Restorative Justice

There are a few theories of criminal justice out there.

America’s system of criminal justice has evolved into what would be called a Rehabilitative Model. Someone decided that with enough work and therapy (or medication) a criminal-type person can be reintroduced into society a new man, able to contribute to the best of his ability.

Some people don’t think our current system works very well.

In some ways, I’d agree. Recidivism rates are too high to consider our current system a real success. The same people are doing the same crimes time and time again.

I’ve been going through a book titled Restoring Justice – An Introduction to Restorative Justice, which was written by Daniel Van Ness and Karen Heetderks Strong. Van Ness and Strong are strong proponents of a (big surprise here) Restorative Model of criminal justice.

Evidently, there are many different levels of restorative justice, but all the different levels have certain similarities. The general gist of the model is that, in criminal cases, the victim of the crime is given an opportunity to relay how much the crime committed against them has impacted their lives. Theoretically, they would receive answers to their questions as to why the crime was committed, and also have some say in the extent of punishment that is dealt.

In what seems like an idea straight out of a pot-infested liberal love-fest, the criminals themselves are expected to explain why they committed the crime and how it has affected their lives. The offender is allowed to talk through their feelings and given a chance to make the victim feel better, as much as possible, with some kind of compensation.

Van Ness and Strong see the lack of satisfaction on the part of the victims of crime as being a major reason why Rehabilitative justice seems to have failed us. Their view – and the view of Restorative Justice advocates – seems to be that crime should be defined by how it harms the victim and infringes on his rights, not defined by the behavior of the offender. Only once the victim is satisfied can society be satisfied.

I can see the value of that. I can also see a few problems with that.

Different people have different ideas of satisfaction. What may satisfy you may not satisfy me. The idea that someone who steals $10,000 from a religiously devout individual who insists on forgiving someone who steals from her would be punished less than someone who steals $1000 from someone who has a mean streak doesn’t sit right with me.

It also may be difficult to come to an agreement as to what kind of punishment someone would serve if they, say, raped my dead grandmother’s corpse, set it on fire and left it on my father’s porch, stuffed with the carcass of our freshly-slaughtered family dog. How exactly would someone make that right?

With a murder, or a rape, could someone who was raped really put a price tag on their forgiveness?

If we did change over to a more Restorative model of criminal justice, we will have to be realistic in our expectation as to how successful this system will be.

Restorative justice relies heavily on the participation of the offender in the process, whether it is voluntary or compelled. You will usually get what appears to be genuine investment by the offender in the process. The true measure as to the effectiveness of these alternative processes will be a decrease in the rate of re-offending, but I suspect that the rate would remain the same if not higher.

Although our current system is at odds with itself, with the philosophy being more on punishment than rehabilitation, some success can be claimed with the current reduction in the overall crime rate. This system does not achieve the same goals for the victim, offender and the community that a restorative model is designed to achieve, but it makes society feel safe.

There is a lengthy chronology of failed rehabilitative models throughout the history of the criminal justice system in the US. With the current emphasis on lengthy sentences and punishment rather than rehabilitation, it can be argued that penal systems are, in fact, simply warehousing offenders. This may be good or bad depending on your perspective, but it is simply society’s response to failed efforts at changing criminal behavior.

I disagree with the notion that making offenders face the reality of the harm they have caused to the community will be sufficient to make them change. If that were the case, they would not commit the initial offense and they certainly would not re-offend. As we all know, this has not been the case in the past and I do not see it happening in the future.

The restorative justice model ignores the fact that a man is not an island. We are all part of a society, and that society requires laws to function. When individuals flagrantly ignore those laws for whatever purpose, society has the right – the obligation – to demand recompense. Satisfaction on the part of the actual victim should be the most important factor when it comes to sentencing, but society needs satisfaction as well.

Having said all that I would have to admit that I am personally in favor of some kind of change in our current system, whether it be to a restorative justice model or some kind of hybrid.

The bottom line is that, as a society, we can find a much better use for our resources than incarcerating large segments of our population.

The other truism is that all of this change in philosophy and paradigm shift is all for naught if the offenders are not willing to embrace it.

Either way, I don’t think corrections officers will face a huge layoff anytime soon.