|
|
Highlights of Plenary Sessions
from the
6th International Conference on Restorative Justice:
“Best Practices in Restorative Justice - an International Perspective”
June 1-4, 2003
Vancouver, British Columbia
In early June of last year, 300 people gathered in Vancouver to explore issues and concerns regarding restorative
practices. They came from five continents, and a variety of workplaces and backgrounds, willing to engage in dialogue
and friendship. Over four days, participants heard plenary speakers, participated in workshops and had informal
discussions. Participants responded enthusiastically to this opportunity to engage in respectful dialogue as we
forge our way into the next wave of social change within the context of the legal system and beyond. Each session
focused on a particular topic related to restorative justice, and keynote speakers were asked to share their thoughts,
ideas, and learnings.
The following document provides a brief overview of each plenary session by focusing on memorable and pivotal
statements made by speakers. These quotes speak to the nature of the discussion over the four days, and have led
to ongoing dialogue about the central debates of restorative justice.
~~~~~~
Plenary 1: Tensions between government and community public/private/community partnerships
The first speaker was Dr. John Braithwaite from the Centre for Restorative Justice, Australia National University. Dr.
Braithwaite spoke to the connection between restorative justice and community, and the difficulty in bringing research and theory into action…
“According to the restorative justice way of thinking, democratic conversations about the rights and wrongs of an allegedly
criminal act are not a sideshow, but the main game.”
“Restorative justice is after all something that animates social movement, a way of living. It’s about listening,
healing, repairing, repairing harm and forgiving.”
“We don’t want to focus on the weakness of family; we want to focus on the strength of family.”
“We all confront really difficult conflicts including conflicts of violence in our schools. It’s through those restorative practices in schools that we have the best opportunities that we can
hope to have to learn to be democratic citizens who feel the experience of holistic justice.”
“There is a history of tension between state and grassroots restorative justice and I think it’s in synergy, in the possibility
of partnership that exists the most exciting possibility for moving forward.”
The second speaker was Judge Barry Stuart (ret), former Chief Justice of the Yukon Territory. Judge Stuart is well known for his involvement in the development of sentencing circles, and continues to bring his unique perspective to his writing, research and practice…
“I see the principles and processes in restorative justice are really about community building. It’s not a quick fix solution.
It is not going to solve the problems of our community tomorrow, but it will, in time, build up the capacity in our communities to
do just that.”
“The basic principles and processes of restorative justice are going to change how we fundamentally relate to each other, how we
use institutions and how we are going to be as individuals. I would suggest to you that it makes it possible for us to live out
our values without being beaten up; values like trust and respect and openness. If you do that in most institutions in which we live
you can get beaten up rather badly.”
“If we don’t reach out and stretch out to bring in those parts of our community not present, if we don’t stretch and reach out and bring to the restorative justice movement the business community and others, how can we say we are
living our value of being a holistic movement?”
Plenary 2: Youth Restorative Justice/New Canadian Legislation – YCJA
The first speaker, Lode Walgrave, is a professor at the Catholic University of Leuven; Professor Walgrave has worked closely with
the Belgian government in developing their youth criminal justice system with regards to restorative justice. The following quotes
provide an overview of his most stimulating and thought provoking observations and queries…
“Punitive escalation in response to youth crime will hold the seeds of more un-wellbeing, more exclusion, thus more crime and
more unsafety.”
“Despite some basic common understandings, there is not one generally accepted basic theory on restorative justice, and such theory
is not what is needed. Rigid definitions and rules would limit developments. On the contrary, permanent debate provokes permanent
reflections and increasing awareness.”
“If restorative justice will become predominant, would any fundamental reasons be left for distinguishing a separate juvenile
justice system?”
“For the victim, it does not make a difference if he has been burglarized or beaten up by a 16-year old boy or by a 24-year old
adult.”
The second speaker, Alan Markwart, is a senior administrator responsible for youth justice in the Provincial Ministry of Children
and Family Development. Mr. Markwart addressed the implication of the new Youth Criminal Justice Act more specifically…
“In BC, there are more than 60 police-based diversion programs which are called CAPs, or Community Accountability Programs, that
are community driven and volunteer based, many of which employ restorative justice approaches.”
“…it can hardly be said that restorative justice approaches have been systematically incorporated into the youth justice system in
Canada. It cannot be said…that there are any jurisdictions in the country where restorative justice is both a systemic and integral
part of the youth justice system…”
Plenary 3: Restorative Justice in Public Schools
The first speaker was Judge Bria Huculak, who has been involved in restorative justice processes in Saskatchewan for more than a
decade. She spoke from her experience as a Judge, community-based practitioner, teacher and writer…
“Teachers are expected to teach and deal with social issues and all sort of problems in the classroom. The problem for many teachers
is that they don’t have the skills that they need to resolve issues and conflicts in their environment.”
“As I started working with people in the school system, what was very clear to me was that what they wanted were the tools to deal with
conflict, and dealing with conflict in a constructive way and having the tools to deal with conflict that would avoid suspensions
and expulsions.”
“Kids learn how to be good citizens by experience… Restorative justice and other conflict resolution processes are the way to teach
children to become good peaceful citizens.”
“We are making the connections at all levels: teachers, school boards, and the department of education, where conflict resolution is
part of the school. Caring respectful school philosophy is part of the community school philosophy; it can be a very productive
partnership of restorative justice people, conflict resolution people and schools.”
Brenda Morrison is a social psychologist working out of the Centre for Restorative Justice at Australian National University.
She works as an academic studying the theory and practice of restorative justice.
“…bullying in the context of restorative justice is an interesting fit because bullying is defined as a systematic abuse of power.
Restorative justice on the other hand aims to restore the power and balances that affect our relationships with others.”
“…one message comes through loud and clear in the deadly school rampage cases; adolescents are intensely concerned about social
standing in school and amongst their peers. For some, that concern is so great that threats to status are treated as threats to
their very lives. And their status is something to be defended at all cost even if it means their own lives.”
“Young people need a place where they feel valued and powerful. This is part of the journey from childhood to adulthood. Holding
spaces and pathways open for them are important ways of preventing violence.”
“When we acknowledge shame, we actually acknowledge that we’re feeling shame. We take responsibility for those feelings and we make
appropriate amends. When we displace our shame, we end up with retaliatory anger, externalizing blame and displace anger.”
Marc Forget was the final speaker. Marc is an educator, facilitator, world traveler, and co-founder of the Deep Humanity Institute.
He is also the program associate for the Canadian Quaker Committee on Jails and Justice.
“Justice is the process, peace is the outcome.”
“By listening to the young people we worked with, I learned to see the world through their eyes. I learned to see through the thick
veil that the use of conditions and coercion and fears had placed in front of my eyes.”
“As we stripped away authority and coercion in the work that we did in schools and replaced them with equality and freedom of choice,
the students’ behaviour became more and more productive. I learned that the less I pushed, the less the students resisted, and that
the less I resisted the less the students pushed.”
“Either adults set no boundaries at all, or they constantly engage young people in a battle aimed at showing them that the adult is
bigger and more powerful, a pissing contest. Neither of these meets young people’s need. What we need to do is to treat everyone as
human beings deserving our caring and respect. Young people do not need to be reminded they don’t enjoy the same right and privileges
as adult do. It’s in their face everyday. Unfortunately, it is we the adults who seem to be the ones who need to prove to ourselves
that we are bigger and more powerful.”
Plenary 4: Aboriginal Justice
The first speaker was Jonathan Rudin, director of Aboriginal services in Toronto. He has contributed to the field of Aboriginal
Justice both as a teacher, a writer and a lawyer…
"I want to state that it is very important for us to recognize that Aboriginal justice and Aboriginal justice initiatives
are separate and distinct processes from general restorative justice programs. We need to recognize that distinction, or else,
I fear there won’t be Aboriginal justice programs in the future."
"You can’t remedy colonialism by telling Aboriginal people what they can do; that’s just perpetuating colonialism. It’s the experience
of colonialism and the need to work through that experience that distinguishes Aboriginal justice programs from other restorative justice
programs."
"Sentencing circles aren’t Aboriginal justice initiatives. Sentencing circles are what the justice system want Aboriginal people to do to
have input into the process. That’s a good thing. But that’s not Aboriginal justice. If you go into Aboriginal communities and
you say, “Imagine a justice system”, very few are going to say, “You know what, I would like to have a circle, and I would like to talk. I would like to
have a Judge and a Crown there, and after we all talked, I would like the Judge to go away and tell us if what we came up with is right.”
“I want to finish by quoting someone we don’t normally quote at these conferences. Karl Marx said in his Eleventh Thesis on
Fauerbach: “The philosophers have interpreted the world. The point is to change it.”
Mark Wedge was the final speaker for this plenary session; he is a Tlinglet elder who has been extensively involved in the process of
justice, both at a community level, through peacemaking circles, and at a national level, through land claims negotiation. He shared
his wisdom and curiosity with the conference, provoking thought and careful reflection on the difficulty confronting the future of the
Canadian Criminal Justice System and its relationship with Aboriginal people…
“Some of the things that are happening that I am struggling with are that it seems like we are trying to define something and the
difficulty we have is when we are trying to define something it is like putting a lid on a box, and yet what we are trying to do is
get out of the box.”
“Now, what we say is that the way that we want to approach justice is not to make a punitive law. What we need to do is to tell a story
about why we want to do this. From that story comes the values and the virtues about how to apply it. From those values
and virtues, we begin to start saying this is what we should do.”
“What we need to do is we need to find how the legislature, how the judiciaries, how the committee justice circles work and we need to
begin to dance and work together.”
“One of the things you guys all heard is the story of the swans and the geese, and how they’re flying in a “V”. But there are some other theories that look at swallows, they seem totally
un-organized, but somehow they stick together like glue, and there is no leader. The way that they operate is
that when some, or one of those swallows begin to encounter a sense of danger, the first instinct is to go to the center of the flock.
By doing that, what it does is self-direct. I would like to think that our community is moving in that style because we want to see
leadership and order and all these things, and who takes leadership. If we set those values and those principles and those guidelines
or whatever it is in our communities, then each of us holds responsibility for trying not to let the community get into harm, and to
try to maintain the healing path.”
Plenary 5: Victims’ Perspective/Trauma Recovery
The first speaker was Dr. Kathleen Daly, Associate Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. She is the director of a program on Restorative Justice with the Key Center on Ethic, Law, Justice and
Governance at Griffith University.
“We need to pay greater attention to the context of victimization, understanding and analyzing victim’s experiences with restorative
justice processes.”
“The offence itself sets in motion limits on a victim’s ability to recover from the offence; it also sets limits on the ability
of any legal process to make a difference.”
“When we compare court and conferencing, we see the limit of formal legality especially in the handling of sexual offences. The court
process marches on, irrespective of what victims are thinking in terms of their sensibilities, their distress, etc. We don’t ask
court victims whether they have recovered from an offence; rather, we assume that the court offers victims
symbolic vindication.”
“No legal intervention could help all victims. But what the court / conference comparison question makes us ask is, “What does court
do to victims?” My study suggests that conferencing is better for a victim only if the offender has admitted to the offence. Victims
face a 50-50 roll of the dice, certainly based on my research if the case goes to court. In conferencing, they have about a 95% chance of an offender
at least admitting to the offence. I think for many victims, it’s that admission at least that begins the path to recovery.”
Dr. Marlene Young, Executive Director of the National Organization for Victims' Assistance (NOVA, USA), was the final speaker for this plenary. She continues to contribute to the field of restorative justice and
particularly victims’ issues, as a community activist, writer, and public speaker.
“When I think of the Navajo tradition, it always speaks to me. There is no word in Navajo for justice. There is only a word in that
language for harmony.”
“Sacred justice is a way of handling disagreements that helps mend relationships, provides solutions and promotes a restructured
understanding in those relationships.”
“The common welfare of the community is usually first, and justice may be painful, even in the restorative concept, even though it’s
not necessarily retributive.”
“A truly restorative system has to be a system of equitable compensation in some way from society and from the offender in both senses.”
“It is shameful to be a victim. You have been rendered powerless. You have been rendered helpless. If we think about, even experiencing a minor
crime, for that second, the offender takes a degree of control over your life and violates it.”
“I think that every offender owes to society and to the victim a sense of remorse, possibly re-integrated shame, as some have called
it, and repentance.”
“When we look into restorative justice, we have to be victim centered, offender focussed, and community driven.”
“For a truly restorative process, you need to help to restore the victim. There is a major benefit for a lot of victims in being able
to hear from the offenders why they did it, what they did and in what context, as they try to piece the story together. So I say you
cannot have a restorative process unless you have the victim involved.”
Plenary 6: Evaluation of Restorative Justice Processes and Practices
The first speaker of the plenary was Dr. Gabrielle Maxwell from Victoria University in Wellington. She has made significant
contributions to the field of restorative justice, particularly in the evaluation of restorative processes in New Zealand and
abroad.
“Empowerment of victims, families and offenders occurs through the process of meeting, of participating in decision-making and when they
become involved in agreeing to those decisions. Reintegration is achieved through forgiveness, through restoring connections
between the offender and the victim and wider society.”
“We frequently observed conferences where the professionals just took over. They wanted to get on with the job and finish with
the talking. It is very easy for the professionals to get a bit weary about and not be fresh, and not be concerned with involving
everybody. It is important to make sure that the conference was an empowering event for the critical participants, the young people themselves and the
victims.”
“The issue of fairness and respect came through time and again. The importance of everyone being involved is one of the good
things about a circle where the stone is passed around. This is a lovely signal that we want you to say what you really mean. The
importance of a construed consensus, the emphasis on repair, the avoidance of retribution and stigma, and the re-integrative
measure in the follow up and support.”
The second speaker was Paul McCold who is one of the leading researchers in restorative justice evaluation. Paul McCold is the
director of research for the International Institute for Restorative Practices and presented findings about the cost effectiveness
of restorative justice…
“It is possible for Restorative Justice to fit almost anywhere within the justice system and begin to funnel cases out of the
justice system. Obviously early in the justice system, the more criminal expenditures are avoided, the greater the benefit.”
“First I want to distinguish the goal of Restorative Justice from the benefits accrued from conducting Restorative Justice.
The goal is the reason why we do it. The reason is for the intervention. The only reason for the intervention in our justice
cases is to repair the harm that was done. The harms to be repaired have at least 4 aspects, financial, emotional, relational
and social harms.”
“We’re going to need a lot of research to really understand program effectiveness.”
The third and final plenary speaker was Howard Zehr, professor of sociology and restorative justice at Eastern Mennonite
University. Howard is one of the leading scholars and initiators of restorative justice, whose book “Changing Lenses” is
considered one of the seminal works in restorative justice. He discussed a number of the critical issues facing researchers
and practicioners…
“We need victims looking over our shoulders, and to do that we need to have them on board. We need to have them on our start up
committees, and we need to deliberately ask them. That goes to other players as well. We need to be having structured dialogue
between the various sectors.”
“We need to be clear about our principles and philosophies, and then do what I have come to call principled practice.”
“There are all kinds of metaphors; one of the metaphors used is the metaphor of a journey. Participants are on a journey, and we
are on a journey here as well.”
“It is a journey that is circuitous. It’s a journey whose destination is unclear, and I think it is important to remember we are
very early in that journey. We are very early in that journey and we’re facing lots of forks in the road.”
|
|