|
Restorative justice
Restorative justice involves the use of conferences. Conferencing is a victim-sensitive approach to addressing wrongdoing in various settings in a variety of ways.
Restorative justice can be used in the home, school or workplace, or in any situation in which there is tension and conflict in relationships in addition to its use in dealing with criminal acts.
A conference is a structured meeting between offenders, victims and both parties' family and friends in which they deal with the consequences of the crime and decide how best to repair the harm. Neither a counselling nor a mediation process, conferencing is a straightforward problem-solving method that demonstrates how citizens can resolve their own problems when provided with a constructive forum to do so.
Conferences provide victims and others an opportunity to confront the offender, express their feelings, ask questions and have a say in the outcome. Offenders hear firsthand how their behavior has affected people. They may begin to repair the harm by apologising, making amends and agreeing to financial restitution or personal or community service work.
This section outlines the principles of restorative justice and is followed by an account from a survivor who chose to be involved in a restorative justice conference with her perpetrator.
The following contains extracts is from Wachtel, Ted. 1999. 'Restorative Justice in Everyday Life: Beyond the Formal Ritual.' Paper presented at the Reshaping Australian Institutions Conference: Restorative Justice and Civil Society. The Australian National University, Canberra, 16-18 February 1999. Extracts are quoted in italics:
'For restorative practices to be effective in changing offender behaviour, we try to do the following:
1. Foster awareness. In the most basic intervention we may simply ask a few questions of the offender which foster awareness of how others have been affected by the wrongdoing. Or we may express our own feelings to the offender. In more elaborate interventions we provide an opportunity for others to express their feelings to the offenders.'
For example:
 The offender could be asked - what happened, what were you thinking at the time, what have you thought about since the incident, who do you think has been affected by your actions and how have they been affected?
The victim could be asked – what was your reaction at the time of the incident, how do you feel about what happened, what has been the hardest thing for you, how did your family and friends react when they heard about the incident?
The victim’s supporters could be asked- what did you think when you heard about the incident, how do you feel about what happened, what has been the hardest thing for you and what do you think are the main issues?
The offender’s supporters could be asked – what did you think when you heard about the incident, how did you feel, about what happened, what has been the hardest thing for you and what do you think are the main issues.
'2. Avoid scolding or lecturing. When offenders are exposed to other people's feelings and discover how victims and others have been affected by their behavior, they feel empathy for others. When scolded or lectured, they react defensively. They see themselves as victims and are distracted from noticing other people's feelings.
3. Involve offenders actively. All too often we try to hold offenders accountable by simply doling out punishment. But in a punitive intervention, offenders are completely passive. They just sit quietly and act like victims. In a restorative intervention, offenders are usually asked to speak. They face and listen to victims and others whom they have affected. They help decide how to repair the harm and must then keep their commitments. Offenders have an active role in a restorative process and are truly held accountable.
4. Accept ambiguity. Sometimes, as in a fight between two people, fault is unclear. In those cases we may have to accept ambiguity. Privately, before the conference, we encourage individuals to take as much responsibility as possible for their part in the conflict. Even when offenders do not fully accept responsibility, victims often want to proceed. As long as everyone is fully informed of the ambiguous situation in advance, the decision to proceed with a restorative intervention belongs to the participants.
5. Separate the deed from the doer. In an informal intervention, either privately with the offenders or publicly after the victims are feeling some resolution, we may express that we assume that the offenders did not mean to harm anyone or that we are surprised that they would do something like that. When appropriate, we may want to cite some of their virtues or accomplishments. We want to signal that we recognize the offenders' worth and disapprove only of their wrongdoing.
6. See every instance of wrongdoing and conflict as an opportunity for learning. The teacher in the classroom, the police officer in the community, the probation officer with his caseload, the corrections officer in the prison all have opportunities to model and teach. We can turn negative incidents into constructive events—building empathy and a sense of community that reduce the likelihood of negative incidents in the future.'
Personal story
Below are the comments of Cathy, a survivor of physical and sexual abuse who organised a restorative justice conference with her offender. It came about after Cathy's offender was prosecuted for his crime, found guilty and imprisoned for three years. Cathy felt devastated and alone as the courts had failed to provide an opportunity for her to be heard. Despite constant counselling, she remained dissatisfied. Cathy wanted justice and was referred to the Police Conflict Assistance Group. Cathy wanted to participate in a conference but was very fearful.
The conference was arranged and 29 participants attended. Cathy came with her parents, sister, cousins and other support people including her counsellor. Prison officials accompanied the offender, David. David's wife and three sons (22, 24 and 25) as well as neighbours and friends also attended. David did not at any stage accept responsibility for his behaviour and felt that he was the victim. No other participant shared this view.
After the conference Cathy completed an evaluation feedback form, and provided the following reflection:
'I faced my perpetrator not as a child but as an adult. I gave myself a chance to allow the child from within to have a voice against the man who destroyed her. I gave others a chance to briefly experience that child. For that child, in some way, it was like a memorial service and an opportunity for grief and later towards the end of the night, joy.
The conference gave the child within a hearing and its dignity. I wanted an opportunity to build bridges with my parents and sister. I understood how hard it was for my parents to come to Australia for a better life, a safer life and have it violated by a trusted friend. I addressed everyone and said that we all have a responsibility to look after children. Everyone should be aware of signs and not ignore them because they're too hard. There were signs in my case and everyone ignored them and on top of that, condemned me for things they didn't like.
I needed the conference as I was seeking a chance to express my anger and voice towards the perpetrator within the framework of the legal system. Why? I felt the system had literally dumped me following the sentencing and I needed a safe environment. The offer of a conference took some convincing because of the other participants. It was frightening to have it so public. My conscience led me to do the conference because I believe offenders must be held accountable in every way. The court certainly did not do that .'
Restorative justice is a powerful tool in confronting wrongdoers/offenders
over the effects of their actions/crimes. Every survivor has
to follow their own journey. For some survivors, their offender/s
will be prosecuted, while for others, it will not be possible
or apporopriate to confront their abuser.
| 
