Law school student asks: would victims really want restorative justice?
Nov 30, 2009
by Lisa Rea
I recently gave a speech at UC Davis Law School. Before the class the professor shared a comment made to him by one of the students in his class. A number of students had already explored restorative justice, perhaps having heard of it previously since the law school had hosted a number of events on the subject including bringing in guest speakers like me to speak in a classroom setting.
The student said this: "Restorative justice might be a good concept for the person who committed the crime since they may be able to understand the pain they caused that they might not otherwise be unaware of. However, for victims I think this is a waste of time. It probably just stirs up emotions unnecessarily and the session may turn into a shouting and crying match. But it still doesn’t change the victims’ pain or the harm that was caused."
As I prepared my speech presentation I thought of this comment. It's a fairly common one, actually. The public sees restorative justice as helpful to one party but not the other. Ironically, I would guess that most think that restorative justice is good for the victim and not the offender. The fact is restorative justice is good for both.
The excellent research of Drs. Heather Strang and Lawrence Sherman, at the Australian National University and the University of Cambridge respectively, shows the value to both. But in addressing the student's comment their research considered the value to the victim. It documents that victims are more satisfied after participating in restorative justice meetings or processes than with the traditional criminal justice system.
The student says a meeting between a victim and an offender "probably stirs up emotions unnecessarily and the session may turn into a shouting and crying match". Certainly, emotions can run high but what we have learned in the RJ field is that the primary reason a victim chooses to participate in a RJ meeting is because he has questions. Crime victims area often frustrated and angry with the traditional criminal justice system and with good reason. Their needs are usually ignored. When considering restorative justice we start with the assumption that the victim has questions which often, if not always, only the offender can answer. What happens between the victim and offender (and perhaps other key players if the participants choose a family group conference) is something that is hard to predict. But what is so critical is that a victim has the right to meet the offender. That option should never be denied to the victim.
In my work with victims I have learned they are increasingly asking for restorative justice as an option. With the right kind of preparation of victim and offender a productive meeting will occur that allows the victim to ask those questions as well as allowing the offender to answer them. By answering the questions and taking responsibility for his actions the offender learns and moves toward change and transformation. For the victim, there is a measure of healing and restoration that occurs.That is no waste of time.
But we no longer need to depend only on my opinion of restorative justice or some one else's but instead we can rely on what crime victims say through well-documented evidence based research. The body of research is growing worldwide. That research shows restorative justice works and the stories of victims, and offenders, testify to it working.
I was excited to meet these students at the UC Davis Law School. The number of questions they posed during the question and answer portion of my presentation was very encouraging. In fact, I was very pleased to hear that a restorative justice working group had been established by the law students in this class. As I said during my speech, restorative justice IS the future.
restorative justice from a survivor's perspective
One of the things I always told offenders was that when we do something which harms another, we need to apologize for our harmful actions. I emphasized that the ultimate apology is how we live the rest of our lives (have we learned from the harm we caused so that we don't repeat the act?).
Almost two decades after I was assaulted I learned I had mididentified my assailant, who spent over 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. Following the advice I always gave to offenders, I sent him an apology letter and subsequently met with him in person to apologize. In this victim/offender conference, I was the offender. I don't think I would have been able to accept the fact that I had made an error if I had not been involved for so many years with the restorative justice movement.
I am also a trained facilitator of v/o conferences, including those involving crimes of severe violence. As Lisa Rea points out in her article, the key is in proper preparation of both the victim and the offender. This often includes multiple meetings with each party separately before they are brought together. If any red flags appear during these pre-conference meetings, the facilitator may decide the conference should not take place.
In addition, there are ground rules which prohibit such behaviors as shouting matches. Although both parties are encouraged to express their emotions honestly, this must be done in a way which does not cause harm to either party. The facilitator has the power to stop the conference at any time if it appears that additional harm will occur.
Victim/offender conferencing is just one manifestation of restorative justice. I believe it should always be victim initiated, but that it is beneficial to both parties involved. If an offender better understands the harm he/she has caused, he/she is less likely to reoffend in the future. That in itself is a victim service!