take great vigilance to insure that victims issues are given
proper consideration. Victims groups vary in their reaction to restorative
justice. Some see potential for a much better system for victims; some are
watching and withholding judgment; some are adamantly opposed, believing
that in the process of implementation distortions of the philosophy will
result in practices which are harmful to victims. They fear that the
system will use victims to rehabilitate offenders or that the court will
order 'restorative' activities without asking victims what they want. Even
if asked, they fear victims may not feel free to express their real
feelings. These fears are grounded in previous experience with a system
that regularly re-victimizes and disempowers victims and doesn't even know
it. There is also the risk that a restorative approach might be unevenly applied, benefiting certain racial or ethnic groups but not others. Such an outcome would be exactly the opposite of the intention of the restorative justice initiative. Oversight by the state remains very important to minimize the likelihood of biased results. The greatest risks identified by most critics involve implementation which fails to be true to the values underlying restorative justice. It is crucial that the values be clearly understood and frequently articulated to guard against the dangers of straying from them in practice. Research is needed to identify ways for the community to be more
involved both in system decision making and working with victims and
offenders. Engagement of the community in affirming and maintaining
community standards is central to the success of a more restorative
approach within the criminal justice system. CONCLUSION Crime --> fear --> withdrawal --> isolation --> weakened
community bonds--> more crime. All of us, victims, offenders and
community members, are caught in a downward spiral where crime leads to
greater fear and increased isolation and distrust among community members,
which in turn leads to even more crime. As community bonds are weakened by
fear and isolation, the power of community disapproval is reduced and
crime increases. Community safety comes to depend primarily upon voluntary
individual restraint on harmful behavior. Greater community involvement in a restorative justice process is a
powerfulway to break this destructive cycle and increase the connections
among community members. The more connected with each other community
members are, the more likely they will be to restrain impulses which would
be disapproved by the community. Professionals within the system can
facilitate the process of engaging the community to become a primary
resource in responding to crime in a restorative framework. Expanded
community involvement and opportunities for constructive collective action
will result in less fear and isolation and a stronger sense of community.
Building community support includes gaining community approval of new
approaches within the criminal justice system and engaging the community
as a key actor in the process of responding to crime. The success of a
restorative approach is dependent upon community support and involvement
and requires specific attention and resources allocated to those
efforts. |
|||
|