Practitioners Start to Develop a Restorative Process for Determining Guilt

In the fall of 2001, a small group of community activists started a dialogue about developing a process for determining responsibility in a restorative manner in conflicts where responsibility for the harm is disputed. The  first dialogue centered on developing a structured process. This started a discussion on the sort of cases where such a program might be helpful. An example of the ideas considered is the New Zealand concept of 'guilt not denied', where the conference focuses strictly on matters where the wrongdoer does not deny responsibility.

One dialogue participant suggested that we need to find a "fact finding, healing tool'. Her vision is for a sophisticated tool that would employ values such as respect for human dignity, while still working toward understanding what really occurred in a conflict. It has been suggested that the faith communities could play a significant role in the development of this tool by opening their doors and allowing a preliminary conference to occur that is focused exclusively on understanding what did happen and who is responsible for making things right.  

The group is now in the process of defining this tool. (It is not clear whether the tool will be a single model or a flexible one based on the nature of the conflict.)  Members of the group are considering whether this tool might be an alternative to Crime Stoppers in public schools.

The group has also used case studies to judge the appropriateness of handling each case in a restorative manner. After consideration of different case types, the group’s current position seems to be that property damage cases offer the best opportunity for this project.  

The group has not found consensus on those questions about cases involving domestic violence and alleged sexual assault. Some believe these cases would often benefit from a fact-finding tool, while others are very leery of what this may do to the victim. 

The final category of cases the group has considered are those in which the wrongdoer has been convicted but continues to insist on his or her innocence. Because these cases are often emotional, it has been suggested that a fact-finding tool might most useful after they have been closed by the traditional system. 

The dialogue continues its work on developing a fact-finding tool. Those interested in joining the discussion may participate in a monthly conference phone call, or on an interactive web site designated exclusively for this topic. The group's goal for 2002 is to begin looking at real cases where restorative processes might be used for determining responsibility in a restorative setting.

For more information please feel free to contact Tony Brown at tony@fcrjquaker.org. 

By Tony Brown

January 2002