http://doj.nh.gov/criminal/victim-assistance/bill-of-rights.htm

In the interview Malvo states, “I am sorry. I am sorry–there’s no way to express…I mean what am I going ot tell them. I’m sorry I murderd your only child. I’m sorry I murdered your husband…” 

From our experience working with victims of violent crime often they do want to hear just that—I’m sorry. If it never has been expressed by an offender it is important. There is healing in the expression of true remorse. But as I said, there are questions that the victims or victims’ families have that go unanswered. Yet the offender has the answers to questions that a victim would ask such as how a loved one looked when they were killed, what the loved one said at the end, why they were chosen as victims by the offender, and there are more.  These are terrible questions that go unanswered.

Could restorative justice apply here to this case with Lee Boyd Malvo?  We do not know. But there is always a chance for more healing in the victim or their families. Offenders can take responsibility for their actions even when they are in prison, as in this case. The question is do the victims have the choice to choose restorative justice? Have they heard of restorative justice?  RJI is willing to assist in this case and cases like it if asked.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/lee-malvo-i-was-a-monster/2012/09/29/52d13ae0-0a69-11e2-933e-28d53c6ac092_video.html  (video/audio)

However, no victim of crime should turn away from what restorative justice could offer them because he/she has not forgiven the offender. There should be no blaming of the victim here.  But at the same time, it is important to tell the stories of victims. Many of those stories include stories of grace—stories of forgiveness. I also think crime victims can benefit from hearing these stories.  

All crime victims want to know they are not alone. When they hear the stories of other victims of violent crime who benefitted from restorative justice then they are more likely to explore it as well. Healing can come through restorative justice processes. That healing, on whatever level, and empowerment is available for all victims who choose restorative justice for themselves.  

What do you think?

Originally published on restorativejusticeinternational.com.

However, no victim of crime should turn away from what restorative justice could offer them because he/she has not forgiven the offender. There should be no blaming of the victim here.  But at the same time, it is important to tell the stories of victims. Many of those stories include stories of grace—stories of forgiveness. I also think crime victims can benefit from hearing these stories.  

All crime victims want to know they are not alone. When they hear the stories of other victims of violent crime who benefitted from restorative justice then they are more likely to explore it as well. Healing can come through restorative justice processes. That healing, on whatever level, and empowerment is available for all victims who choose restorative justice for themselves.  

What do you think?

Originally published on restorativejusticeinternational.com.

The financial costs, not to mention the social costs to communities, are staggering. In California, for instance, it costs about $47,000 to incarcerate one prison inmate for one year.

Restorative justice principles invite us to reconsider the nature of crime: it is not an offense of a criminal against the state, but an offense committed by one individual (the offender) against other individuals (the victims). 

For this reason, the justice system should hold offenders accountable (as directly as possible) for restoring (as much as possible) the victims or their families. Restorative justice acknowledges that crime breaks the peace within communities. Offenders, therefore, must make things right with the community as well, if possible.

The American justice system, like most justice systems worldwide, does not work well for victims, offenders, and communities, which is why many people are seeking to embrace something new. Restorative justice provides the vision for change precisely because it brings to light the human impact of our failed policies. 

But it does not stop there. It proposes ways to build a bridge between the victim and the offender. Some might wonder whether victims would want contact of any kind with their offenders. However, crime victims increasingly are seeking that contact, largely because the current system does not adequately acknowledge the impact violent crime has on victims, or hold offenders accountable to their victims in meaningful ways.

Read the whole article.

But who is asking about the children abused some 15 year ago? Who is shocked by the sexual abuse of a football coach from the perspective of the victims abused who are now much older than children? Who speaks for them? Our interest in this news story seems to more about watching  a college football icon fall from grace and resign or get fired than to see sexual abuse against children as anathema in our society wherever it is found. Sexual abuse of children is after all a crime. 

As some have started, including the New York Times, the similarity between this alleged sexual abuse at Penn State and the sexual abuse cases in the Catholic Church first erupting in the U.S. in 2001 is obvious and worrisome. Often true in so many clergy abuse cases in the Catholic Church we have learned that the actions of the abusers were hidden from authorities and worse the abusers have often been moved from church parish to parish once Catholic church officials learned of the behavior.  This does not seem to be the case with Penn State's Jerry Sandusky but far too many knew that possible sexual abuse had occurred for many years against children yet no one stopped it. No one seemed to follow up once the abuse was discovered and reported inside the university. In both cases, no one went to the police. 

As we know with the Catholic Church there is no acknowledgement by the Vatican that law enforcement has any power or authority whatsoever over the actions of the church and its priests no matter what they are doing. The Catholic Church is sovereign---we are told. Maybe Penn State considered itself to be sovereign as well regardless of possible criminal actions taken by a former assistant football coach.

The effect these cases should have on us as we learn more is to be very concerned and, I hope, angry. Sexual abuse committed against children, or adults, is horrific. Not punishing these acts is worse. In the case of Penn State please don't let this be all about Coach Joe Paterno and his record as a winning football coach. I was encouraged to see that the Attorney General of Pennsylvania investigated this case against Sandusky. Attorney General Linda Kelly was courageous to go after the abuse especially at Penn State.  

What is needed now is to confirm the guilt of the abuser and, if proven, seek a criminal conviction against Sandusky. As in the hundreds of cases of abuse at the hands of Catholic clergy, these cases are criminal and convictions should be sought in each case worldwide.  There should be no statute of limitations. Those who enabled the abuse whether at Penn State or inside the Catholic Church should be held accountable under law. Someone should be asking what about the victims. Restorative justice can apply here in this case with Penn State, as I have always believed it could apply to every case of clergy abuse of children wherever that abuse has taken place. 

That does not mean a slap on the wrist or the resignation, or firing, of a beloved football coach.  The application of restorative justice means accountability and it means responding to the needs of the victims now---even 15 years later.

In June of 2011 I moderated a crime victims roundtable on restorative justice at Campbell University School of Law in North Carolina. At that national restorative justice conference I met a man named Franky Carrillo. He sat in the audience of my roundtable. I looked out at the audience and thought I recognized his face. After the event I learned why. His story had been in the Los Angeles Times a couple of months before. Franky had been exonerated after some 20 years of incarceration in a California prison. He was now a free man. I was so excited to see him and rejoiced at his freedom and seeing him at this conference. How many more like Franky are there? How many more innocent people sit on death row in America? Is Troy Davis one of them?

I think it is hard not to conclude that he is one of those innocent men.  Since I work with crime victims around this country and globally I am saddened by the pain of the victims' family in this case. They seek an end to their pain, pain they have felt since their loved one was murdered. They seek peace. But as I have learned from so many victims and those who have been exonerated, one thing they will not get is peace if the wrong person is executed for a crime he did not commit. Those who speak out against this execution seek justice.  Restorative justice cannot be applied when an innocent man is imprisoned, and let alone executed if he is not the guilty party. There will be no restoration or healing of the victim. There will be no offender accountability if the wrong man is executed.  If reading this story makes you anxious and unsettled, it should.

From left to right: Bill Pelke, Kim Book, Lisa Rea, Bess Klassen-Landis, Stephen Watt

Listening to each tell his/her story led me to realize that each victim had experienced some kind of healing because of restorative justice. Each had moved on with their lives in ways that can only be described as "healthy". Forgiveness was raised during the roundtable.  Each spoke of their opposition to the death penalty, particularly Bill and Bess who have spoken around the country, and around the world, declaring their strong opposition to the death penalty. Bill founded the nonprofit Journey of Hope: From Violence to Healing to organize the increasing number of murder victims family members speaking out against capital punishment. Bess talked about finding her voice after joining the Journey on a speaking tour. Healing came for her through telling her story and finding others who were finding their way forward after horrific violence by promoting peace and nonviolence. 

Kim had founded a nonprofit also: Victims Voices Heard, which promotes restorative justice and seeks to assist victims by urging victim offender dialogue. Even though a restorative justice meeting with her own offender had not happened and perhaps never will Kim sees the value and is a strong advocate for such one-on-one victim-offender meetings.

Stephen had met his offender, Mark, by making contact directly himself. That contact happened through Stephen writing the offender. Steve tells how hatred was eating him alive before he forgave the man who almost killed him. But since he contacted the offender and then later met him in person he now supports him and has become his strongest advocate seeking a parole date to release him from prison. In fact, right before the North Carolina conference Stephen was in Wyoming at a parole hearing for Mark, one of many, pleading that the state release him after serving 29 years in prison.  Stephen tells of the terrible effect Mark's incarceration has had on him due to flashbacks of the terrible violence when he was shot in 1982. Post-traumatic stress disorder is real; Stephen experiences it often but especially every time Mark comes up for parole. According to Stephen, what would help him heal, more than he has to date, is to see Mark out of prison.

What these stories told me during the roundtable is that direct victim offender dialogue is incredibly powerful. It does provide for healing in the victim. It also provides hope for the offender if and when the offender is released. In Bill Pelke's case, he is waiting for the day when Paula will be released. That date is about two years away. He is already making plans to set up a committee to, as he says, "restore Paula".  He wants her to have a chance at starting her life over.  Bill is concerned that Paula will have a hard time in the "outside".  Through restorative justice, Paula has taken responsibility for that horrible crime that brutally took Bill's grandmother from this earth. But Bill has forgiven Paula, as he states. That forgiveness has led Bill to the place he is today.

For Kim and Bess, their healing is less complete. The offender in Bess's case was never found. Could he still be found?  As I work in the field of wrongful convictions and watch the increasing number of exonerees be freed from prison, and sometimes death row, I wonder could the case of Bess's mother, Helen Bohn Klassen, ever be solved?  Maybe one day Bess, too, will have contact with the offender. Maybe.  I am aware that Bess would meet the offender but nevertheless Bess has found some healing as she has found her "voice" to speak for justice---restorative justice and ways of bringing peace into the world.

Kim also has not met with the offender, a man she has explained does not express remorse; he does not take responsibility for the killing of her daughter.  Again, a restorative justice dialogue, or a victim offender meeting, cannot occur until the guilty party takes responsibly for his actions.  Some in the justice field forget this fact, I believe. Restorative justice is real justice that truly puts the victim in the center of the system in ways that allow some kind of restoration to occur. Does healing and restoration occur in the offender also?  Yes, I believe it does. It happens through offender accountability which allows change or transformation in the offender.  In Kim's case, the offender may never take responsibility for his actions. But that has not changed Kim's mind about the great value of restorative justice. Kim wants other victims to have the choice to meet their offenders, something that often is not available or even at times such meetings are strongly discouraged.

I've been asked since attending this national conference what I enjoyed about it the most?  What was most significant? Which speakers were the best?  My answer is that the victim's voices who spoke at the conference were the voices I heard the loudest. It is with their voices raised that the justice system in the U.S. and around the world will change. Victims like these four survivors are urging the adoption of restorative justice policies.  The restorative justice movement needs to make room to hear their victims. We need to do a better job of presenting their views to lawmakers and to the media. We need more conferences in the U.S. and around the world that shine a light on their stories. Their voices will change the system ultimately for the better. We will move closer to a justice system based on restorative justice when we listen to crime victims like these four individuals.

It was only after the peace process in 1999 that I got involved in Northern Ireland again. I started talking to some friends about my dad and suddenly I found myself reliving Brighton as if it was that day again. I was going through all the same feelings and it was scary. I knew it was time to look for ways to heal and get support. I had put my trauma in a box and now the box was open.

Miraculously I heard about a project at Glencree Reconciliation Centre, which was offering support for victims who lived in England as well as from Northern Ireland. I knew this was exactly what I needed. I remember walking into the room the first time and looking at the faces of all who were there: mothers and fathers of dead soldiers, people injured in bombs, father of dead son. I knew it was safe for me to open up and feel my pain. No one there would be scared of my pain; they would understand. And the next few months I did grieve, rage, cry and laugh with others. I knew how important it was as I was beginning to trust myself again as I felt and let go of each piece of the pain.

I also met ex‐combatants and found that by seeing them as human beings, discovering their humanity, I was discovering my own humanity. After a particularly intense weekend where I had spent all my time with four ex‐IRA guys, I woke up overcome with feelings of betrayal. These men could have killed my dad and I had walked in the hills with them. I felt the feelings of betrayal and discovered a wall of pain. I cried for hours and hours, and afterwards I knew that the saddest thing was they were my brothers not my enemies. I concluded that the truth was that there is no us and them but only you and me. The idea we cannot be friends with the other side is a myth that keeps us from realizing that we are all brothers and sisters.

Later that year I met people who knew Pat Magee, the man who had been charged and sentenced for planting the bomb that killed my dad. I had first talked about meeting him in 1986 and now the opportunity was there. He had been released from prison as part of the Good Friday peace agreement. Three times different individuals said they could arrange the meeting. But each time I heard that he didn’t want to meet me. I remember feeling disappointed but also trusted that it just wasn’t right. Then at a peace conference I read out my poem, “Bridges Can be Built.” Someone there said they could arrange the meeting, and this time it happened. Apparently, Pat was always saying he would meet me!

I received a phone call on Friday, November 22nd that Pat would meet me that evening at my friend Anne Gallagher’s house. I was going to Ireland anyway and I would just arrive later at Glencree. My first thought was, “Oh, I am not in the mood. I am not ready,” But then I thought, no, I can trust this is the day I have been working towards. I got the ferry to Ireland and to take my mind of the enormity on the meeting I played cards with two businessmen sitting next to me. I lost each time but it got me to Ireland. I was scared but thought Pat might be more scared.

Read the whole interview.

The Supreme Court in the United States is the court of last resort--the last stop. Your pleas can go no further.  That is what is so disturbing about this ruling.  As you read the LA TIMES story you learn a few additional facts about this case.  Not only did the prosecution hide a blood test which would have proven Thompson's innocence they also hid eye witness evidence from the defense that also would have proven his innocence.  In addition, Thompson's attorneys provided evidence of other similar cases in New Orleans where key evidence was hidden from defese attorneys. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg said in her dissent that the court was shielding a city and its prosecutors for "flagrant" misconduct that nearly cost a man his life.

These are serious charges against the New Orleans's district attorney's office. The evidence that was brought forth by Thompson's lawyers before this court showed that at least four prosecutors  knew of the hidden blood test.  Apparently, those prosecutors did nothing to right this wrong. I do not know what the attorneys representing Thompson needed to do to prove their case. But you can believe that this was about money and power. 

When a wrongful conviction occurs whom do you hold accountable? That 's a question that must be asked if you seek to apply restorative justice to this case. It's an important question and it is why this case went all the way to the Supreme Court.  Thompson was seeking compensation for the 14 wasted and fearful years on death row. Thompson was attempting to hold the district attorney's office accountable. The Supreme Court's ruling concluded that the prosecutors' boss is not responsible for this travesty of justice.

According to the Innocence Project as of 2011 there have been 261 exonerations in the U.S.  That number is approximate since the Innocent Project was formed in 1992.  Before that date few organizations worked on this issue (except one that I am aware of which is the Centurion Ministries).  In 2007 there were 200 innocent men exonerated based on DNA evidence. Of that 200 the Innocence Project states that approximately 45 % have received some compensation for the years in prison or death row with amounts ranging from $25,000 to $12.12 million. (source: Christian Science Monitor) This compensation usually comes by way of standardized compensation statutes on a state by state basis. Some states have laws determining the rate of compensation and some don't. That, too, is changing but not without a fight. 

What is alarming with this Supreme Court ruling against an innocent man is that the ruling seems to reflect the same attitude as the New Orleans's District Attorney's office. It just apparently doesn't care whether John Thompson was falsely convicted and almost executed. Ultimately, the question of who to hold liable is unanswered.

I do a lot of work on restorative justice issues online through blogs like RJONLINE and other social networking sites. I said when this ruling came down that this does not mean it is over.  It might be over today for this innocent man, John Thompson, but cases like this will be back.  Someone is to blame for wrongful convictions. Sometimes errors are made, all too often due to misidentification of eye witnesses, but what we see here is a deliberate case of misconduct. Justice Thomas was looking for a pattern of wrong doing instead of clear evidence of wrong doing in this singular case. However, Justice Ginsburg is right. Can flagrant misconduct that nearly cost a man his life be ignored?

What we should care about ---and I think it is a moral imperative-- is how to make things right after wrongful convictions and attempt to pay back the innocent person. 

Some ask how can you pay back someone for lost years in prison or death row? It's not easy but at the very least our justice system should attempt to do so. The Supreme Court failed to do just that in this ruling. This problem is far from over.

I was at the hearing of Scott Thorpe as the court decided his sanity. The court's decision would then dictate where Thorpe would be sentenced.  The Wilcox's took a position against the death penalty from the beginning which was shared with the local district attorney.  There were other victims that day who died at the hands of Thorpe; the Wilcox's position represented their own personal opinion on the death penalty.  It was the first time I had attended such a hearing and it had an impact on me and how I viewed both the offender and the victims' family members as well as the family of the offender.  Here is how the local newspaper reported on the hearing.

As I thought about the Tucson, Arizona gunman Jared Loughner I remembered Scott Thorpe. Could this violence have been prevented? What do we do with the victims of violence and those  family members who remain after the violence?  Do we remember them? How are they to heal and move forward after such random violence? 

In the case of Scott Thorpe and in the memory of Laura Wilcox, Amanda and Nick have chosen to fight to reduce gun violence and to seek to address the issue of guns in the hands of the mentally ill in their community and in the state of California. I think their story should be told and their work remembered. Hopefully we can learn.    

I heard another talk show host on a San Francisco radio station introduce this school yard incident saying that she has nothing against guns. In fact, the host says, " I love guns! I enjoy shooting guns!" She then goes on to take calls to discuss what to do with this problem of increased gun violence.   The talk show host asked her audience to consider whether the problem was due to an increased threat of violence in our schools or the presence of guns in our schools?  My response is that there's something wrong with this picture.

Restorative justice is far more than a response to crime after the fact. Those of us who embrace restorative justice principles and have advocated for it for many years (for me that's 19 years) we see restorative justice as being a rational response to crime that is just, balanced and sane. It 's not just about healing victims of crime, although I care deeply about this benefit, but it is acknowledging that violence can be prevented. 

Some might think this is pie-in-the-sky thinking;  I don't. I've seen restorative justice processes work. I've seen inmates in state prisons affected by restorative justice processes especially when they come to see the direct effect of their actions on real people (their victims).  I've seen victims come to terms with their pain and acknowledge the ways they can heal even after the worst possible violence.  How can these principles come together in ways that reduce violence in our society and reduce gun violence?

I think the vision that restorative justice provides reminds us that whether we think of it very often or not we all want to live in a society where our communities are safe.  For those of us who live in communities that are often not safe places to live this is a daily fact, a daily challenge. And sometimes much worse than that. For most of us, however, I would guess that it is not something we think about every day. 

I'm thinking of the community I live in. We have new evidence of gang activity. Not a lot but just enough of a presence seen by the increased presence of gang graffiti to make one concerned. Does that make me nervous? Yes. It also reminds me that communities can be pro-active in their responses to crime or the threat of crime before it becomes a problem. Many in the restorative justice field talk about being part of the solution. If we are members of the communities we live in we have to "own" the crime problem.  It might seem like a cliché but I don't think so.  It's true. If I am concerned about that threat of violence through increased gang activity then I need to step up and get involved.

Guns and the increased acceptance of gun violence seems irresponsible. Can we not have a civil and level-headed conversation about guns and gun violence without political attacks and put downs?  I have a friend who is a victim of gun violence. He survived. He also is a gun owner himself and a strong advocate for gun rights.  After the tragedy of the Tucson shootings, he mentioned in a open forum setting that he was concerned that "the left" would soon use this as an opportunity to push gun control and criticize certain radio talk show stars on the political right. But the comments he made were more than that. It was as if those of us concerned about gun violence had no say in our communities. Increased violence, he seemed to say, was not his fault or my fault or society's fault (or the gunman's fault) but instead just a fact.  

I was surprised and disappointed by his comment given he was a crime victim and survivor of such gun violence himself.  Is there ever a time when we can talk about violence prevention? Is there ever a time where we can have a public dialogue on crime and public safety using our rational minds? I think we can have that conversation and should. And I do think the balanced response to crime comes by introducing the great value of restorative justice. We will never live, on this earth, in a violence- free society but we can also decide not to tolerate increased violence passively.  

I attempted to advise and counsel Ines about this process warning her that it would be very tough to contact his victims. But at the same time, I thought long and hard about how it might happen.  It occurred to me how important it might be to the victims or their families to have this apology, this expression of remorse. I was not suggesting victim offender dialogue, which is a face-to-face meeting, but at the same time I did not want to exclude that from happening. In the restorative justice field I had seen amazing and even miraculous things happen which I never would have predicted.

I made contacts with two colleagues in Florida who I thought might be interested in this case. I also was looking for someone to be, in essence, Robert's spiritual advisor since I was told he had become a Christian while serving time.  I had no way of confirming this but did read some of his writings which were shared with me by Ines. We did not get too far in the restorative justice process, though Ines had many talks with Robert about his victims. I felt that one important step would be to have Robert compose a list of those he had injured and attempt to explain how he could take responsibility for each action. This was a process I had learned when directing the Sycamore Tree Project, an innovative in-prison restorative justice programme, for Prison Fellowship/Prison Fellowship International in 1998 used in a Texas medium security prison.

By taking steps towards accountability it helps the offender prepare for perhaps some day meeting his victim/victims or their families or at the very least expressing those feelings via letter. The question in Robert's case was would any victim of his or their families receive such communication from him?  I thought it would be unlikely. But then again since I have focused much of my work on crime victims and how to educate and organize them about restorative justice in the last 10 years I thought about the victims. How would a victim whose offender is on death row ever have contact? I know that it would generally never occur unless the victim initiates the contact. This is the traditional response by the justice system. 

Most correctional institutions in the U.S. are not particularly supportive of contact between victims and offenders in prison. Yet there are victims who want to meet their offenders through a mediated victim offender dialogue in states like Texas. In fact, there is a long waiting list for victims who want to explore restorative justice in their own cases (i.e.  at one time 400 victims were on such a list in Texas).  All  this left me feeling that someone has to let victims know that "IF" they are willing there is something called restorative justice and it could possibly lead them to a place of healing or more healing than they have previously experienced.  But who lets the victims know? Where do crime victims go?  Who or what could be the conduit between the victims and the offenders in violent or severely violent cases? Who would fund this work, always a question in the field of restorative justice?

We never got the chance to move forward in this process. Robert died. But Ines courageously continues to push forward to attempt to reach the victims Robert injured (or their families) to communicate that he deeply desired to apologize to each one for his vile actions.  The following is a copy of Ines' letter to the editor to a Florida newspaper which first ran the story of Robert's death on death row. It leaves me with a feeling that we must to do more to open doors for victims and their offenders to allow accountability to take place and healing in the lives of those injured by crime.  I applaud Ines in her pursuit to understand how to apply restorative justice to the wounds of crime caring first for an offender and now for the victims he injured.

As we push for cutting edge change in public policies affecting all those injured by crime we must look beyond where we are today to expand the numbers of victims and offenders, and their families, who experience restorative justice processes for themselves.

The following is the letter to the editor written by Ines Aubert, pen pal of Robert.  I re-print this letter with Ines' permission. Ines hoped to have this letter published in Florida but thus far the letter goes unpublished.

~~~~~~

Letter to the editor:

Today it was announced that former death row inmate Robert Power has died of cancer. I have been a pen pal of Robert’s for several years and I have been in contact with him until the end. Robert has told me about the crimes he committed and he has felt great remorse over them. His biggest wish was to let the family of the murder victim and the surviving victims and their families know that he desired to send his apologies to them. He also wanted to express  his remorse to each victim he injured over many years. However, without the help of some in the justice system he was not able to pursue with it.

I tried to help him with this process by working with a couple restorative justice experts. Robert did the best he could to take stock and take into account each victim he harmed. He hoped that some of the people he damaged would gain some healing in asking him questions which he was ready to answer honestly. He and I have shared many letters about this topic and I believe he was sincere in this wish. Since I got to know him 3 years ago he has not one time tried to defend himself or to blame anybody else than himself for the damage he caused. I believe that besides the punishment of the death sentence realizing what he did was an additional punishment that weighed as heavily on him as the imprisonment.

Ines Aubert, Vordergasse 20c, 8615 Wermatswil, Switzerland, phone 01141 44 940 04 35 aubert.ines@gmail.com

Quandique was convicted of raping two women in the same park where Chandra Levy's body was found. In fact, he is currently serving time for those offenses. Both women were called by the prosecution to testify against Guandique during this trial. That testimony did not claim that these women saw Guandique with Levy but it did establish the fact that he was capable of an attack. But did he kill Chandra Levy?  Members of the jury spoke of "getting it right" and looking at all "available evidence' but the conviction of Guandique was based on the words of that cell mate as well as past crimes committed by Quandique against the two women.  

I hope for the sake of the Levy family that justice was served. Once sentenced Guandique will most likely serve the rest of his life in prison without the possibility of parole.  Let's hope they got it right. The victim's family deserve justice because without knowing the right offender was apprehended and convicted there will certainly be no healing or closure.  Restorative justice would allow for questions to be asked of the offender by the victim or victim's family. Maybe some day if the family and the offender are willing there could be a victim offender dialogue, a form of restorative justice, which is currently being used more frequently with seriously violent offenses including murder. However, no healing is possible and offender accountabilty cannot be realised if the wrong offender is convicted. I hope my sense about this case is wrong.

Note: On February 14, 2011, the Washington Post quoted Chandra Levy's mother as saying she was not certain that Guandique is the person who killed her daughter.

The state of Oklahoma has put up every barrier it can to avoid paying Greg for the years he spent behind bars as an innocent man. Restorative justice can and should be applied in cases of wrongful conviction to assure that justice is done and that the true offender is held accountable. In Greg's case, the guilty party who killed Greg's wife was never found. Details of the case are in my original post.

To learn more about Greg Wilhoit contact the Journey of Hope: From Violence to Healing.