Restorative Justice

[Buck Laser]

Normally, when I post a story from some other site, I like to put it into my own words. But I thought this topic important enough to cut and paste directly. Here's the link to it: http://www.restorativejustice.org/intro/

"Restorative justice is a theory of justice that emphasizes repairing the harm caused or revealed by criminal behaviour. It is best accomplished through cooperative processes that include all stakeholders.
Practices and programs reflecting restorative purposes will respond to crime by:

1. identifying and taking steps to repair harm,
2. involving all stakeholders, and
3. transforming the traditional relationship between communities and their governments in responding to crime.


Some of the programmes and outcomes typically identified with restorative justice include:

* Victim offender mediation
* Conferencing
* Circles
* Victim assistance
* Ex-offender assistance
* Restitution
* Community service


Three principles form the foundation for restorative justice:

1. Justice requires that we work to restore those who have been injured.
2. Those most directly involved and affected by crime should have the opportunity to participate fully in the response if they wish.
3. Government's role is to preserve a just public order, and the community's is to build and maintain a just peace.

Restorative programmes are characterized by four key values:

1. Encounter: Create opportunities for victims, offenders and community members who want to do so to meet to discuss the crime and its aftermath
2. Amends: Expect offenders to take steps to repair the harm they have caused
3. Reintegration: Seek to restore victims and offenders to whole, contributing members of society
4. Inclusion: Provide opportunities for parties with a stake in a specific crime to participate in its resolution"

I have a personal interest in this because my daughter, an employment lawyer, does some work as a restorative justice consultant. She came to the work as a result of her experience at AON Insurance in working with the families of victims of the 9/11 WTC bombing. Her job was to make sure that families had the help they needed when they needed it. She expedited payments, made arrangements for them, and got personally acquainted with a dozen families or so.

Earlier this year, duing the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, on of the people asked if she would assist her in her preparation to testify at the trial. While she was there, she met others who were already working in the field of restorative justice, and was invited to attend training to further her skills in what is a new area of justice.

In light of the previous thread on capital punishment, I thought this would merit some attention as one of the ways we can achieve a fairer justice system.

I look forward to your comments.

[lily]

Buck, you must be so proud of your daughter! I think it's a good program to have if the victim chooses to use it. Am I reading this correctly, the offender can't initiate it, the victim has to?

[Buck Laser]

Buck, you must be so proud of your daughter! I think it's a good program to have if the victim chooses to use it. Am I reading this correctly, the offender can't initiate it, the victim has to?

Yes, I am incredibly proud of her, Lily. She's an extraordinary woman, and the mother of three brilliant and beautiful children.

I'm not sure of the answer to your question, but I kinda think that an offender might well initiate the action, although that would hardly be typical. What I hope to do is spark some serious thinking about better ways of providing justice, simply because retribution doesn't really offer closure. And there have been situations where the offender has provided the key to reconciliation.

[lily]

Buck Laser


Yes, I am incredibly proud of her, Lily. She's an extraordinary woman, and the mother of three brilliant and beautiful children.

I've got two myself........aren't they much more fun than their parents were?

What I hope to do is spark some serious thinking about better ways of providing justice, simply because retribution doesn't really offer closure. And there have been situations where the offender has provided the key to reconciliation.

Monetarily I would have to agree, but I think in some cases it might give peace of mind, which is worth more than money. I would imagine it would depend on the individual.

It is a fascinating subject and something to think about.

[Elrathin]

Buck the simple truth is that some people can never be rehabilitated and they need to be removed from society by either imprisonment or death.

I like the idea of a program that focuses on repairing the damage done, but I just don't see where the funding for something like this would come from on a grand scale.

[BoogyMan]

How do you repair the damage done when someone is murdered?

[Buck Laser]

Buck the simple truth is that some people can never be rehabilitated and they need to be removed from society by either imprisonment or death.

I like the idea of a program that focuses on repairing the damage done, but I just don't see where the funding for something like this would come from on a grand scale.


It's a new concept, and it's starting small. But Waffle was suggesting that nobody has the balls to try something different. These people do. Check the link I posted to read more about it.

[lily]

Buck the simple truth is that some people can never be rehabilitated and they need to be removed from society by either imprisonment or death.


That may be true, but it isn't the majority of the prison population, thankfully.

Elrathin
I like the idea of a program that focuses on repairing the damage done, but I just don't see where the funding for something like this would come from on a grand scale.

I'm not the expert, but from what I've read it's state and charity funded.

[Elrathin]

How do you repair the damage done when someone is murdered?


You focus on both the criminal and the family involved. I have read a few cases where there is actual rehabilitation between a criminal and helping the family out as well.

First of all it has to be agreed upon by both parties, it isn't just something that can be done one sided.

Secondly the cost in counseling, rehabilitation, and the program is terribly expensive right now IIRC just on an individual basis, let alone a grand scheme.

[Elrathin]

But Waffle was suggesting that nobody has the balls to try something different. These people do. Check the link I posted to read more about it.


It's good, but again it's the cost that counts and I just don't see something like this being able to be funded on a grand scheme.

[Elrathin]

That may be true, but it isn't the majority of the prison population, thankfully.


You're right there, but for this program to work imagine the costs of counseling, rehabilitation, and the program cost to implement this. Where is it going to come from? I doubt people are going to agree to pay extra taxes for this, which is what is going to be required.

No, unfortunately the majority of society today leans towards the lock them up out of sight, out of mind. And no, I don't agree with it, but that is what the majority in America seem to want.

I would personally like to see something like this happen, but the funding is the issue that I have with it.

[lily]

Well, El..........we could cut back on the TVs in their cells, college educations that they will never use if they have life in prison, fewer computers........

[BoogyMan]

How do you repair the damage done when someone is murdered?


You focus on both the criminal and the family involved.Â*Â*I have read a few cases where there is actual rehabilitation between a criminal and helping the family out as well.Â*Â*

First of all it has to be agreed upon by both parties, it isn't just something that can be done one sided.

Secondly the cost in counseling, rehabilitation, and the program is terribly expensive right now IIRC just on an individual basis, let alone a grand scheme.


Hi Elrathin, thanks for the response. I don't see how this could ever repair the damage done when a loved one has been violently ripped from your life. If both sides are willing to try this type of thing I could see it being of some value, but I cannot see how the damage could ever actually be repaired.

[Elrathin]

I don't see how this could ever repair the damage done when a loved one has been violently ripped from your life. If both sides are willing to try this type of thing I could see it being of some value, but I cannot see how the damage could ever actually be repaired.


"Repaired" is probably a bad word to describe it, a better way to say it would probably be to help heal both the family and rehabilitate the criminal.

And yes, it does require both sides for a program like this to work because it involves both the family and the criminal.

[Elrathin]

Well, El..........we could cut back on the TVs in their cells, college educations that they will never use if they have life in prison, fewer computers........


That is a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of counselors, rehabilitation, etc. I'd wager to say (and no, I don't have the proof just talking to some people in counseling and rehabilitation business), that this would cost way more than an appeals process for someone on Death Row.

Again let me restate, if there was a way to fund this that wouldn't cause a high tax increase, I'd be for it.

[firefox]

End the drug war. This would reduce the prison population by well over 50%. Most inmates are there for non violent drug charges, usually posession of marijuana.

[Waffletush]

End the drug war. This would reduce the prison population by well over 50%. Most inmates are there for non violent drug charges, usually posession of marijuana.

Why don't we just legalize everything. That way we'd have a 0% crime rate and no one in prison. Great logic there.

[Buck Laser]

Well, El..........we could cut back on the TVs in their cells, college educations that they will never use if they have life in prison, fewer computers........


That is a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of counselors, rehabilitation, etc. I'd wager to say (and no, I don't have the proof just talking to some people in counseling and rehabilitation business), that this would cost way more than an appeals process for someone on Death Row.

Again let me restate, if there was a way to fund this that wouldn't cause a high tax increase, I'd be for it.


I'd be for it if it reduces the rate of recidivism and empties out our terribly overbuilt prison system. I have no objection to taxes when they produce an improvement in society. I look at my taxes as the dues I pay for the society I get.

[lily]

End the drug war. This would reduce the prison population by well over 50%. Most inmates are there for non violent drug charges, usually posession of marijuana.

Why don't we just legalize everything.Â*Â*That way we'd have a 0% crime rate and no one in prison.Â*Â*Great logic there.


WOW........you got all that from firefox's post?? Can you give me one good reason why someone that bought some pot is sitting in jail, while some rapist gets out to make room for another pot smoker?

[Waffletush]

WOW........you got all that from firefox's post?? Can you give me one good reason why someone that bought some pot is sitting in jail, while some rapist gets out to make room for another pot smoker?


Sure, just as soon as you show me some proof where a rapist was dilberately paroled so there would be an empty bed for a pot smoker.

And no, it is not a stretch to see why I responded to firefox the way I did. You just have to dig a little into what he 'believes', what he said, and how I responded to understand.

[NortheastCynic]

That is not libertarian philosophy or logic.Â*Â*You mistook the end result of what firefox is suggesting the reason why he is suggesting it.Â*Â*Ending the drug war [unConstitutional] would eliminate a large part of prisoners, but that isn't WHY we want it to happen.Â*Â*We [libertarians] want the drug war ended because it is unConstitutional, violates natural rights and we generally don't believe that the gov't has any authority regulating what goes into our body voluntarily .

-NC

[Waffletush]

<off topic>

How is the drug was unConstitutional?

You mistook the end result of what firefox is suggesting the reason why he is suggesting it.

Actually I am spot on. He believes government is force right? Well what bigger example of force do you want displayed than an institution that locks you up and takes away your 'natural' rights? (aka the prison system) Legalize all crime and you eliminate a large aspect of government. Becasue, afterall, smaller government is better yes?

[NortheastCynic]

How is the drug was unConstitutional?
No Constitutional Article or Amendment gives the Federal government power to prevent people from doing drugs.Â*Â*The tenth amendment states that any power not granted to the Feds is left to the states, and the people respectively. Furthermore, state governments cannot prevent drug consumption legally because it is not included in THEIR Constitutions.

Actually I am spot on.Â*Â*He believes government is force right?Â*Â*Well what bigger example of force do you want displayed than an institution that locks you up and takes away your 'natural' rights?Â*Â*(aka the prison system) No, Waffletush, you aren't even close.Â*Â*Libertarians believe that your rights end as soon as they begin to infringe on the rights of others.Â*Â*Drug users harm themselves with drugs, but do not infringe on the rights of others, therefore they do not belong in jail.Â*Â*Murderers, robbers, rapists, muggers, etc., all violate the rights of other people, therefore they should be jailed.
Â*Â*Becasue, afterall, smaller government is better yes? Yes, SMALL gov't is good, not NO gov't.Â*Â*Libertarians generally believe that gov't is here to provide defense, take care of the infrastructure and to protect the rights of its citizens; and this is done by way of the criminal justice system.Â*Â*No offense intended at all, but you seem to hold quite a few commonly held misconceptions about libertarians.

-NC

[Waffletush]

No Constitutional Article or Amendment gives the Federal government power to prevent people from doing drugs.Â*Â*The tenth amendment states that any power not granted to the Feds is left to the states, and the people respectively.Â*Â*Furthermore, state governments cannot prevent drug consumption legally because it is not included in THEIR Constitutions.

Then why are there a batch of Libertarians who say income tax is illegal and gun laws are illegal?

No, Waffletush, you aren't even close.Â*Â*Libertarians believe that your rights end as soon as they begin to infringe on the rights of others. Drug users harm themselves with drugs, but do not infringe on the rights of others, therefore they do not belong in jail.Â*Â*Murderers, robbers, rapists, muggers, etc., all violate the rights of other people, therefore they should be jailed.

There is no such thing as a victimless crime.Â*Â*No matter what crime you commit, it affects other people in some way or another.

Yes, SMALL gov't is good, not NO gov't.Â*Â*Libertarians generally believe that gov't is here to provide defense, take care of the infrastructure and to protect the rights of its citizens; and this is done by way of the criminal justice system.

You can protect rights of your citizens without jails.Â*Â*Relatively speaking, incarceration is a 'new' fad.Â*Â*Why can't we remove a HUGE facet of the government and stil protect citizen rights?

No offense intended at all, but you seem to hold quite a few commonly held misconceptions about libertarians.

No offense taken.Â*Â*Libertarians cannot agree amongst themselves what they stand for, so how can there be any common perception of your party's stance?

[Elrathin]

Libertarians cannot agree amongst themselves what they stand for, so how can there be any common perception of your party's stance?


Neither do Republicans. They are constantly fighting amongst themselves between the religious right, moderate conservatives, and staunch republicans. Welcome to ANY party system.

[NortheastCynic]

Then why are there a batch of Libertarians who say income tax is illegal and gun laws are illegal?This a non-sequitur.Â*Â*You asked how the War on Drugs is unConstitutional, I told you.Â*Â*I don't have to answer for people with whom I do not agree.Â*Â*People who say income taxes are illegal are wrong, plain and simple, the Constitutional amendment that made it legal...made it legal.Â*Â*But again, I don't have to answer for people with whom I don't agree, just as Elrathin is not responsible for answering for Democrats with whom he does not agree.

There is no such thing as a victimless crime.Â*Â*No matter what crime you commit, it affects other people in some way or another.I never used the term victimless crime, did I?Â*Â*No, I was careful not to use that overused and inaccurate term.Â*Â*What I DID say was that there are "laws" that regulate activity that does not VIOLATE THE RIGHTS of other people.Â*Â*There is an enormous distinction between "victimless crimes" and activities which don't violate anyone's rights.Â*Â*There are always victims [usually indirectly], but their rights are not always violated; this makes the law which prevented the activity in the first place unConstitutional.

You can protect rights of your citizens without jails.Â*Â*Relatively speaking, incarceration is a 'new' fad.Â*Â*Why can't we remove a HUGE facet of the government and stil protect citizen rights?You cannot protect society and their rights from a murderer or a rapist or a thief without separating them from society.Â*Â*Jail is not simply to punish the offender, it protects society from that person.Â*Â*You cannot have criminal justice without jail.

No offense taken.Â*Â*Libertarians cannot agree amongst themselves what they stand for, so how can there be any common perception of your party's stance?Just as a point of order, I'm not a member of the Libertarian Party, I'm a registered Independent, "my party" does not exist.Â*Â*There are different variations of libertarians; anarcho-capitalists, minarchists, Republican libertarians etc. the same can be said for liberalism [democratic socialists, neo-liberalism, communism, socialism] and conservatism [neo-conservatism, social conservatism, traditional small gov't conservatism].Â*Â*Factions of ideologies are nothing new and certainly not limited to libertarianism.Â*Â*The problem you're running into is instead of trying to understand each individual facet of libertarianism, you're looking at it as a bloc, which is the equivilant of calling conservatives "big government" because the Bush Adminstration is big government.

-NC

[Waffletush]

Just as a point of order, I'm not a member of the Libertarian Party, I'm a registered Independent, "my party" does not exist.

My mistake. Under your party affiliation, it says 'Libertarian', so one could rightly surmise you are Libertarian, but we don't need to split hairs over that.

There are different variations of libertarians; anarcho-capitalists, minarchists, Republican libertarians etc. the same can be said for liberalism [democratic socialists, neo-liberalism, communism, socialism] and conservatism [neo-conservatism, social conservatism, traditional small gov't conservatism].Â*Â*Factions of ideologies are nothing new and certainly not limited to libertarianism.Â*Â*The problem you're running into is instead of trying to understand each individual facet of libertarianism, you're looking at it as a bloc, which is the equivilant of calling conservatives "big government" because the Bush Adminstration is big government.

Well with that right there we can disregard anything we talked about. You stances are different than firefox's (evident by his posts elsewhere on and off this board; income taxes for instance), so defending his point of view by using your's is moot.

[Waffletush]

I never used the term victimless crime, did I?Â*Â*No, I was careful not to use that overused and inaccurate term.Â*Â*What I DID say was that there are "laws" that regulate activity that does not VIOLATE THE RIGHTS of other people.Â*Â*There is an enormous distinction between "victimless crimes" and activities which don't violate anyone's rights.Â*Â*There are always victims [usually indirectly], but their rights are not always violated; this makes the law which prevented the activity in the first place unConstitutional.

BTW -

Never said you did. HOWEVER, you did say someone smoking pot does not violate someone else's right, thus my counter of 'victimless crime'. By your very definition crimes that affect other people's rights are 'bad'. (sorry lame term there but bear with me) The fact any crime affects someone else in some way violates the victims right to privacy. With that in mind, saying smoking pot does not violate someone else's rights is hogwash.

You cannot protect society and their rights from a murderer or a rapist or a thief without separating them from society.Â*Â*Jail is not simply to punish the offender, it protects society from that person.Â*Â*You cannot have criminal justice without jail.

Sure you can. Rehabilitation and restoration. Otherwise, the topic of this thread is bunk.

[NortheastCynic]

My mistake.Â*Â*Under your party affiliation, it says 'Libertarian', so one could rightly surmise you are Libertarian, but we don't need to split hairs over that.Not your fault, I chose to libertarian under my affiliation because I wanted it to be known that I'm a libertarian [small l]. Also, in fairness, I officially joined the party today [12/15].

HOWEVER, you did say someone smoking pot does not violate someone else's right, thus my counter of 'victimless crime'.Â*Â*By your very definition crimes that affect other people's rights are 'bad'.Â*Â*(sorry lame term there but bear with me)Â*Â*The fact any crime affects someone else in some way violates the victims right to privacy. First, there is no Constitutional right to privacy [I don't care what the SCOTUS says, if it isn't in the Constitution, it isn't in the Constitution].Â*Â*Also, how does Person A smoking pot violate anyone's privacy?Â*Â*

Sure you can.Â*Â*Rehabilitation and restoration.Â*Â*Otherwise, the topic of this thread is bunk. Rehabilitation is at the other end of the spectrum from capital punishment.Â*Â*Capital punishment only punishes and rehabilitation doesn't punish and is therefore not a legitimate subsititute for jail.Â*Â*Jail both punishes and protects society from criminals.Â*Â*Rehab doesn't punish and in a large portion of cases doesn't protect either [criminals getting out of rehad and committing another crime].

-NC

[wonder cow]

involving all stakeholders

Just a quick comment. Be wary when you see this phrase used. What it really means is sitting around at useless meetings with mostly disinterested persons, blabbing on and on about nothing, and writing up a bunch of objectives that will be ignored or minimalized later.