by
greg van buskirk
If you were to call
the San Diego Restorative Justice Mediation Program (SDRJMP, or RJMP for
short) on any given day and someone wasn’t there to answer the phone,
you would reach the answering machine. A pleasant voice would greet you
and ask for all of the standard information that answering machines do:
name, number, purpose of the call. At the time you would expect to
begin speaking after the tone, the voice adds one more sentence: “And
remember, restorative justice is justice that heals.”
To think about
justice in a restorative sense – that is, “justice that heals” – is to
view the universal “problem” of crime and offenses in a new light: as
something that both needs healing and is able to be healed. It is a
healing of more than one individual or party; it is a holistic healing.
It goes beyond rehabilitation, to establish social reconciliation.
It is personal, and, by extension, it takes time – more time than most
judicial systems are willing to offer, even though it outperforms all
other systems, whether retributive, punitive, or even rehabilitative.
“It’s the way that
you approach [justice] when you bring the victim and the offender
together to restore some sort of reconciliation and peace between the
two parties,” said Geri Collins, acting director for the San Diego
Restorative Justice Mediation Program as well as “the voice” on its
answering machine.
The Center for
Peacemaking and Conflict Studies (CPCS) at Fresno Pacific University, a
flagship program in California that has worked towards restorative
justice education and legislation, provides a foundation for the
discussion of restorative justice. Director Ron Claassen explained that
when a law has been broken, or a rule violated, the restorative approach
focuses on “recognizing what happened and figuring out how to restore
and put back together as much as possible between the parties, as well
as working on a future plan so that [the offense] doesn’t continue.”
This approach ultimately in a more constructive future for all the
people involved, said Mr. Claassen.
While restorative
justice is theoretically as timeless as the justice system itself – not
to mention as variegated – the particular method, bringing the victim
and the offender together in a reconciliatory and mediated program, is
much younger. About 30 years ago in Canada, two Mennonite probation
officers convinced a judge to bring together a victim and an offender in
mediated discussion. From there, the model has spread, demonstrating
unparalleled results: fewer cases have to go trial for resolution, and
offenders are significantly less likely to reoffend after participating
in the process.
For the best example
of this type of mediation, said Mr. Claassen, look to New Zealand. The
judicial system has been structurally adapted to incorporate restorative
practices, particularly to systematically include the family/group
conference before a case goes to court. In New Zealand's system, every
case must participate in this conference before proceeding to a
traditional courtroom process. In five years, said Claassen, New
Zealand had reduced the number of full-court hearings by 75%.
Mr. Claassen and the
Center for Peacemaking and Conflict Studies envision this type of
justice for the Fresno and California justice systems, which are largely
punitive and sometimes, arguably, rehabilitative.
Mr. Claassen
believes that restorative justice is better than rehabilitation. He
views rehabilitation as a possible component of restorative justice, but
argues that restorative justice goes beyond rehabilitation, which is
sometimes just another activity imposed by the legislature. Thus,
rehabilitation is only a part of the total process if the
offender is willing to admit guilt, restore equity, and progress toward
a crime-free future.
The key in
restorative justice, is that it is a collaborative process. “If you
call it ‘rehabilitation,’ but an authority figure is just telling
another person what to do, the likelihood of it working is not really
high,” said Mr. Claassen. “But, if [the victim and offender] meet
together to restore and make a better future, it works. Rehabilitation
is consistent with restorative justice, but, depending on how it’s
defined, it could just be another authority telling people what to do.”
In order to make
restorative justice work on a large scale, the judicial system needs to
structurally ensure that every case has the right to have a conference,
said Mr. Claassen. It has to become part of the system, and it must be
implemented in a way that brings healing to all parties. “It’s finding
the best way to handle the situation in a restorative way for the
offender, the victim, and the community,” he added.
The community?
Certainly the victim, probably the offender, but the community?
According to Mr.
Claassen, our present judicial system doesn't really benefit the
public: “The incentive is to say ‘not guilty’ in our country because
‘guilty’ means punishment. Punishment for violating the law ignores the
needs of the victim and the neighbors and all those affected by the
crime. All of that needs to be taken into consideration and put into
context.” Restorative justice allows reconciliation for owning up to
being ‘guilty.’ People can be less fearful of taking responsibility for
their crimes – and that’s what the community needs.
A Model for
Mediation
In 1993, Pearl Hartz,
a retired schoolteacher and counselor, brought the restorative model of
justice to San Diego in the form of the Victims-Offenders Reconciliation
Program. Since then, the program has changed names (now it is the San
Diego Restorative Justice Mediation Program) and directors (since 2003,
it has been directed by Geri Collins). Currently, the program is
seeking to join forces with Legal Aid of San Diego, which would broaden
the scope of how restorative justice might be applied to different
arenas of society, said Ms. Collins. For all the changes, the program
has remained dedicated to bringing the offender and the victim together
in mediated meetings in order to achieve reconciliation.
The process for the
Restorative Justice Mediation Program (RJMP) is fairly straightforward.
It’s biggest drawback is the time required for real transformation to
take place. First, cases are referred, primarily, by the probation
offices. From there, RJMP negotiates separate meetings between the
victim and a mediator, and the offender and a mediator. Each party is
given the opportunity to explain what happened in the offense. Finally,
all of the parties come together. The victim and the offender see each
other face-to-face, each party tells its side, and the mediator offers
feedback in order to develop a response to the offense that brings
reconciliation. Mediators are not attorneys or judges or even
arbitrators; they simply keep the peace in the process.
“[Restorative
justice] gives people a chance to be held accountable for their
actions,” said Ms. Collins. “When a person commits an offense, they
usually keep it within them. But once they’ve been called out on it and
have to go before the victim, there’s a change in attitude. Once they’re
able to put a face to what they have done, they’re usually very
repentant.”
In this process, the
victim does not have to be present at all. In fact, there have been
times when the victim was too afraid to participate in the mediation and
a representative party took his or her place. However, said Ms.
Collins, victims often just want to know why: why the offense,
why them?
“Usually the
offender didn’t have anything against the victim – they just needed a
release or had a bad day,” said Ms. Collins. “We try to help offenders
focus on how they got in trouble in the first place and how to prevent
it again. The offender really doesn’t want to go back to where they’ve
come from, but if they don’t get their life back on track, no one will
really listen to them. The offender would go on to re-offend and go to
prison, and the victim would live in fear.” But, out of mediation, a
relationship forms between the victim and the offender that brings about
healing and progress.
Nearly all of the
cases that RJMP receives involve juvenile offenders. Bob Shaw,
president of RJMP’s board, shared a true story that illustrates the
power of restorative justice.
Two youth were
throwing rocks at a church that housed a preschool. They broke several
windows. One of the offenders agreed to sit down for mediation and
learned that the church members, who were mostly elderly, thought that
they were victims of a hate-crime and that the preschoolers were
traumatized after the event. After some role-reversal exercises, the
church members realized that the kid wasn’t bad, and instead of wanting
to punish him, they wanted to reach out to help him. Through mediation,
they agreed together that the boy would come and talk to the church
members to offer a public apology. In addition, since he was
artistically gifted, he offered to help the preschoolers with their art
projects.
The focus of most
restorative justice programs is primarily juveniles. As Mr. Shaw said,
“If you catch people early and really help them understand the
consequences of their actions, as they grow older, they’re not going to
be likely at all to commit another crime.”
This is certainly
the stance that Heather Dugdale, executive director for San Diego Teen
Court, espouses. Teen Court offers both intervention (similar to RJMP)
and prevention in the form of training for San Diego teens who become
the attorneys and jury in actual court cases involving local juvenile
offenders. Two different projects provide teen courts: one organizes
school-based programs and another works with students whose schools do
not offer the program). All participants receive general training
regarding restorative justice, the criminal system, diversion, and the
judicial system. Those who want to serve as attorneys receive two
additional levels of training: local, practicing attorneys teach teens
how to handle police reports and develop questions for the “trial”;
second, the teen attorneys are trained how to ask for sentences that
promote restorative justice, and they are provided guidance in
developing opening and closing statements.
The goal is
threefold. First, it shows kids that diversion (i.e., mediation,
intervention, prevention – restorative justice) is not about punishment,
but rather accountability and second chances. Second, it still gives
consequences to actions and demonstrates to the community that the kids
can be held accountable. Third, it shows the kids how cumbersome the
whole judicial process is.
“It’s really about
giving the kids a…chance to repair their previous actions,” said Ms.
Dugdale. “Defendants can go through the program as volunteer jurors or
attorneys. They aren’t permanently labeled as a ‘defendant.’ Those
kids who go through the process and see the other side tend to come
back.”
Since its inception
in 2001, 288 offenders have come through Teen Court. Of that 288, only
25 have gone on to re-offend – a low 8.9% recidivism rate compared to
the 19% County average for diversion providers, said Ms. Dugdale, citing
a 2003 San Diego County grand jury study. With such a high success rate
– not to mention the high success rates of other aforementioned
restorative justice projects – it’s surprising that this system has not
become the norm.
Even more surprising
is a study on restorative justice and mediation programs commissioned by
the California Judicial Council about five years ago. A proposal in the
state legislature to fund such programs on a regular basis prompted the
study, to see if the programs actually worked. Six of the major
victim-offender programs were examined in-depth and the report
demonstrated their efficacy well. Not only are recidivism rates
lowered, but such programs are cost-effective in the long-run because
they keep people out of the court and prison systems.
“But,” said Mr.
Shaw, “future savings are hard to sell in a budget crunch.”
continued:
more on Restorative Justice