T O EN F J TM U U.S. Department of Justice R ST A I P C E E D B O J C S Office of Justice Programs F A V M F O I N A C I J S R E BJ G O OJJ DP O F PR National Institute of Justice JUSTICE SENTENCING & CORRECTIONS Issues for the 21st Century September 1999 Papers From the Executive Sessions on Sentencing and Corrections No. 3 Incorporating Restorative and Community Justice Into American Sentencing and Corrections Directors’ Message It is by now a commonplace that the number by Leena Kurki of people under criminal justice supervision in this country has reached a record high. As rograms based on restorative and com- In contrast to this bottom-up approach, a result, the sentencing policies driving that munity justice principles have prolifer- recent changes in sentencing law are premised number, and the field of corrections, where ated in the United States over the past on retributive ideas about punishing wrong- the consequences are felt, have acquired an P unprecedented salience. It is a salience defined decade simultaneously with tough-on-crime doers and on the desirability of controlling more by issues of magnitude, complexity, and initiatives like three-strikes, truth-in-sentenc- risk, increasing public safety, and reducing expense than by any consensus about future ing, and mandatory minimum laws. Restor- sentencing disparities. Restorative and com- directions. ative justice and community justice represent munity justice goals of achieving appropriate, new ways of thinking about crime. The theo- individualized dispositions often conflict with Are sentencing policies, as implemented through ries underlying restorative justice suggest that the retributive goal of imposing certain, con- correctional programs and practices, achieving government should surrender its monopoly sistent, proportionate sentences. their intended purposes? As expressed in the movement to eliminate indeterminate senten- over responses to crime to those most directly cing and limit judicial discretion, on the one affected—the victim, the offender, and the There are many ways to resolve this norma- hand, and to radically restructure our retribu- tive conflict. Restorative and community community. Community justice redefines the tive system of justice, on the other, the purpos- justice initiatives could continue to confine roles and goals of criminal justice agencies es seem contradictory, rooted in conflicting to include a broader mission—to prevent their efforts to juvenile offenders and people values. The lack of consensus on where sen- crime, address local social problems and who commit minor crimes. This seems tencing and corrections should be headed is conflicts, and involve neighborhood residents unlikely, as these approaches are expanding thus no surprise. in planning and decisionmaking. Both restor- rapidly and winning many new supporters Because sentencing and corrections policies who want to extend their application. ative and community justice are based on the have such major consequences—for the Alternatively, retributive sentencing laws could premise that communities will be strength- allocation of government resources and, more ened if local citizens participate in responding be revised or narrowed. But this too seems fundamentally and profoundly, for the quality to crime, and both envision responses tai- unlikely in the near term. How precisely the of justice in this country and the safety of its lored to the preferences and needs of victims, two divergent trends will be reconciled citizens—the National Institute of Justice and the communities, and offenders. remains to be seen. Nevertheless, it seems Corrections Program Office (CPO) of the Office of Justice Programs felt it opportune to explore them in depth. Through a series of Executive Sessions on Sentencing and Corrections, begun Research in Brief CONTINUED ... 2 Sentencing & Corrections Directors’ Message likely that restorative and community justice offenders. For victims, this meant restitution values will to some extent become more insti- for tangible losses and emotional losses. CONTINUED ... tutionalized in criminal justice processes.1 For offenders, it meant taking responsibility, confronting shame, and regaining dignity. in 1998 and continuing through the year 2000, ■ ■ ■ practitioners and scholars foremost in their This notion has evolved, with the major recent field, representing a broad cross-section of What is restorative justice? points of view, are being brought together to conceptual development the incorporation of find out if there is a better way to think about estorative justice has evolved from a a role for the community. Many people the purposes, functions, and interdependence Rlittle-known concept into a term used still associate restorative justice primarily with of sentencing and corrections policies. widely but in divergent ways. There is no victim-offender mediation or, more broadly (but mistakenly), with any victim-oriented We are fortunate in having secured the assis- doubt about its appeal, although the varied services. The more recent conceptualiza- tance of Michael Tonry, Sonosky Professor uses of the term cause some confusion. The of Law and Public Policy at the University of umbrella term “restorative justice” has been tion—that offenses occur within a three- Minnesota Law School, as project director. applied to initiatives identified as restorative dimensional relationship—may change the by some but not by others. Examples are sex- movement. One product of the sessions is this series of offender notification laws, papers, commissioned by NIJ and the CPO as because crime harms the victim and the basis for the discussions. Drawing on the victim impact statements, the community, the primary goals [of research and experience of the session partici- and murder victim sur- restorative justice] should be to repair pants, the papers are intended to distill their vivors’ “right” to be present the harm and heal the victim and the judgments about the strengths and weaknesses at executions. Most advo- community. of current practices and about the most prom- cates of restorative justice ising ideas for future developments. agree that it involves five All three parties should be able to participate The sessions were modeled on the executive basic principles: in rebuilding the relationship and in deciding sessions on policing held in the 1980s and ■ 1990s under the sponsorship of NIJ and Crime consists of more than violation on responses to the crime. The distinctive Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. of the criminal law and defiance of govern- characteristic is direct, face-to-face dialogue Those sessions played a role in conceptualizing ment authority. among victim, offender, and increasingly, the community. community policing and spreading it. Whether ■ Crime involves disruptions in a three- the current sessions and the papers based on dimensional relationship of victim, community, them will be instrumental in developing a new ■ ■ ■ and offender. paradigm for sentencing and corrections, or even whether they will generate broad-based ■ Because crime harms the victim and the What is community justice? support for a particular model or strategy for community, the primary goals should be to he concept of community justice is less change, remains to be seen. It is our hope that repair the harm and heal the victim and the T clear. It can be portrayed as a set of new in the current environment of openness to new community. organizational strategies that change the focus ideas, the session papers will provoke com- of criminal justice from a narrow, case pro- ment, promote further discussion and, taken ■ The victim, the community, and the offender cessing orientation: operations are moved together, will constitute a basic resource docu- should all participate in determining the ment on sentencing and corrections policy response to crime; government should to neighborhood locations that offer flexible issues that will prove useful to State and local surrender its monopoly over that process. working hours and services, neighborhoods policymakers. are assigned their own officers and are pro- ■ Case disposition should be based primarily vided with more information than is standard Jeremy Travis on the victim’s and the community’s needs— practice, and residents may identify crime Director not solely on the offender’s needs or culpabil- National Institute of Justice problems and define priorities for neighbor- U.S. Department of Justice ity, the dangers he presents, or his criminal hood revitalization. Most experience with history. Larry Meachum community justice is in the context of com- munity policing, but prosecutors, judges, Director The original goal of restorative justice was Corrections Program Office and correctional officers are increasingly to restore harmony between victims and U.S. Department of Justice rethinking their roles and goals. Sentencing & Corrections 3 The most frequently cited standpoints for Should restorative and and requirements for programs reflecting community justice are problem solving and community justice be these values, thereby bureaucratizing them community empowerment. Problem solving is incorporated into the and once again “stealing the conflicts” from understood broadly: first, as an effort to build criminal justice system? communities. As Ronald Earle put it, the partnerships between criminal justice and “unstructured lack of standardization is the other government agencies and between gov- dvocates of restorative justice and