Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

Sections

Whose side are you on?

Nov 18, 2009

— filed under:

by Lisa Rea

Many thoughts run through my mind when I consider the work I have done over many years in the restorative justice field. I often say when I am speaking publicly on the subject that my understanding of it and how I speak about it has changed since the early ‘90s. I think of some seminal moments that have had an effect on my thinking about justice and justice reform.  I've been lucky enough to have a diverse set of experiences in this field. Perhaps, it's because I'm drawn to a deeper understanding of the work. I think that is true for many in this field. My experience has not been one-sided. That is I have worked on "both sides of the aisle," if you will, working on issues from the victim's side but also from the offender’s side as well.

I am often asked how I got into prison reform work or justice work. I worked in the health care field in Los Angeles in the late 1980’s where I heard Chuck Colson on the radio. I was drawn to that interview which led me to learn more about Prison Fellowship. During that interview I first heard the phrase "restorative justice".  Colson's description of it stirred me. I have always been pulled towards any fight for justice and civil rights and often am ready to battle for those who are victims of injustice. My first experience with the prison field was as a volunteer for a Prison Fellowship program which matched you with an inmate to exchange letters as a pen pal. I realized though that my passion and my work experience in public policy and advocacy was better applied by working for PF's sister group, Justice Fellowship.

Years later I went to work for Justice Fellowship opening its first state office in Sacramento, California. I remember a lunch with a key state victim's services representative. She was listening to me, along with another colleague, make the case passionately for restorative justice. Some years later I had lunch with that same state official who still worked in the field of victims services. She said to me, "You've changed." I said, "How so?"  She explained that I was less focused on the offender and more open to the plight of the victim of crime. And that’s paraphrasing. This lunch and this exchange took place after having directed the first intensive victim offender in-prison program in the U.S., the Sycamore Tree Project, created by Dan Van Ness of PFI. That experience had a huge effect on my thinking.

But this person’s comment made me pause. Was I so different in how I presented restorative justice or had I in the past presented restorative justice in a way that explained the value to the offender but not acknowledging or understanding the value to the victim?   One thing was certain; I had learned more about the true impact of crime on victims. But without meeting and knowing victims of violent crime, particularly violent crime, it is hard to truly walk in their shoes. You have to know them. I do not have the time here to tell the stories of some of those victims, but the memories of those exchanges linger and remind me of their unmet needs. Three victims come to mind though without sharing their stories: Roberta Roper, Stephen Watt and Elizabeth Menkin.

Another moment that had an effect on my thinking was during the Sycamore Tree project in Texas. Sycamore Tree is an in-prison program which brings victims and offenders together for 10-12 weeks to discuss issues related to crime and explore restorative justice together. As director of the project I tried to get to know as many participants as possible, victims and offenders alike.  One offender was serving time for a long list of white collar crimes. As often was the case, I would have exchanges with the inmates about the program and how they viewed it as they participated in it from week to week. This offender I recall was working through the process of taking responsibility for his crimes but seemed to be holding back. I urged him to consider his own victims and think of what he could do to make things right. Although the project was designed to bring surrogate victims and offenders together (not related cases) it also stimulated the participants to think of their own cases.  The program planted the seeds of hope in the hearts of many of the victims and the offenders that maybe some day they could meet with their own offenders or victims. I remember jostling with this offender about what he could do to make things right with his victims. He finally said to me, "Who's side are you on?" He said that with a grin, as this man was a good natured man. But his question caught me off guard.

I have repeated that question often as I have spoken to diverse audiences since that encounter. Who's side am I on?  For those of us in the restorative justice field who do this work the ideal, I think, is that we are not on any side at all. We stand in the middle of the system urging adoption of restorative justice to benefit both victims, offenders and the communities they live in. We are on the side of justice, as idealistic as that sounds. But it is true. A quiet, and sometimes not so quiet, battle rages in the criminal justice field. That battle, often in the legislative trenches, is between those who do justice reform work. That work is usually fought by organizations or entities representing a particular interest. You are expected, perhaps tacitly, to take sides. Maybe this is analogous to the legal system: you are either representing the defendant or the state. You are either with the victim or you are siding with the offender/the inmate.  But can you work to improve and transform the system for both? Yes!   And we must work towards that. 

One last story, also an experience that occurred during the Sycamore Tree project I got to know a dear woman whose daughter had been viciously murdered by a serial killer. The pain this woman carried in her heart and mind was palpable.  Early on she let us know that she was unsure about participating in the program. But she did participate and made it to the end of the project. As director, I had to hear many concerns and sometimes complaints about the project since this was the first pilot tested. Since it was inside a medium security prison the conditions we operated under were restrictive at times, as you would expect. I tried to represent the needs of the victims and listen carefully to their concerns as the project rolled out. I often made their case to others, regardless of the concern:  big problems or very small ones. I was told by some that I shouldn't worry too much about criticism since you could not meet the needs of all victims in such a setting. At the end of the project, this same woman praised the project. But she said to me privately, "Lisa, you will never be a victim’s advocate."  I was astounded by the comment and frankly hurt. But I look back and realize it doesn’t matter. The work is good.

We often cannot be a victim’s advocate or an offender’s advocate, in fact maybe in retrospect that is not the ideal.

These brief experiences perhaps give you a sense of how those of us who work in the restorative justice field are often received. Someone will be displeased if you do not take their side. But the only side you can take in this work is to take no side. Empathy is something we need but also neutrality.  What we do desire is that the outcome in any case allows for greater healing in the victim, and yes, in the offender, and accountability in the offender to allow for transformation. When we look at this field from a public policy standpoint, versus a case by case basis, we want the same thing. We want a justice that works, that is fair and balanced, and that restores---as much as possible.   

Document Actions

Offender Vs Victim-centred RJ work

Posted by Dr. Don John Omale at Nov 11, 2009 07:05 AM
Lisa,Thanks for sharing your personal and professional experience in restorative justice work with us.
The issue of: offender-centred versus victim-centred RJ work is what RJ Practitioners need to consider when designing 'RJ work Ethics'. Impartiality or Neutrality should be the watch word. If one of the aims of RJ is to transform the conventional criminal justice which in some countries is bedeviled with 'Partiality' then it will be shameful for some RJ Practitioners to publicly defend either victim or offender in RJ work.
 For instance, in a facilitation meeting I once attended in the UK, the Facilitator began the conferencing by asking the victim to states his side of the story first. To some RJ Practitioners, they see that to be a wrong start. Who then should a facilitator asks the first question: victim or offender?
It is true that RJ Practitioners come from different academic, religious, ethnic and career backgrounds,but the earlier we are able to harmonise this the better for RJ's professional advancement. That is why I have always said that a good RJ Practitioner is the one that is in harmony with him/herself; so as to avoid 'defensive solidarity'.

who goes first?

Posted by Kris Miner at Nov 12, 2009 02:43 PM
I just wanted to respond to Dr. Omale's question about who goes first. I echo the teaching of Mark Umbriet, "prepare, prepare, prepare". This is vicitm-centered work, so I always ask the victim for their preference, prior to the conference and then both sides are prepared. This is another chance at empowering vicitms to make the choice. Its also allows for people to be pre-briefed about the expected flow of the meeting.


When I train volunteers, the most important person has to be the person you are with at that moment. Preparing victims, offenders or community members for participation requires a great deal of love. Some may call it neutrality, I call it love. Love is, love doesn't take sides.

thanks for a provoking blog post! Glad it was brought to my attention via linked-in.

Keep up the good work!

Offender vs Victim Centered work....

Posted by Lorenn Walker at Nov 11, 2009 03:04 PM
Thanks for this Lisa. I think RJ works best when it is "people centered" and not used as an adversarial platform to advocate for any person vs. another. I also agree with Dr. Omale's comments that RJ facilitators should strive to remain neutrals all the time. Restorative justice is not a mediation process where reaching a compromise between conflicting sides is the goal. In response to Dr. Omale's question about whom to begin an RJ process, the victim or offender, I think usually hearing first from the person who has hurt others, and is taking responsibility to work toward making things right, most often creates a positive group environment to start the process and healing....mahalo again for your work.

Taking Sides: Restorative Justice

Posted by lisa rea at Nov 11, 2009 04:52 PM
These are interesting comments by both Don John Omade and Lorenn Walker. I agree that we do need "standards" for RJ providers, practitioners, and mediators. Neutrality is key. I think this is important as we look at how RJ occurs in the micro (i.e. between victim and offender during a dialogue or during a circle type process including more family participants as well).

What I was raising in addition, however, is the nature of the political battles we encounter as we advocate for RJ. The macro. How is RJ viewed by lawmakers and the public? Pro-victim? Pro-offender? Or a little of both? Do advocates for justice reform take sides? Of course. But the real change that RJ represents is systemic reform that reflects something much greater. It gives us vision to repair a broken justice system in ways that can change or transform broken lives (victim & offender, & the families of both) as well as broken communities.

The comment you made Don regarding the appropriate participant to start sharing (a vicitm or an offender) during a RJ dialogue is not really the problem. Of course, it might be problematic at that moment if a mediator or faciliator is showing his/her bias.

From my perspective it is best to have victims tell of the impact that the crime has had on them. That is why I stress in the work I do the need to consider victims-driven or victims-centred restorative justice. Victims must agree first to participate in RJ processes. Of course, offenders must voluntarily agree to participate as well. But restorative justice will always be about 1) restoring the victim as much as possible after crime and 2) putting the victim back into the centre of the system.
That's the premise of the principles of RJ.

Lisa Rea

surrogate victims

Posted by Marina Cantacuzino at Nov 12, 2009 03:45 AM
Interesting debate Lisa. The criminal justice system is broken and the primary reason for this is that victims have now place in it. Their feelings and experiences, caused by the impact of the crimes committed against them are sidelined and ignored. And I think until we put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system it will not be fixable. However RJ can work without the actual victims taking part in the process. For instance in the work we do in UK - we bring in surrogate victims. Last week, in a sex offenders unit, working with 10 sex offenders (crimes against both children & women), we brought in a 35 year old woman who had been raped repeatedly throughout out her childhood by her adopted brother. One man - and may be more - for the very first time, realised the impact on his actions. It was very powerful for all. Feedback from many men was that it was the first time it had made them think about how the victim felt and they found her very brave for coming to talk to them. They were so full of shame that having her there was immensely healing for them. From the victim's point of view: (written to me later by email) "For me it was inspiring and healing. I was struck by the commonality we shared; two of them said they could never speak to their victims, I can never speak to my perpetrator. Alongside similar feelings such as shame, fear, stigma. I think it was powerful for them to meet me as a human being and met to meet them as human biengs." At the end of the day pure RJ does require face to face meeting between victim and perpetrator but there are also so many other ways that RJ can be put into practice creatively.

restorative justice projects using surrogates

Posted by lisa Rea at Nov 13, 2009 05:40 PM
Hi, Marina. It is always interesting to hear your views on this especially given the project you run in the UK (The Forgiveness Project). I think you are right. The use of programs that use surrogates (victims and offenders meeting but unrelated cases) can be very helpful. I think it is a matter of degree.

The Sycamore Tree Projects that have been replicated globally (run and designed by PFI and the Centre) use surrogates. Just directing one pilot project, the first in the U.S., I was amazed by the power of this program. The offenders learned so much from this restorative justice program because so many of these participants had not thought about the impact their crimes had on their victims. This has been your observation there. That alone has great value. But I still believe the one-on-one victim offender dialogue (or larger circles of accountability) is optimal.

But as Dan Van Ness has said, it is a matter of what it more restorative. We hopefully all work towards enabling victims and offenders alike to participate in life-changing programs that allow transformation and a measure of healing.

Moving our justice systems toward restorative justice is sometimes on a case by case basis. Then we need public policies that allow this type of systemic change. Any barriers that exist need to be removed.

Regards,
Lisa Rea

Victim-offender

Posted by Katri Kytopuu at Nov 12, 2009 02:44 PM
I work as mediation advisor in Finland. First I have to disagree with "mediation process where reaching a compromise between conflicting sides is the goal". At it's best mediation is collaborative process, where every participant wins. Those wins just might be different things to different participants.

Neutrality is a subject I have been thinking a lot. At it's worst truly neutral facilitator/mediator is cold & distant in process. Maybe it would be better if facilitator/mediator is in everybodys' side? Restorative justice is aiming to the wellbeing of every participant, isn't it?
´
And the the subject of victim-offender, who is the first to talk and who decides it? We are talking still of justice? And the starting point is, that offender has before admitted his/her responsibility? I can't see, why in this kind of situation facilitator/mediator couldn't be able to at least ask, if the victim would like to tell his/her story first. More important is, that in the end of the process everyone feels, that he/she has been heard and had an opportunity to say all that he/she wanted.

Every situation is different. What is best in one, can be anything but in another. That's why the most important is to have a facilitator/mediator who truly listens people and can help/support participants in the process.

Victims side

Posted by Stephen Watt at Nov 13, 2009 01:37 PM
I am just a very simple man and to be honest I sometimes have a hard time following what a lot of you are trying to say on the subject of restorative justice. Also I have only been in the restorative justice arena as a victim trying to live an abnormal life by normal standards. (Whatever normal means.)
“Whose side are you on?” I think is a question that needs to be answered for restorative justice to be accepted and become the standard in the criminal justice system. Until all of the scholars, writers, teachers and all of those above this simple man can agree on an answer to this question I am afraid that we will continue to have a criminal justice system that does not work.
For me Lisa answered the question completely and in a very simple way when she wrote, “But restorative justice will always be about 1) restoring the victim as much as possible after crime and 2) putting the victim back into the centre of the system.
That's the premise of the principles of RJ.”
Now I can speak only from my personal experiences as a victim of a violent offender and a broken criminal justice system. RJ is about the victim and fixing the victim the best we can, remembering that we can never make the victim the same as they were before the crime. Those of us who believe in RJ need to sing this from the roof tops. We need to make sure that the victims know the benefits of RJ to them. The healing that they can get from RJ. Once the victims know and understand benefits of RJ and see the results of applying it in their life then the victim will become the biggest advocates of RJ. If we ever hope to win the politicians over, the only ones who can change the broken system, we need the victim to become a leader in this battle.
I would be failing my duty if I did not talk about the offender in this writing. Very few victims care at all about the offender. I did not forgive the man who shot me for his sake, I forgave him for me and the healing that it has brought me. I did not become friends with the man who shot me for him, I did it for me and the peace and humanity that it has brought me. BUT the man who shot me has benefited just as much as I have, who knows he may have even benefited more than me. Once RJ is in place, helping victims we won’t be able to stop the help that it brings to offenders or the help that victims and offenders provide for each other.

victims side

Posted by Bill Pelke at Nov 16, 2009 04:37 AM
Stephen, You have nailed it right on the head. You are right on when you say forgiveness was for your sake. You are also right on when you say the friendship was for your peace and humanity, but that the offender benefitted also. Often, professional victims that tinker with RJ see only their side. When we realize that we We are all on the side, humanity, we will move farther, faster. Thanks Stephen.

Peace, Bill

Victims side

Posted by Lisa K at Nov 18, 2009 05:41 PM
I was almost killed by my ex-husband. I had a counselor try this with us and tried starting a dialogue with him. My case was one of the few where it actually got worse. He refuses to see that he did annything wrong and has said that he is more of a victim than I am because he is in prison for 25 years.

It made me feel worse than ever and still question if it was really my fault like he said. It set me back a long ways.

I am sure that this works in most situations, but there are situations where it can make the victim feel worse.

preparing for a victim-offender dialogue

Posted by Lisa Rea at Nov 18, 2009 07:00 PM
Hello, Lisa. Thanks for sharing your story. I am sorry for your pain. From what you shared here it sounds as if the offender, your husband, was not prepared to meet with you. When a restorative justice dialogue, or victim-offender meeting, takes place it is essential that both participants are prepared to meet. They each must agree to meet voluntarily. I believe it is important that the offender is ready to meet by taking responsibility for his actions. In this situation, it sounds like your husband was not prepared to do so.

Working with a trained mediator often helps to assure that the dialogue between the victim and offender has a chance of being as productive as possible. As you said in your case, it is important that victims are not adversely affected in any way.

I sorry this was the result in your case. I hope that things get better for you. I hope that some day, too, your husband can take responsibility for his actions towards you.

Lisa Rea

Whose Side Are You ON

Posted by Barry Nilson at Nov 20, 2009 09:55 AM
Great question Lisa, picking sides is familiar and makes sense. We grew up with such questions in school playgrounds now echoed around water coolers in debates about professional sports teams. Picking sides seems obvious in conversations about politics, party, and public policy even among voters registered, “Independent” or “Un-registered.” Who doesn’t observe taking sides about jury verdicts and perceptions filled with cynicism about “fairness?” My friend Governor Al Quie once said the term “fairness” is subjective. I agree. Fairness is a perception. Of course, some will take sides for good reasons but support for victims or offenders only should not cause a “continental divide.”

Lisa’s question, reminds me of Solomon who was challenged to take sides with a mother over her child. Jesus was challenged routinely by his critics who thought they could force him to take sides. The way Jesus responded was judicious. President Lincoln was challenged too. During the Civil war, Lincoln was once asked if God was on his side. His reply was, "It is not is God on my side, but am I on God's side?" God's side, what does it mean in light of justice, and how does my being on God's side affect me?

Ironically, our founding fathers Revolutionary War did not include a new system of justice or break from colonial retributive justice. Unfortunately, our system of justice is largely viewed only as an adversarial system producing wins and losses – between all kinds of parties affected and not just the obvious victim(s) and offender(s). I remember Dan Van Ness wrote about the need for a “paradigm shift” in how we view crime, law-breaking, injuries caused by crime, and the need to involve all those affected in a restorative process of justice.

I am thankful for individuals and groups focused on the triage needs of victims and offenders at the curve in the road where injuries often occur. But I am equally thankful for cartographers whose vision is such that they make our paths straight. It is likely that our own experience, personalities and Divine wiring makes us well-suited for diverse roles necessary to improve human conditions.

My personal interest and motivations about justice are inspired by the pilgrim words of John Winthrop, “We must delight in each other, make others’ conditions are own.” Considering whose side to take is not necessary when I think about being on God’s side. God had something to say about remembering those in prison, a thief on a cross, and the work of a Good Samaritan.

In my simple mind, offender, victim and criminal justice policy should begin with the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” This is what I refer to as the royal gold standard for justice.

My best answer Lisa? I hope I live my life in such a way that my actions and words reflect God’s attribute of justice. Interestingly, many have died on behalf of kings but God is the only judicious king who ever died for His subjects to make them free.



Whose Side are you on??

Posted by Henry McClendon, Jr. at Nov 24, 2009 10:21 PM
The wonder of restorative justice/practices is that it provides a process that enable people (victims, offenders and community members) to seek the best outcomes for all sides.

The challenge is raising awareness of RJ/RP among the broader community. I'm honored to be part of the cadre of people across the country committed to making restorative communities a reality in our lifetime.

Lisa K's comment

Posted by Stephen Watt at Nov 21, 2009 04:28 PM
Thank you Lisa K for sharing you experience with us. I always become heartbroken over the pain that other victims feel. It has been my experience that abusive people are some of the hardest to reach and have stand up and admit that their actions are wrong. It sounds like your ex-husband is an abuser. Hang in there, Lisa, know that you can gain control and that healing can take place with that control. You have done nothing to deserve being attacked and you deserve nothing but the best in life.
When I started a dialogue with my offender I expected nothing out of it but to put myself back in control of my life. By standing up and talking to him I proved to myself that I had courage, that I was very brave and that I am in control. I didn’t expect all the other great things that have come from it. Lisa, you are one of the bravest people I have heard of to talk to him after what he has done to you. Even though you might not see the good that come out meeting with him there was good. I hope that you can look in a mirror and see the brave lady that you are. My prayers are with you and for your healing.

Add comment

You can add a comment by filling out the form below. Plain text formatting.

(Required)
Tell us your name.
(Required)
Enter your e-mail address.
(Required)
(Required)
(Required)

About RJOB

Correspondents

 lp-blue

lr

dv-blue

kw-blue

mw-blue