This is an important article. Kim Workman's background as head of corrections for New Zealand gives him a great perspective on efforts to reform the criminal justice & usher in restorative justice policies. I am in agreement that there is some kind of divide between those who work for reform who are affiliated with offenders versus those who work for reform and work with victims. But as Kim says, it doesn't have to be that way.

We have to get past these differences and work for change in the system to benefit victims, offenders and communities. It's about change and healing. Restorative justice gives both groups a greater vision for reform.


Lisa Rea
California

One Thing in common in my opinion being a Victim, now Survivor

I have successfully charged my offender
I have forgiven with placed boundaries with my offender

One common issue between us both and other reformed Offenders / Victims:

We are standing in courage to be a voice
Taking responsibility in our own hands
Keeping abreast of the laws, community, education to shifting reform globally
Self forgiveness and of others
Choice
Believing that Sex Abuse Can be Stopped!

www.charmaineloverin.ca
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5750306306&ref=nf

When the man who murdered my 16 year old daughter restores life to her, I will consider restorative justice. Until then, I will never forgive him, nor will I forgive anyone who has the audacity to suggest that I should.
Of course there is a chasm of difference between victim and offender. One choses to use violence or dishonesty, the other does not and suffers for the bad man's choice. The criminal hurts or kills the innocent, including affecting his own family. The victim doesn't! The blame for the suffering of all lies squarely on one person.
If some people choose to forgive, or to believe in a certain interpretation of a talmud, bible, koran etc, fair enough, but I do not and that decision should be respected. I do not want to be preached to about Jesus forgiving, because I do not believe in god. Nor did my daughter - so by the reckonings of you christians, she is now in hell, weighed down by original sin, which she had not asked for forgiveness for. Balony.
This is superstitious nonsense and an affront to my daughter and human intellegence.
So Mr Workman, please stop talking for victims or about victims and please keep your silly religion out of the law, order and punishment debate.
To keep the innocent safe, the criminal should be locked away until he is no longer a threat, which may well be the rest of his life.
And Lisa, Mr Workman headed a system that failed miserably to reforrm criminals, so it defies logic to take him seriously. Change and healing? It's about crime and punishment.

Mr. Young, I am very sorry to hear about your daughter's murder. I respect the positions you have taken on forgiveness, religion and punishment.

Many people have certain misconceptions about restorative justice. For example, it does not require forgiveness. As you point out, some victims choose to forgive; others do not. Restorative responses are applicable in either situation. Nor do restorative justice and religion necessarily go hand in hand. There are religious and non-religious advocates of restorative justice; there are also religious and non-religious opponents.

Restorative justice calls for offender accountability, assistance to victims and survivors, and public safety. In the right kind of cases (and these are not simply light-weight cases), restorative justice programs have a better track record than ordinary criminal justice in reducing repeat offending. You can read about it at http://www.restorativejusti[…]evidence-executive-summary.

Incidentally, this site has a section on victim support (look above, just under the gold and to the right). It certainly does not address all victim concerns, nor does it attempt to speak for victims. But we have put together information about restorative justice that may be of interest to you. If you do look around, I'd be interested in your comments, suggestions, etc. You can reach me at dvanness[at]pfi[dot]org.

Thanks.

Though this blog entry started with a post by Mr. Kim Workman, I feel a need to respond to Mr. Young's comments above.

First, I am sorry for your pain. I have worked with many victims of violent crime over the years especially through the non-profit organization I founded called The Justice & Reconciliation Project. Our sole focus was to reach out to victims of crime with the message of hope that restorative justice brings them. But also we sought to tell the stories of victims who experienced some kind of healing through RJ processes. Victims usually came to us asking to tell their stories.

Mr. Young, as Mr. Van Ness mentioned in his comments to you often there seems to be some confusion about the definition of restoraive justice. First and foremost, it is not about forgiveness. That is not a goal of RJ. It sometimes happens that victims choose to forgive, but that reflects their own personal experience and is not a goal of RJ processes.

Since much of my work with victims has been with victims like you who are victims of violent crime I understand the comments you made. No one has the right to push, urge or force a victim to forgive. But what restorative justice provides is a chance to heal and experience some kind of restoration. Healing often occurs, on some level, when victims (family members) choose to meet their offenders. Not always, but often some kind of healing takes place.

As I am sure you are aware victims choose to meet their offenders because more often than not they have questions that only the offender can answer. Restorative justice processes provide that opportunity to ask those questions unlike anything offered by the traditional criminal justice system. The traditional justice system tends to lock you out of the system.

I talk about restorative justice as being victims-driven. I think that is the way it should be since the very nature of RJ is victims-centered. I am a firm believer that victims should have the option or the right to meet their offenders. You might not choose to meet the offender now. You might not choose to meet your offender ever, but you should have the right to do so if you so choose. All victims should have that right.

Appreciate your input.

Lisa Rea
California

Dear Mr Harry Young

I have not been the victim of a horrendous crime, such as you have suffered, and I could not even pretend to understand the pain and suffering that you and your family have gone through over recent years.


I agree with the other contributors that restorative Justice conferences should not be promoted as an opportunity to express forgiveness. That is not what it is about. Some of the most powerful victim/offender conferences occur when the victim takes the opportunity to tell the offender about the impact their crime has had on the victim and the family. The conference gives the victim that opportunity. In some cases, the victim may want to hear from the offender’s own lips their motivation for offending and details of the circumstances that led to the offence – something that a judicial hearing cannot fully achieve. Any decision to forgive is in the hands of the victim – no one else.

My recent presentation to the Victim Support Conference was not intended to be anti-victim, and was certainly not received that way. Firstly, it was a call for each of us to work together, whether working in the area of victim support, or the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders, to make a difference. Secondly, it was saying the most effective changes are made when we address those issues that create social harm. I think about the $1 billion spent on new prisons in the last five years, and what that could have done in the areas of child abuse, family violence, employment creation, early childhood education and so on.

Subsequently, I received the following comment from a woman whose own childhood experiences led her to become a clinical psychologist, and work with sexual abusers. It read:

I just read the address you made at the recent Victim Support conference, and it was refreshing to hear someone speak up about the irrational divide between victim and offender services/agencies in NZ. I've recently returned from the annual Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA) conference in Dallas. It stood out to me that as uninformed as some of their policy is, the U.S. (in some States anyway) are doing a great job forming coalitions of professionals involved with both offenders and victims in their efforts to address sexual violence....I hope your message gets across to the wider community, and that in the not-too-distant future NZ starts to recognise the need for collaboration across victim and offender groups.

I would like to think that the 200 or more victim support volunteers attending the Conference, (many former victims) took that message away with them.