....A lot of the work done here in Athens, Ga., was accomplished by my friend and former boss, Gwen O’Looney. Gwen was the mayor of Athens for eight years, and is energetically involved in all sorts of projects in the city. She knows everyone in town it seems, and she was able to connect with important people in the judiciary, the prosecutor’s office, the public defender’s office, the police, related nonprofits and many other stakeholder groups.
Most importantly, she is engaged with the community most impacted by our work, the folks whose kids come into frequent contact with law enforcement and the courts.These neighborhoods are impacted by high unemployment, poverty, crime, trouble with schools and a host of other “social ills” that are too common. Most of the residents are black.
]]>Watson's experience has prompted calls for offenders to be vetted as a matter of course before victims are approached by restorative justice providers.
]]>Unfortunately, until stakeholders and policy makers listen to the voices of victims and perpetrators... the status quo is likely to remain. Recidivism in these types of offences has not been reduced by existing programmes. The low reporting rate found globally is almost certainly a factor of women’s reluctance to testify, along with the belief that criminal justice processes can be harmful to victims. What most writers are agreed upon, however, is that witnessing violence is learning violence. Such opportunities to witness violence could be reduced by stakeholders heeding those most directly affected.
Citations omitted.
Hat tip to RJ4all.info
]]>Through “conversations” the police resolve low-level crime without formal proceedings by holding, usually face-to-face, a conversation between offender and victim.
Through “conferences” everyone affected by an incident is invited to a structured meeting to decide what should be done to repair the harm. The offender meets the victim to apologize and help the victim recover from the crime.
A conference or conversation between offender and victims is not as novel as it seems. It wasn’t long ago when police officers walked the beat and became familiar faces in neighborhoods across the country. It wasn’t unusual for the beat officer to bring neighborhood families together who were involved in a dispute to collectively find a solution.
For instance, a couple of teenagers get into a scuffle. Arrest was not routine, instead the teens and their parents were summoned to the police station to work out their differences. Back in the day, it might have been considered common sense — today its restorative justice. Either way it’s the right thing to do.
]]>The decriminalization law would require there be a similar program for marijuana offenses. Cipriano said while the CRJ handles marijuana diversion now, it does so mainly through a reparative board which tailors requirement to each individual.
The Department of Health will likely help create a standardized curriculum, Cipriano said, which may be built separately, tweaked from the TASP program, or merged with TASP to become a more general substance abuse education program.
Cipriano said approximately 40 percent of cases CRJ handles are for people over 16 placed on diversion for marijuana possession. Giving fines for those over 21 caught with less than an ounce may take some of the load off, she said, but it’s also possible that a combination of ignorance and acceptance may lead to more youths coming to CRJ on marijuana offenses. She said not only is it possible many may think marijuana will be legal, children may start to see it in a less negative light. The health risks of marijuana still exist, she said.
]]>Fresno Unified Superintendent Michael Hanson said, "We're going to put a half million dollars into our upcoming budget to go bigger and target certain parts of our district to develop restorative practices in real practice, on a much larger scale more than we currently do."
This after research found the old disciplinary measures are being overused in middle and high schools -- and those suspended even once in the 9th grade are two times more likely to drop out.
Maricela Hernandez said, "When we did our research in our focus groups we found students didn't feel listened to. To give them a voice and say yes, I did a bad thing, but I'm not a bad person."
Project success will now work with the district to come up with the specifics of the plan -- but members tell ABC30 - the policies will emphasize interactions between students and teachers to repair relationships and help students learn from their mistakes.
Rodriguez said, "It's really the only way we can focus on the human element of these conflicts and issues."
]]>Overall, this work highlights the emotional considerations of reconciliation (as opposed to the more traditional emphasis on instrumental concerns) by delineating the different psychological needs of victims and perpetrators in conflict. Together these studies highlight that effective intervention strategies to promote interpersonal and intergroup reconciliation must take into account both dimensions.
]]>The MnCoSA evaluation also assessed whether the program is cost effective by comparing program operating costs with the costs resulting from recidivism. To determine whether MnCoSA has produced a benefit resulting from reduced recidivism, the study compared the number of offenses committed by offenders in the MnCoSA and control groups. The costs of these offenses were then monetized based on cost of crime estimates developed through prior research....
The data in Figure 1 show that MnCoSA participants had lower recidivism rates than the offenders in the control group. For example, 39 percent of the MnCoSA participants had been rearrested for a new offense by the end of December 2011 compared with 65 percent of the control group offenders. The results also show that 26 percent of the MnCoSA participants were reconvicted for a new offense compared to 45 percent in the control group. In addition, 10 percent of the MnCoSA participants were reincarcerated for a new criminal offense compared to 26 percent of the control group offenders. Further, compared to the offenders in the control group, who had a technical violation revocation rate of 68 percent, MnCoSA participants had a rate of 48 percent. Lastly, 48 percent of MnCoSA offenders returned to prison for a new offense and/or a technical violation versus 61 percent of those in the control group....
Because MnCoSA relies heavily on volunteers, the costs to operate the program are confined mainly to project staff salaries and volunteer training and recruitment efforts. As shown in Table 1, it cost nearly $450,000 to operate MnCoSA from 2008-2011. The results also show, however, that the benefits resulting from reduced recidivism amounted to a little more than $800,000. More specifically, MnCoSA participants were rearrested for 33 fewer offenses than the control group and spent about 100 fewer days in prison following their release.
After subtracting the program operating costs from the recidivism costs avoided, the resultsin Table 1 show that MnCoSA has, within its first four years of operation, produced an estimated benefit of $363,211, which amounts to $11,716 per participant. The cost-benefit ratio indicates that for every dollar spent on MnCoSA, the State of Minnesota has seen an estimated benefit of $1.82, which results in an 82 percent return on investment.
]]>John Braithwaite, Distinguished Professor and Founder of the Regulatory Institutions Network at the Australian National University, will respond to the lecture, followed by Q&A.
]]>So how do you get out of this downward spiral?
It's stunningly simple, actually. When you've done something that upsets someone — no matter who's right — always start the conversation by acknowledging how your actions impacted the other person. Save the discussion about your intentions for later. Much later. Maybe never. Because, in the end, your intentions don't matter much.
What if you don't think the other person is right — or justified — in feeling the way they do? It doesn't matter. Because you're not striving for agreement. You're going for understanding....
The hardest part is our emotional resistance. We're so focused on our own challenges that it's often hard to acknowledge the challenges of others. Especially if we are their challenge and they are ours. Especially when they lash out at us in anger. Especially when we feel misunderstood. In that moment, when we empathize with them and their criticism of our behavior, it almost feels like we're betraying ourselves.
But we're not. We're just empathizing.
Here's a trick to make it easier. While they're getting angry at you, imagine, instead, that they're angry at someone else. Then react as you would in that situation. Probably you'd listen and let them know you see how angry they are.
And if you never get to explain your intentions? What I have found in practice — and this surprised me — is that once I've expressed my understanding of the consequences, my need to justify my intentions dissipates.
That's because the reason I'm explaining my intentions in the first place is to repair the relationship. But I've already accomplished that by empathizing with their experience. At that point, we're both usually ready to move on.
And if you do still feel the need? You'll still have the opportunity, once the other person feels seen, heard, and understood.
]]>The party said that ACPO’s guidance says Restorative Justice should only be used to resolve less serious offences such as anti-social behaviour incidents.
But ACC Shewan said: “Guidelines are in place to help forces decide where the use of community resolutions might be appropriate but in every case, this decision will be victim-led and reflect their views and wishes.
“While in the main they are used to deal with less serious offences, there is no simple formula. At times it may be necessary, and appropriate, to use such informal resolutions to deal with more serious cases.”
]]>The book stunningly points out the fact that 97% of all convicted people pled guilt. The authors point out that: “only 3 percent of all criminal cases were actually resolved through trials in which judges or juries rendered verdicts of guilt or innocence. Of the small proportion of cases that did go to trial, approximately one-third resulted in acquittals. Thus, although acquittals represented only a tiny fraction of criminal dispositions. They represented a much larger proportion of those rare cases that did go to trial.”
Scary too is the policy justification for underfunding public defenders (compared to how prosecutors funded): “The belief that the vast majority of the acquitted really are guilty rests on the assumption that neither the police nor the prosecutors will pursue criminal charges against innocent people. The authors go on to quote legal scholar and judge Richard Posner who says “A bare-bones system for defense of indigent criminal defendants may be optimal.”
The book also reveals startling details about the overall attitudes of judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys, who are all far more likely to have biased views concerning race than jurors.
]]>“When you hear the harm you have caused, you have to be a bitter and twisted person not to be affected,” said Mr Woolf, who had spent 18 years in prison. “I thought they would say ‘lock him up and throw away the key” but they wanted me to get help for drug and alcohol abuse, an education and a job.”
]]>4. In our response to Getting it Right for Victims and Witnesses the RJC expressed a concern that a right to ask for restorative justice subject to resources did not amount to a new entitlement for victims if it did not affect the response that victims are entitled to receive.7 The publication of the corresponding duties relating to the entitlements in the Victims Code provides some clarity with respect to how victims will be treated where a restorative service is available to them. We would welcome further clarity with respect to how victims will be treated where no restorative service is available locally – as this is still the experience for too many victims, particularly victims of adult offenders and victims of more serious offences.
5. In our experience victims have been poorly treated when requesting information about restorative justice from services who have little or no awareness about what restorative justice is, when it is suitable or whether it is available in their local area. Victims can be made to feel as though their request is odd, an inconvenience, misinformed or even immoral (for example where relatives of victims of homicide have made the request).
6. Amending the victim’s entitlement to ask for restorative justice (subject to it being available) to a right to be informed about the availability of restorative justice in their area would help address the poor treatment of victims who have requested access to restorative justice from the police.
7. We expect that the majority of police forces may already have received sufficient restorative justice awareness training to fulfill this duty. However, there is a need for the police to be supplied with accurate, up-to-date information about the availability of restorative justice in their local area and to be able to provide accurate information and signposting as to what is available for victims of more serious offences, at later stages of the CJS.
8. The availability of restorative justice is complex as it is affected by a range of considerations including the stage of the criminal justice system the request has been made, how the offence was handled by the justice system (ie whether or not the offence was prosecuted, and what type of sentence imposed) and the wide range of agencies potentially offering restorative justice services locally (including probation, prisons, youth offending teams, neighbourhood justice panels, charities, local mediation services, schools, local authorities, care-homes, housing associations). Therefore the police will need to understand exactly what is available in their area. The RJC provides an online ‘Restorative Services Map’ which could be a useful sign-posting tool for victims and the police.
We therefore propose that the entitlement to ask for restorative justice where it is available is amended to a right to be informed about the availability of restorative justice locally.
]]>