First I would like to give kudos to the professors for running class every week - it is not easy! Next I would like to thank my fellow classmates for a successful class!
The first thought when learning about restorative practice is something like “You want to bring the victim and offender together? What kind of a crazy idea is that?! How can this be beneficial?” It brings up negative feelings, guilt, and shame. And yet could there be more? Below are two quotes from The Fork in the Road to Juvenile Court Reform. These quotes stood out to me as I read the article. I would like to hear your reactions to these quotes. Are there any words in either quote that jump out at you? Do you agree with the ideas or do you completely disagree and why?
“It can be argued, however, that something important was lost as communities seemed to abandon their responsibility for many problems that now find their way onto juvenile court dockets” (pg. 83).
“Moreover, it can be argued that expansion of the government role in these matters has contributed to a kind of learned helplessness and powerlessness in raising young people and resolving disputes” (pg 83).
Also, what were you thinking when you left class yesterday? Had your view of restorative practices changed? Did you have any ideas or questions left over that you wished you could have mentioned in class? Thinking back to Jamie’s class last week and solitary confinement; could restorative practices be used instead of solitary confinement? Or perhaps in conjunction with solitary confinement? My final question is, can a mediator stay neutral? We saw that Christina seemed to be struggeling with this yesterday, what do you think? Would training make a difference?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
I've been trying to hold back commenting lately, only to log in on Monday and find over a dozen comments - so I'm writing early. But briefly: when I left class yesterday I was thinking about the relationship between Katie's topic -- restorative practice -- and Jamie's class on solitary confinement. And while I think we all came out with varying degrees of opposition to the practice of solitary confinement, I was thinking that maybe some kind of isolation could be well-used in the process. I'm thinking, as I always do, of juvenile punishment as practiced in my own home: the time out. What if time alone were not theorized from the extreme angle of violent offender, but from the perspective of offering a safe place to reflect on one's role in what happened. Like a retreat that could be used to understand what you'd be asked to reflect on in The Circle (or whatever it is called). It did seem to me that one of the drawbacks of restorative justice was that most parties in the talks would come from the same semi-chaotic social environment that perhaps led to their poor choices in the first place. Hard to think/know what you think when you are in such an environment.
Actually, I did not initially think that bringing the victim and the offender together was crazy. Why? Because when we are very young, we are taught to go to the offended party and apologize, if we hurt someone. That is what I was taught, and most of you probably were taught the same thing.
I think that restorative practices are worthwhile because the offender has a great possibility of seeing the hurt that he or she has inflicted on someone else. The victim also gets a chance to open up about deep-seated emotions and be heard.
In other words, the healing process can begin for both parties, just as it once did when we were on the playground.
Professor Reitz -
I am glad that you left class thinking about the relationship between my topic and Jamie's. You bring up the idea of 'time outs' and how isolation and a time to reflect might be beneficial. It seems to me that solitary confinement might be a good idea, however we are not properly using it.
I do agree that a draw back can be the environment that the parties come from. Even though RP tries to incorporate the community it seems to be more easily said then done.
How could we take into consideration the "semi-chaotic social environment" or is it possible to for RP to address the environment?
Jamie-
I like that you brought up how we are taught to handle situations when we are younger. After you mentioned this I began to recall how my mom treated me when I misbehaved when I was little. Occasionally I was told to sit on my bed by myself (a somewhat timeout) to think about what I did. I could not leave my bed or play with my toys. Afterwards I had to apologize for what I did. This meant not just saying "I'm sorry" but specifically saying what I am sorry for.
I know that some of us do not have this experience this type of child rearing but for those of us who do, why do we lose this concept as we grow up? Why does the justice system not take this idea into consideration?
I think that the fundamental problem that your quotes indicate is the loss of the ability to interact with the youth. The upper class youth are caught up in the technological, capitalistic…money, money now mentality. This is also apart of the poor communities, but poverty and lack of resources help to compound the material conditions of these youths. My Grandma would always say, it takes a village to raise a child. I don’t think this knowledge is particularly new but it is definitely lost.
The goal of restorative justice is admirable and leaving class I was not sure how it would work or what to think of it. But ultimately I think that any agenda of restoring the community is a good one. Because I am not sure about how I feel about restorative justice I cannot give a definite answer.
And to answer Katie’s last question; Neutrality does not exists. The subjective always intervenes, as Christian clearly shows. The subject can NEVER be put aside. No amount of training can tell someone to ignore their own ideas about the world or their own subjectivities. NEUTRALITY DOES NOT EXIST. IT IS FICTITIOUS.
Chad Out!
Thanks for the interesting role Katie, now we know what job I will never have.
I am sure that Chad meant Christina, not Christian, and he is right, neutrality may not exist. Just the way that the ideal situation for restorative practices to work does not exist. I believe that the concept is great, we are steering away from punish, punish, punish. Within the circle we are incorporating the feelings of the community and victims which has been stripped from us over time while an industry of punitive practices has benefited financially and socially. Today, rather than help our fellow man or woman, we just call the cops, if we even do that. I believe that the practice of creating a circle and discussing the issues that led up to the incident, how it has harmed everyone involved and even those not directly involved, and determining a solution that makes everyone feel some sense of ease is an amazing idea. As some of you have mentioned, our parents used to implement similar techniques to help their children learn the difference between right and wrong and to deter them from doing those things again. Imagine if our parents, rather than give us a “time out”, called the cops and let them deal with it. Sounds crazy right? But lately we have handed over our responsibility of being parents and responsible citizens to the authorities. Perhaps it was stolen, and now it just seems like the normal thing. Ironically, there is action against Administration for Children’s Services and other similar agencies that say that raising a child is up to the parents. In fact, what goes on in the home is the families business is the reason why so much domestic violence takes place, so I do feel that there is a place for the law to intervene. There is a fine line here.
As Professor Stein stated, “Not everyone comes to the circle with the same amount of authority”. We cannot pretend that these circles are equal grounds for amending crimes that have been committed. Lenny mentioned in class that not all victims are innocent. This is true, but that does not make the crime committed against them justified. But if this is the case, they should also be apologizing and taking responsibility for their actions. I believe it was Jessica that mentioned that the circle, to her, seems like it all about shaming the offender. As the mediator I could not keep my neutrality. I was not siding with either party, in fact I was empathizing with both parties.
I will sound like a broken record, but I think that once again we are coming up with a solution to fix a problem, when the real solutions will be found in prevention. There are too many stories, histories, opinions, upbringings, feelings, etc that are brought into the circle. Having someone who has never been taught not to hurt others, never been shown love and appreciation, never understood the impact of their actions on others will never really benefit from the circle. The same way that the gentlemen from CEO will not learn life skills in 4 days, having respect for others and their property is not something that will be appreciated in one circle. We need to make lifestyle changes. We need to learn about our history. We need to develop a better sense of community. Sometimes I feel that I am wasting my time fighting for justice when we live in a place where racism is just as pervasive as it has ever been, corporations control government, and we are raised to be individualistic consumers.
To me, the first quote is vague by itself. As Chad and Professor Stein stated in class, “What community are we talking about here?” Now they were speaking about the community that restorative justice was including in its discussion. I am concerned with which community the quote is referring to when it says, “…communities seemed to abandon their responsibility for many problems…” I think in many levels the “community” has abandoned their responsibilities for many of the problems that reach the juvenile court dockets. I think the community of the family consisting of the mom, the dad, the guardian, or other relatives have lost the sense of responsibility in raising the child. As Chad stated, or rather as Chad’s Grandma stated, “It takes a village to raise a child.” I also feel that many people have aided in the erosion of the concept that other people outside the family are responsible for the education and nurturing of a child. It seems for many reasons that people have become more afraid of saying “hey you shouldn’t do that” when someone else’s child is in danger or is doing something dangerous. With so many repercussions it seems better to turn your head rather than aid the child. This brings me to the next quote. The only part about the second quote that I find troubling is that it doesn’t explain how the government came about to replace the parent or guardian or community in raising children. I do not think the government came overnight and replaced the parent in this way, but I do believe that it came about slowly with those pesky anthropologists and psychologists ( just making light humor Professor Waterston and Professor Stein), and lawyers performing studies and creating laws which aided the government in replacing the communities responsibility in juvenile education and upbringing. I do believe that the community was unaware of the consequences that came by allowing government to gain so much power in “raising young people and resolving disputes.” Now it seems a cycle has formed that is hard to break. I am sure there are a thousand different ways this process happened, and I am sure I am over simplifying the issue and actions of individuals and/or groups.
After class I was shocked and awed by the idea of restorative practice. I kept thinking what a dangerous tool this could be. I know that the criminal justice system is not working properly, but I also know the blueprints are there so that one day, when the right people are in the right positions the system could and will work. Restorative practice is another animal altogether,I believe its intentions are good, but that seems to aid to the feeling that it is as dangerous as our current criminal justice practice. The first reason why I think restorative practice is dangerous is because they believe it works, as I mentioned and many other students mentioned in other ways, it seems the end result is the offender feeling guilty and the victim gaining some type of power over the offender. Also either way the offender will have to submit to some type of punishment, however well intentioned the “punishment” is the free will is lost in this circle. Professor Waterston, I believe, also noticed this unequal power play, as did Professor Stein. This seems dangerous to me because as Professor Stein stated, “What is the offender thinking when they say you’re right I did a bad thing I am sorry?” Is the offender really sorry, or just ashamed and feeling they are not safe in that environment and that they truly are a bad person? As to the question of neutrality, I believe a mediator can stay neutral. I mean it was Christina’s first time as a mediator (I think) she did her best to stay neutral. With training and experience I am sure it is possible for someone to remain neutral as a mediator. The mediator may not feel neutral, but their actions are what matter, if they appear to remain neutral, and neither party can tell which side the mediator is on and both feel the mediator is neutral , then yes even if the mediator themselves is not neutral they can remain neutral in action and practice. I do believe that restorative practice is on the right track by diverting juveniles from going to prison, but by believing that it is the answer scares me when an idea or system run by people believes it is complete, self realization is death.
I appreciate the comments made by the other professors and Joseph about the power differential in the The Circle. Everything possible should be done to understand those inequities and how they shape the experience for all the different parties. However, it seems like objecting to The Circle because not everyone comes with the same amount of power relies on imagining that such a space (complete power equality) could ever exist. It can't. Or at least, putting on my professor hat, can anyone name a social space (meaning a place of more than one person) where everyone has the same amount of power? (Chad, you can correct me, but I think we tried to imagine this during the Desert Island course and could not come up with one.) The justice system is certainly not a place of equals and this has many awful affects -- but we don't abandon it because it is unequal. Rather we try to change it to address those problems. I also think it is an impossible standard to require some kind of completely true, sincere repentance to be produced by the offender. It would be great if it did, but having someone apologize and accept responsibility is better than not doing it. Yes, there is the "I'm sorry .... you're an idiot" apology. I hear it a lot in my home. But the mechanism of knowing that you have to apologize to the person, even when you might not feel 100% apologetic, is better than nothing.
One of the things that I love about the idea of The Circle -- as an idea -- is that it so perfectly expresses our main idea this semester of perspective. It is an exercise in thinking that each person in a situation has a point of view. Very cool connection, Katie!
Could it be then that power, status or standing alternates within different circles, between different people within that circle. That means that there can be a time well all the people within the circle can have at some time or another a share of the power, status, or standing? Or is it we lost our sense of equality as children when we grow up and therefore have lost that feeling of equality? Does a disbelief in equal share of power perpetuate the idea that there can never be equal share of power when people gather?
I do think that part of The Circle is about giving power to the powerless insofaras the victim experienced powerlessness while being victimized and now has some guaranteed authority in The Circle. That seems like it's got to be part of it.
On another note, take a look at the Check It Out section on the blog's homepage. I just added a link to "Teaching to the Text Message" by John Jay Professor Andy Selsig. It speaks to the "See Spot Run" conversation we were having about writing last week.
Oops, meant "Selsberg."
THIS IS A POST FROM PROFESSOR WATERSTON:
Hi All. I apologize for coming into this conversation late and my message is being sent via Professor Reitz. There are two reasons for my delay: I was away for three days working on a project that very much ties into our discussion here on restorative justice/reconciliation, and then I returned home late last night to a dead computer (hard drive destroyed). I can’t remember my password for the Vera blog which explains why Professor Reitz is helping me out by posting my comments.
Before I share with you the incredible experience I had this weekend, I want to put in my two cents on the issue of power differentials when it comes to “the circle” or these efforts at restoring relations. I don’t think the issue is that if we face up to the fact the parties come to the table with degrees of power means that we shouldn’t bother doing so. What it does mean, however, is that there is a danger in NOT acknowledging the power differential. That danger is that those with “less” power in the relationship may feel compelled or coerced to say what she thinks the more powerful expect to hear. And that means there won’t be the kind of honesty necessary if this is going to work. And the danger is that those with “more” power in the relationship may unconsciously use her power to elicit what she HOPES (expects?) to hear rather than get a genuine response from the other party. Therefore, it is important that such power differentials get honestly confronted just like the other issues need to be confronted in an honest way. If not, the project is likely to fall apart. The restoration could be a sham. (CONT.)
PART TWO FROM PROF WATERSTON:
Now for my experience this weekend (I don’t know if I can be short about this): A group of people from various disciplines--a psychoanalyst, several anthropologists, a rabbi, a political psychologist, two activists involved in reconciliation efforts between Jews, Muslims and Christians, and a retired state department diplomat, and, at one point, the Polish government’s legal counsel for the US--came together in Los Angeles to discuss how to begin approaching the issue of healing Polish-Christian and Polish-Jewish relations that have been destroyed by the violences of several centuries, including the Holocaust. The weekend was kind of like Katie’s restorative justice circle. I could write 20 pages on what happened this weekend, and what we discussed, but for the purposes of the blog I’ll just say this: It seems to me that what is needed for these circles to work includes: 1) an appreciation of process (allowing things to evolve--those “things” are ideas, realizations, recognitions about self and other); 2) deep knowledge of the larger forces (history) implicated in the violence that occurred (i.e., it’s not just between the individuals or the social groups in violent contact with one another but there are invisible hands that need to be known, understand, brought to the fore); and 3) a shift away from focusing on a particular “outcome” or result. Instead, what happens in and among the group and between individuals IS the point--the dialogue, the discussion, the talking, the understanding--those acts in and of themselves are key. I can’t tell if I’m being too vague or general and if the connections to “restorative justice” are at all clear, but I certainly felt it this weekend.
Christina-
I am glad that you brought up prevention again. When I was writing my blog I was going to give my own analysis of the quotes. The author of The Fork in the Road to Juvenile Court Reform seems to say that the lack of community leads to youth “juvenile court dockets”. We keep running to this idea of having some sort of prevention or intervention BEFORE people reach the criminal justice system. A couple of weeks ago I was speaking with a mother whose son and nephew were locked up on Rikers. She asked me why there was no where to turn before the criminal justice system. Her question shocked me, as it is something we have been discussing in class over and over again.
Professor Reitz,
A political science Professor that I had told us that the one day that everyone had equal power was election day. This is the only instance that I come up with where everyone has equal power, and yet not everyone votes, and so many other variables come into play.
Also, to me circles are so interesting because there are many perspectives taken into consideration and the perspectives are all very different, but important.
Joseph,
Could you further explain this point for me…Also either way the offender will have to submit to some type of punishment, however well intentioned the “punishment” is the free will is lost in this circle.
Now I know why I recommend to students that they blog early. Having waited just a few days, I feel quite overwhelmed but the discussion’s different threads.
I guess I will comment on the question of power differentials, first, because it is a critical to recognize disparities in the criminal justice system, especially those that are most easily hidden or ignored.
I think we have to accept that there will always be power differentials within groups. As Joseph points out, this will vary with different groups, and will affect group dynamics in different ways. Power can also shift within groups, depending on what is happening at a particular moment. Think about our class and what contributes to the power dynamics: authority, seniority, who gets to judge whom (am I grading you or are you evaluating me?), race, class, sex, personality characteristics, articulation, even beauty may play a role. So how much more complicated is it in a criminal justice setting, where the stakes are so much higher and the parties do not naturally share a single goal? But, as Prof. Waterston pointed out, the inequity doesn’t mean we can’t try… it simply means that we have to be attuned to the differences and the impact they may have. Because we are enamored of the circle’s potential for cooperation, we may avert our eyes from indices of the abuse of power. We have to be even more vigilant about seeing the operation of power in situations where it is masked.
Secondly, I want to address the issue of the viability of restorative practices. As was pointed out in class by Lenny, these programs are 1) voluntary and 2) mostly used with juveniles. They may be particularly well suited to a young population who are conceivably more invested in the acceptance or respect of the community or the love of particular adults. The voluntary nature almost guarantees success because participants are buying into the concept and want to make it work. Katie, given these strictures, do you think it would be possible to scale up restorative practice programs and be successful with mandated adult offenders and victims?
I had a thought today that perhaps restorative justice works best in one of two situations. One, where there is no formal criminal justice system to stand as a viable alternative or two, when the alternative criminal justice system is considered to be the absolute worst of options.
Consider as evidence the origins of restorative justice, traditional tribunals (existing long before modern day justice systems) where the community would decide the fate of the deviant. Also consider traditional practices, of tribunal style restorative justice, that reemerged in post-conflict situations where a community did not- could not- trust the criminal justice system (such as in South Africa), or when the agents of the criminal justice system no longer held the authority to arbitrate (such as in Rwanda).
Given these two situations where restorative justice seems to be accepted as the best practice, could it be right to propose that a rejection of restorative justice assumes a confidence in the status of our arbitrators and in the legitimacy of our current system of criminal justice?
Professor Stein,
To answer your question, I think that it would be more effective to use restorative justice on youth; seeing as they are more malleable. However, I would not rule out using restorative justice with adult participants. I believe that under the condition that the adults' participation is voluntary restorative justice could also be successful with adults.
I am curious, does anybody feel differently? Perhaps more needs to be taken into consideration than just participation being voluntary?
Thank you very much Katie for an interesting class!
The process of restorative justice might be beneficial or harmful; it is difficult to predict. As Lenny mentioned in the class, it takes a few months of preparation and no one can tell exactly what the outcome of the session could be. We only could hope.
Some of the LEAP clients who are victims of domestic violence are younger than me and have three kids already. This fact terrifies me. I was at the Integrated Domestic Court a few weeks ago. What shocked me was that those kids acted like they were on television. They did not realize that they experienced domestic violence and that their kids might experience some psychological disorder as a result of it throughout their life.
At the class, I was picturing typical LEAP clients who are usually from nineteen to twenty-three sitting in a circle and having a restorative justice session. I do not think that they can appreciate its value and get some treatment from that process. Rather, they might start acting out and make thing even worse.
Therefore, it is difficult for me to say what is right and what is wrong because there are many pros and many cons for restorative justice.
Dear Katie,
Thanks for the great class!
I must say I am rather excited to teach my class next week. It looks like a lot of fun and I can't wait to have you all read articles on higher education and get rolling with ideas.
However, your class like those before, raised a lot of great questions and tied in with other topics like Jamie's class.
My opinion about restorative justice is, I believe at some point, bringing people together, offender, victim, and witnesses, brings a sense of guilt towards those who initiated the conflict, while witnesses state what they saw, heard, and what might have happened.
I am still not clear as to what the benefits of it is, or what the role of the mediator is, but at the moment I think of it as a start in solving crimes, rather than placing criminals in jail.
If you could elaborate a bit more as to what makes restorative practices helpful, that would be great.
Provocative question, Lenny. Historically speaking, you are right that restorative practices hearken back to a time before our system "evolved" to where it is now (tongue firmly in cheek). There is a bit of nostalgia for a time with more local control; this can work wonderfully and fluidly in some circumstances but end up being even more punitive than traditional CRJ practices in others. I also think people are just tired of lawyers (sorry to all you aspiring ones); even divorce has now moved toward mediation rather than litigation.
In response to Lenny, I agree that promoters of restorative practices are fighting what they believe to be a bloated and ineffectual criminal justice system. But I don't think looking at restorative practices skeptically indicates a strong belief that the system we have is effective nor has moral authority.
It reminds me of a famous article years ago that criticized all the well intentioned rehabilitation programs. The article was called "Nothing Works" and said (rightfully so) that after thirty years, with rehabilitation as a goal, recidivism was higher than ever. To me, that is because the only real way to stop crime is to intervene from birth forward, through healthcare, education, employment, psychological services, etc. If you don't do that, you are always only playing catch-up and choosing between the better of evils.
I hope all of you have been checking in with the blog this week, because the give and take between a bunch of us -- started by Katie! -- has shown was an interesting conversational supplement the blog can be to class. I know it takes extra work to keep checking back in, but it pays off.
My bad, I meant to say I can't wait until I teach my class two weeks from now. My apologies.
Post a Comment