New Zealand is a leading country in the effort to implement restorative justice programs, and I had the opportunity to experience that firsthand last semester as an international student. While taking courses I was exposed to multiple scholars in the field who expanded on the benefits of restoration which is the idea that a victim, an offender, their families and other affected community members can meet and work together to discuss the crime and restore the relationship that existed prior to its occurrence.
The New Zealand scholars discussed the practicality of restoration as a way to give space for the victim to voice their concerns in a primarily state-centered system, where evidence shows very positive outcomes in recidivism reduction and victim satisfaction. After I came back to finish my degree at American University, I went to a prominent law enforcement establishment to attend a restorative justice panel and quickly realized there was a disconnect between what I saw on stage and what I learned from my time in New Zealand. All of the panelists applied their own opinions rather than facts or data, where the panelists' negativity stemmed from their own interpretation of the system instead of research. The panel was meant to be a discussion about the advantages of restorative justice, but one of the panelists had a strong distaste for the benefits the system has to offer and did not support its use. New Zealand began and grew their system off of fact instead of opinion, and to get to that point we must do the same to see programs succeed.
Restorative justice is meant to repair harm caused by the crime and restore all parties affected back to a place where they can move forward once again. This system may seem easier to use on lower level crimes, but it is more relevant and functional to use in more serious crimes. One example discussed in a New York Times story about the implementation of restorative justice for more serious crimes began with a 19-year-old man who, after fighting with his girlfriend for over two days, shot her in the head during a heated argument and then immediately went to turn himself in (Tullis, 2013).
Instead of a Tallahassee, Florida court sentencing the offender to life, the parents of the deceased daughter wanted to hold a conference as a way to obtain closure. A couple of months after the crime, the man and his mother met with a mediator and the victim’s parents where they discussed the event that had gathered them there. The man explained what events influenced the crime and apologized sincerely which had a strong effect on the victim’s parents and their input concerning the offender’s punishment. Everybody involved in this process voiced how transformative the meeting was, displaying the potential impact that restoration can have for the victim, the offender, and their families (Tullis, 2013). Their choice for restorative justice allowed everybody to express their emotions in a safe space in order to continue with their lives, instead of inhibiting individual growth with a prison sentence. Although this form of restoration happened in place of a court trial, there are many other ways it can be utilized in other fields even beyond criminal justice.
One way that restorative justice can be used is by law enforcement, for example a restorative program for drug offenders known as LEAD, or Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion. The program changed how policing operates in Seattle, Washington. Instead of arresting drug users or prostitutes, police divert them to social services such as medical care or drug treatment as ways to seek out help (Collins et al, 2016). Although drug offenses are widely seen as victimless crimes, offenders are still thought about and helped by police officers in a restorative, instead of punitive, manner. Prison environments make offenders even more angry and at risk for doing more drugs, but LEAD’s intervention improves lives and gives people a second chance.
A 2017 study by researchers at the University of Washington found that drug users that were part of the LEAD program were 58% less likely to offend than those who were not a part of the program (Collins et al, 2016). Along with the LEAD program’s success, the story of the man who shot his girlfriend illustrates additionally that restorative justice can have a number of other potential positive outcomes. The victim’s parents noted they felt that forgiveness is a type of self-preservation that benefits their futures in ways that putting the offender behind bars would not be able to satisfy. These positive accounts and other evidence show that although we may be working in the right direction with restorative justice practices within the United States, it’s a conversation we all need to be having more often.
References
Collins, S. E., Lonczak, H. S., & Clifasefi, S. L. (2017). Seattle’s Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD): Program effects on recidivism outcomes. Evaluation and Program Planning, 64, 49-56. doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.05.008
Tullis, P. (2013, January 04). Can Forgiveness Play a Role in Criminal Justice? Retrieved July 26, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/magazine/can-forgiveness-play-a-role-in-criminal-justice.html
Comments