sign in sign up
<<
Home , Community court, Corrections, Restorative justice

T O EN F J TM U U.S. Department of 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 & Issues for the 21st Century September 1999 Papers From the 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 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 are premised number, and the field of corrections, where ated in the 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- 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 . 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 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 . 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 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 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- 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 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 , , 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 genius of the movement,” but, at the same ernment agencies and neighborhoods; and, A community justice often differ over the time, he added, “there is a great temptation second, as an attempt to address some of the desirability of becoming part of the official to create a national template for community complex social problems underlying crime. criminal justice system. Restorative justice justice programs.” The challenge for govern- proponents believe in the ment will be to encourage and support the most experience with community justice is efficacy of grassroots citi- new initiatives without stifling the spontaneity, in the context of community policing, but zen efforts and thus many creativity, and grassroots ties that are their prosecutors, judges, and correctional offi- want to keep restorative strengths. cers are increasingly rethinking their justice initiatives separate roles and goals. from the criminal justice ■ ■ ■ system. Community justice What is happening now Community justice proponents suggest that advocates often support a total, systemwide criminal justice agencies change the way they transformation that would incorporate the fundamental difficulty in documenting or interact with the public, learn to listen to citi- new principles. Both groups are concerned A estimating the impact of restorative or zens, and work together with local people to about the role of government in these community justice in the United States is the prevent crime and solve crime-related approaches and their growing popularity. lack of systematic data. No one knows how problems.2 They emphasize that restorative and commu- many or what kinds of programs there are; nity justice represent how many offenders, victims, and volunteers advocates of community justice believe fundamental change: com- participate; the amounts of restitution paid or that to maximize public safety and optimize prehensive philosophies or performed; or the effects crime prevention, residents must work on an theories, not silver bullets on victims, communities, and offenders. It is equal basis with repre- or fads. nearly impossible to monitor what is happen- sentatives and elected officials. ing in different States or regions. Proponents are also con- Advocates of community justice believe that cerned that criminal justice agencies will add Little evaluation research is available, and to maximize public safety and optimize crime new community or restorative justice pro- there is no consensus on how to measure prevention, residents must work on an equal grams to appear “fashionable” or to solve a “success.” Most advocates contend that basis with government agency representatives particular problem, but will do so without is not the correct or only measure. and elected officials. Dennis Maloney, fundamentally rethinking their missions. Evaluations might also consider such meas- Director of the Deschutes County, , Ronald Earle, District Attorney in Travis ures as victim and offender satisfaction, Department of Community Justice has County, Texas, summarized this concern: “The amounts of restitution or community service, described the connection between citizen question is how to focus the criminal justice rates at which reparative agreements are ful- involvement and crime prevention: “In a system and fashion programs on a new way of filled, levels of volunteer participation and community justice framework, the goal is to thinking, not just another way of doing.” community action, and victims’ and offenders’ engage as many citizens as possible in build- Some advocates are skeptical about whether quality of life. ing a better community . . . . People who the new goals and principles can be meaning- share a strong sense of community are far fully adopted by criminal justice agencies, Some advocates do not want to encourage less likely to violate the trust of others. Their which like many other government agencies rigorous evaluation because that might create stake in and bond with the community is the tend to value passionless, specialized, profes- pressure to standardize and “expertize” the strongest force of guardianship to prevent sionalized, and routinized operations. movements. But because the varied programs crime from flourishing.” and practices are what make restorative and Another worry is that government agencies community justice visible, concrete, and dis- ■ ■ ■ or experts will establish guidelines, standards, tinctive, it is important to document their 4 Sentencing & Corrections

types, analyze their characteristics, and system as early as 1989. Public prosecutors supporters tend to take collective responsibil- evaluate outcomes. refer juveniles to mediation, offi- ity for the offender and for carrying out his or cers coordinate cases, and social workers her agreement. The other difference is that The dearth of information affects the writings serve as mediators. If an agreement is conferencing often relies on , proba- of practitioners and academics. There is, reached and completed, the case is dis- tion, or social service agencies for organiza- however, a sizable literature on the principles missed.5 In the United States, most programs tion and facilitation. and goals of restorative justice, how it differs are operated by private, nonprofit organiza- from traditional criminal justice approaches, tions; handle largely juvenile cases; and Family group conferences originated in New and its processes and terminology.3 Other function as diversion programs for minor, Zealand, where they became part of the juve- works describe programs or present details nonviolent crimes. However, there is a move- nile justice system in 1989. There, the new of local projects.4 Most of the literature on ment to develop programs established and juvenile justice model, which incorporates community justice focuses on community operated (or at least initiated) by corrections Maori traditions of involving the family and policing, with little information on community departments, police, or prosecutors and used the community in addressing wrongdoing, prosecution, , or corrections. as a condition of either probation or drop- has four dispositional options: ping charges. Most studies of mediation pro- Restorative justice practices grams report high rates of success.6 ■ An immediate warning by the police. Although something akin to restorative justice ■ “Youth Aid Section” dispositions in which a has long been observed in premodern and Advocates are beginning to challenge the special police unit may require, for example, indigenous societies, restorative justice prin- assumption that mediation is not suitable an apology to the victim or community service. ciples, in the form of victim-offender recon- for violent or sexual crimes. Increasingly, in ciliation programs, appeared in Western the United States and Canada, for example, ■ Family group conferencing. industrialized countries only in the 1970s. victims and offenders meet in . These ■ Traditional youth sentencing. The first program was established in 1974 meetings are not oriented to a tangible goal in Kitchener, Ontario. By the 1990s, such pro- such as a restitution agreement, nor does the About 60 percent of juvenile offenders receive grams had spread to all Western countries— offender obtain benefits like early release or a warning or go to the Youth Aid Section, at least 700 in Europe and 300 in the United consideration. Usually the meetings 30 percent go to conferencing, and 10 per- States. are held because the victim wants to meet cent go to youth court.8 the offender and learn more about what Victim-offender mediation. Victim-offender happened to reach beyond fear and anger By the mid-1990s, family group conferencing mediation is the most widespread and evalu- and facilitate healing. The results of a had been adopted in every state and territory ated type of restorative program. Offenders Canadian survey indicated that 89 percent of . In South Australia, it is used and victims meet with volunteer mediators to of victims of serious, violent crimes wanted statewide as a component of the juvenile jus- discuss the effects of the crime on their lives, to meet the offender.7 tice system and resembles the New Zealand express their concerns and feelings, and work approach. In Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, out a restitution agreement. The agreement is Serious violent crimes are usually mediated conferences (originally part of a police diver- often seen as secondary to emotional healing on a case-by-case basis, but the need for per- sion program) were organized and facilitated and growth. Victims consistently report that manent programs is growing. Such programs by police officers who were often in uniform.9 the most important element of mediation is are offered, for example, by the Correctional Responsibility was transferred to juvenile jus- being able to talk with the offender and Service of Canada in British Columbia and the tice agencies in 1998, and trained community express their feelings, and offenders also Yukon Territory and by the Texas Department members now facilitate conferences. In emphasize the importance of face-to-face of Criminal Justice. Canberra, the Federal Police set up a pro- communication. Advocates believe that devel- gram called the oping an offender’s empathy for the victim has Family group conferencing. Family group Experiment, which involved more than preventive effects. conferencing is based on the same rationales 100 trained police officers. as victim-offender mediation, with two main In many countries, victim-offender mediation differences. Conferencing involves a broader There is that conferencing can is widely used. In Austria, for example, it range of people (family, friends, coworkers, be successful. A recent evaluation of the became an official part of the juvenile justice and teachers), and family members and other Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, Police Family Group Sentencing & Corrections 5

attorney participate in the circle, and then the Minnesota—A Pioneer in Restorative Justice agreement becomes the final . Minnesota has been a groundbreaker in the Yukon Territory, where peacemaking Reparative probation and other citizen restorative justice. Its Department of circles have been held since the late 1980s. boards. Reparative probation in Vermont Corrections created the “Restorative Justice In Minnesota, the circle process is used by involves a probation sentence ordered by a Initiative” in 1992, hiring Kay Pranis as a the Mille Lacs Indian Reservation and in , followed by a meeting between the full-time Restorative Justice Planner in other communities in several counties. offender and volunteer citizen members of a 1994—the first such position in the Reparative Citizen Board. Together they draw country. The initiative offers training in The circle process up a , based on restorative principles, restorative justice principles and practices, The circle process usually has several phas- which the offender agrees to carry out. provides technical assistance to communi- es. First, the Community Justice Committee Fulfilling the contract is the only condition ties in designing and implementing prac- conducts an intake interview with offenders of probation (see “Vermont—Statewide tices, and creates networks of professionals who want to participate. Then, separate Reparative Probation”). and activists to share knowledge and pro- healing circles are held for the victim (and vide support. others who feel harmed) and the offender. Vermont’s program is different from most The committee tries to cultivate a close per- other restorative justice initiatives in the Sentencing circles sonal relationship with victims and offend- United States. Designed by the State’s Besides promoting victim-offender media- ers and to create support networks for Department of Corrections, it operates tion, family group conferencing, and neigh- them. In the end, a sentencing circle, open statewide, handles adult cases, and involves borhood conferencing, the department has to the community, meets to work out a sen- a sizable number of citizen volunteers. introduced sentencing circles. Citizen vol- tencing plan. In the towns of Milaca and Compared with family group conferencing unteers and criminal justice officials from Princeton, followup circles monitor and or sentencing circles, the Reparative Citizen Minnesota have participated in training in discuss the offender’s progress. Boards work faster, require less preparation, and can process more cases; however, they involve fewer community members. For Conferencing program revealed that typical Sentencing circles are so named because par- example, offenders’ and victims’ families police officers were able to conduct confer- ticipants sit in a circle, and a “talking piece” and supporters usually are not present. ences in conformity with restorative justice (a feather, for example) is passed from per- and due process principles if adequately son to person. When participants take the Citizen boards also may be established to trained and supervised, and that very high talking piece, they explain their feelings about adjudicate minor crimes. For example, a percentages of offenders, victims, and other the crime and express support for the victim Merchant Accountability Board in Deschutes participants were pleased with the process.10 and the offender. Separate circles often are County, Oregon, consists of local business Evaluation of Canberra’s Reintegrative held for the offender and the victim before owners who adjudicate thefts of property Shaming Experiment showed similar results.11 they join in a shared circle. valued at $50 or less, and some more serious cases involving property valued at between Sentencing circles. Sentencing circles In Minnesota, sentencing circles are used not $51 and $750. Under an agreement with the originated in traditional Native Canadian and only in Native American communities but also district attorney, the police refer all minor Native American peacemaking. They involve in rural white, suburban, and inner-city black shoplifting cases directly to the program. If the victim and the offender, their supporters, communities (see “Minnesota—A Pioneer offenders decide to participate, they are typi- and key community members, and they are in Restorative Justice”). Community Justice cally ordered by the board to pay fines, make open to everyone in the community. They Committees, established by citizen volunteers, restitution, or both. attempt to address the underlying causes of handle organizational and administrative tasks crime, seek responses, and agree on offend- and provide “keepers” who lead the discus- Manitoba’s Restorative Resolutions Project ers’ responsibilities. The process is based on sions. Judges refer cases, and the committees offers an alternative to custodial sentences peacemaking, , and consensus, make the final decision on acceptance. The for offenders who otherwise are likely to face and each circle member must agree on the agreements reached are presented to the a minimum sentence of 6 months. outcomes. judge as sentencing recommendations. In Offenders and project staff develop sentencing some cases, the judge, , and plans, and victims are encouraged to partici- 6 Sentencing & Corrections

tenets of a communitarian.” For Minnesota Department of Corrections Restorative Justice Vermont—Statewide Reparative Probation Planner Kay Pranis, “Community self-defines around the issue that surfaces, so everybody A pilot reparative probation program reoffending, and the community offers rein- who sees themselves as a stakeholder in a began in Vermont in 1994, and the first tegration to the offender. Since reparative particular issue [makes up the community].” cases were heard by a Reparative Citizen probation targets minor crimes, it is not Vermont Department of Corrections Board the following year. Three features meant as a prison diversion program. Commissioner John Gorczyk says: “Beyond distinguish this restorative justice initiative The numbers place, community is defined by relationships from most others in the United States: The and the amount of interaction. In my commu- In 1998, the 44 boards handled 1,200 Department of Corrections, headed by nity, the quality of those interactions, doing cases, accounting for more than one-third John Gorczyk, designed the program; it is favors for one another, is what builds of the probation caseload. More than 300 implemented statewide; and it involves a community.” sizable number of volunteer citizens. In trained volunteers serve as board members. 1998, the program was named a winner in Ten coordinators handle case management Although in “practicing” community justice, the prestigious Innovations in American and organization for the boards. The goal is it is essential to identify the community and Government competition. to have the boards handle about 70 percent consider possible definitions, it is at least as of the targeted probation cases. That only important to think about the community’s The process about 17 percent of offenders fail to com- role. While many new approaches in criminal The concept is straightforward. Following plete their agreements or attend followup justice have improved access to and satisfac- an of guilt, the judge sen- board meetings is a measure of the pro- tion with justice services, often they have not tences the offender to probation, with the gram’s success. These offenders are transformed the role of citizens from service sentence suspended and only two condi- referred back to court. recipient to participant and decisionmaker.13 tions imposed: the offender will commit Related initiatives For many community justice advocates, the no more crimes and will complete the ultimate goal is for communities to feel own- Other practices based on restorative justice reparative program. The volunteer board ership of programs, but that can be achieved are under way. More than 150 volunteers members meet with the offender and the only if citizens participate. Even then the or Department of Corrections staff have victim and together discuss the offense, its question remains whether government gen- been trained in family group conferencing. effects on victim and community, and the uinely shares power or simply allows commu- A Community Justice Center is operating in life situations of victim and offender. All nities to supplement its power and exercise it Burlington, and others are being developed participants must agree on a contract, to only in certain types of cases. be fulfilled by the offender. It is based on elsewhere. The department is also looking five goals: the victim is restored and into sentencing circles and ways to become Community policing and prosecution. healed, the community is restored, the more active in crime prevention and early Experiences with community policing show offender understands the effects of the intervention. there is no shared understanding of the crime, the offender learns ways to avoid community’s role, and that it is difficult to generate citizen participation. Priorities and routines vary; for example, some efforts rely pate. The plans are presented to judges as Community justice practices on heavy street-level enforcement, while nonbinding recommendations. Most plans People who have no personal experience with others emphasize citizen involvement, better require restitution, community service, and community justice are often preoccupied with quality public services, delivery of community- counseling or therapy. A recent evaluation what “community” means and who is involved. based treatment, or diversionary policing that revealed that offenders who participate have Explanations vary. Reginald Wilkinson, withholds enforcement as a way to build rela- significantly fewer supervision violations and Director of Ohio’s Department of Rehabilita- tionships with communities. slightly fewer new than those in tion and Correction, says: “In a community, 12 comparison groups. there would exist a sense of hope, belonging, Few studies have attempted to measure the and caring . . . . A sense of commitment, extent to which the rhetoric of community responsibility, and sacrifice would be basic empowerment, involvement, and partnership Sentencing & Corrections 7

Nearly 70 percent of those convicted are Travis County, Texas—Community Justice as the ordered to perform community work, and of Prosecutorial Response these nearly 70 percent complete it without Ronald Earle, District Attorney of Travis Many efforts are directed at juvenile offen- violations. By fall 1996, almost 33,000 defen- 16 County (Austin), Texas, for more than 20 ses. In Austin, the Juvenile Probation Office dants had been arraigned. The court houses years, is a strong advocate of restorative offers victim-offender mediation for young health care and drug treatment providers, and community justice. Recognizing that people in trouble. For misdemeanors, organizes education and job training, main- people’s natural reaction to crime is anger juveniles may be diverted from court to tains mediation services for community-level and fear, particularly if they lack power to Neighborhood Conference Committees. conflicts, and provides counseling rooms and influence responses, he believes this wast- These consist of panels of trained adult citi- space to perform community service. ed energy can fuel positive change. This zens who meet with the juvenile offenders The Manhattan Court opened in 1993 and can be done if citizens are empowered and and their parents and together develop was followed by several others. The Portland participate in planning and deciding on the tailored to the case. (Oregon) Community Court began operations response to crime. The Travis County Children’s Advocacy in 1998, and plans for community courts To promote such participation, he drafted Center provides support and help to abused are under way in Baltimore, Hartford the Texas law that authorizes in each children through collaboration among (), Hempstead (New York), county a Community Justice Council and social and criminal justice agencies, med- , Minneapolis, St. Louis, and Community Justice Task Force. The task ical professionals, and private citizens. no doubt elsewhere. force includes representatives of criminal The Child Protection Team brings together Deschutes County, Oregon, has made a com- justice agencies, social and health services, police officers, social workers, and prose- prehensive effort to implement community and community organizations. With task cutors to improve responses to child abuse justice in corrections (as distinct from tradi- force assistance, the council, consisting of and to reduce traumatization when cases tional community corrections), reinventing its elected officials, handles planning and are investigated and prosecuted. Community Corrections Department as the policymaking and prepares a Community Department of Community Justice. Committed Justice Plan. to principles of both community and restora- tive justice, the department differs in this building becomes reality, and the results are County, Texas—Community Justice as the respect from most current community polic- not particularly encouraging. Community Prosecutorial Response”). ing and prosecution initiatives. input is often limited to assisting law enforce- ment. Many evaluations have not shown posi- Applications in courts and corrections. The Deschutes approach is especially ambi- tive results, since implementation is often The first community court in the United tious (see “Deschutes County, Oregon— uncomplete or partial.14 States, ’s Midtown Community Reinventing Community Corrections”). A true Court, is based on the idea of partnership paradigm shift would combine operational Many applications of community policing and with the neighborhood and focuses on strategies and the crime prevention and citi- prosecution are not fundamentally different quality-of-life crimes. Several restorative zen involvement goals of community justice from traditional approaches, although they elements are evident: with the values and practices of restorative may shift control to local levels and include justice. the community in efforts. ■ Offenders are sentenced to work on proj- They often promote tougher responses to ects in local neighborhoods. ■ ■ ■ crime than do traditional approaches because ■ Court staff try to link offenders with drug Can the justice system the emphasis is on a broader view of crime treatment, health care, education, and other control that takes seriously minor, nuisance, social services and thus combine incorporate restorative and quality-of-life offenses. Some approaches, with help. principles? such as the one taken by the District Attorney ■ lthough many activists would prefer that of Travis County, Texas, however, clearly iden- The community is encouraged to participate restorative justice remain an unofficial tify themselves as restorative (see “Travis in shaping restorative, community-based A .15 alternative to the criminal justice system, 8 Sentencing & Corrections

others contend that there are reasons for a Deschutes County, Oregon—Reinventing Community systemwide shift to incorporate its values. Corrections Why not the best? Deschutes County, Oregon, is attempting to ■ Managing crime problems as cost If restorative justice is a significantly better apply community justice principles through- effectively as possible. way to deal with crime, proponents ask why out its correctional system. In 1996 the not implement it systemwide? If it really is a ■ Directing reallocated resources to crime County Board of Commissioners passed better idea, why should it not become the prevention. a “Community Justice Resolution,” which governing principle of the whole criminal recognizes community justice as “the cen- ■ Viewing investment in prevention as the justice system rather than be confined to tral mission and purpose of the county’s first order of business. small-scale, grassroots activities? Minnesota community corrections effort.” It calls for Restorative Justice Planner Kay Pranis empha- incorporating community justice principles State law permits the county to apply any sized the need to focus on community when into corrections by striking a balance savings in juvenile to crime pre- she said, “It is very important for us to recog- among prevention, early intervention, and vention. nize that our current criminal justice inter- correctional efforts; ensuring participation ventions actually destroy community. So even Community action and to get neutral would be a huge step for this by and restoration of victims; including other initiatives community decisionmaking in crime pre- system.” A number of former juvenile probation vention and reduction; and fostering offend- officers constitute a Community Action No significant or lasting effects er accountability. In recognition of this Team, which devotes most of its time and on values and practices major change, the Community Corrections resources to neighborhood crime preven- Advocates contend that restorative justice is Department, headed by Dennis Maloney, tion. The new Community Justice Center unlikely to have significant or lasting effects was renamed the Department of Community contains space for juvenile custody facili- on the official criminal justice system if it Justice. ties, houses a number of criminal justice continues to operate primarily as local, Basic principles agencies as well as victim service and other unorganized grassroots activities. It is doubt- A lay citizen body, the Commission on nonprofit organizations, and has a meeting ful whether any program can be truly restora- Children and Families, was assigned room available for community groups. tive in a system based on retributive values. authority over the department’s budget. Even if restorative justice principles cannot Deschutes County also offers victim- In 1998, it set budget principles that completely transform the justice system, they offender mediation in criminal cases for the first time included: may turn criminal justice policy and values in and in other conflicts. another, arguably better, direction. ■ Enhancing public safety. Merchant Accountability Boards, consisting of local business owners, adjudicate minor Increased control and ■ Paying particular attention to offender shoplifting cases. Reparative community punishment accountability, responsibility, and skill service projects are operated through the Advocates argue that if crime is seen in development. collaboration of business owners, neigh- both traditional and restorative ways—as ■ Incorporating the findings of research borhood residents, and community leaders. an offense against the state and as harm to on cost-effective interventions. As part of these projects, offenders have the victim and the community—a double built houses for Habitat for Humanity, cut system of punishment may be created. ■ Focusing on restoration and defining and distributed firewood for elderly citi- Offenders will first be processed through the offenders’ accountability as meeting their zens, and built and maintained parks. traditional system and receive punishment obligations to victims and the community. and then move to the informal restorative ■ Encouraging volunteer involvement and programs to agree to a reparative contract. reducing dependence on service delivery As a consequence, they often will be subjected by professionals. to greater and more sanctions. Sentencing & Corrections 9

Trivialization of restorative responses may vary as long as they are mean- own, new practices may be concentrated in programs ingfully related to the nature and effects of the areas with relatively minor crime problems. If the criminal justice system endorses crime. Thus, in principle, there is no reason By contrast, disadvantaged urban neighbor- restorative justice principles but does not restorative justice cannot respect the tenets of hoods with large proportions of minority participate in designing, implementing, and proportionality and equality. group members and immigrants—who monitoring programs based on them, it is are disproportionately affected by serious In practice, responses to crime—would be unlikely to benefit. even if restorative justice principles can- crime will be different and not completely transform the justice sys- inconsistent as long as ■ ■ ■ tem, they may turn criminal justice policy restorative justice is not and values in another, arguably better, implemented systemwide. The future of restorative and direction. Many people are con- community justice cerned that assigning sub- ow deeply restorative and community not likely to refer other than trivial cases. stantial punishment power to lay volunteers Hjustice ideas will penetrate the traditional Criminal justice agencies and officials under- will mean random, inequitable, and capri- justice system remains to be seen. So far, standably do not want to rely heavily on prac- ciously severe sanctions. Restorative justice, restorative justice approaches are used much tices whose outcomes they cannot comprehend, with its positive, constructive goals, attempts more for juveniles than for adults, and for influence, predict, or trust. For the same to move in the opposite direction. If partici- minor offenses rather than for serious crime. reason, judges often are reluctant to divert pants, including the offender, understand and Experience with community justice has con- offenders to these programs. accept restorative justice principles, the sistently shown that generating citizen involve- requirements of fairness will not be circum- ment and building relationships with the No resource savings vented and there will be no extreme conse- community is a challenge. Both movements Although restorative justice advocates empha- quences. have spread rapidly, however, and both are size that the goal is not decreased criminal increasingly reaching out to encompass adult If there is no systemwide shift, programs justice caseloads or costs, it is unrealistic not offenders, more serious crime, and disadvan- based on restorative justice will probably to consider resource savings in the current taged urban communities where, arguably, continue to handle only minor offenses, and climate of exploding correctional costs. Few the need is greatest. resources will be saved if restorative solutions problems of inequity will likely not become only supplement traditional or serious. It will not much matter whether one Notes offender is sentenced to 10 hours of commu- are used only for minor crimes. 1. This paper is one of four in the first “round” nity service and $50 in restitution and anoth- of publications from the Executive Sessions on Inconsistent practices and er, who commits a similar crime, to 20 hours Sentencing and Corrections. Together the four outcomes of service and $100 in restitution. However, constitute a framework for understanding the The most common argument against restora- the more serious the crimes, the more unjust issues raised in the sessions. The other three are tive justice is that practices and outcomes vary the differences could become and the greater Fragmentation of Sentencing and Corrections with the particular program, and that fairness the need for consistent practices. in America, by Michael Tonry (NCJ 175721); Reconsidering Indeterminate and Structured requires comparable crimes and criminals to Sentencing, by Michael Tonry (NCJ 175722); and be punished equally. Restorative justice in- Other matters of relate to socioeconomic Reforming Sentencing and Corrections for Just volves individualized responses to crimes. considerations. Without official encourage- Punishment and Public Safety, by Michael E. ment and support, restorative justice initiatives Smith and Walter J. Dickey (NCJ 175724). All: Proportionality and equality in punishment are likely to be concentrated in middle-class Research in Brief—Sentencing & Corrections: are often understood narrowly as calling white neighborhoods or rural areas, and Issues for the 21st Century, Washington, DC: for the same sentence for people who have volunteers will disproportionately be white, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice/Corrections Program Office, September committed similar crimes. However, they middle-class, and middle-aged and older 1999. could just as well be interpreted as requiring individuals, as these are the demographic comparable sentences for comparable groups from which activists tend to emerge. 2. Barajas, Eduardo, “Moving Toward Community Justice,” in Community Justice: Striving for Safe, offenses. This would mean punishment or Moreover, if citizen activists work on their Secure, and Just Communities, Washington, DC: 10 Sentencing & Corrections

U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of 8. Maxwell, Gabrielle, and Allison Morris, Family, 15. Feinblatt, John, and Greg Berman, Corrections, 1996. Victims, and Culture: Youth Justice in New Responding to the Community: Principles for Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand: Social Policy Planning and Creating a Community Court, 3. Examples are Braithwaite, John, “Restorative Agency and Institute of , Victoria Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Justice: Assessing Optimistic and Pessimistic University of Wellington, 1993. Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1997. Accounts,” in Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, vol. 25, ed. Michael Tonry, Chicago: 9. Wundersitz, Joy, and Sue Hetzel, “Family 16. , The Midtown University of Chicago Press, 1999; and Van Ness, Conferencing for Young Offenders: The South Community Court Experiment: A Progress Daniel, and Karen Heetderks Strong, Restoring Australian Experience,” in Family Group Report, New York: Midtown Community Court, Justice, Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing, Conferences: Perspectives on Policy and 1997. 1997. Practice, ed. John Hudson et al., Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, 1996. 4. Galaway, Burt, and Joe Hudson, eds., Restor- ative Justice: International Perspectives, 10. McCold, Paul, and Benjamin Wachtel, Restor- Leena Kurki, who holds law degrees from the Amsterdam: Kugler Publications, 1996; and ative Policing Experiment: The Bethlehem University of Turku, Finland, and the University of Messmer, Heinz, and Hans-Uwe Otto, Restorative Pennsylvania Police Family Group Conferencing Minnesota, is a Research Associate at the University Justice on : Pitfalls and Potentials of Project, Pipersville, PA: Community Service of Minnesota Law School and the Project Associa- Victim-Offender Mediation, Dordrecht, Foundation, 1998. This evaluation was sponsored tion of the Executive Sessions on Sentencing and Netherlands: Kluwer, 1992. by the National Institute of Justice. Corrections. 5. Lösching-Gspandl, Marianne, and Michael 11. Sherman, Lawrence, Heather Strang, Geoffrey This study was supported by cooperative agreement Kilchling, “Victim/Offender Mediation and Barnes, John Braithwaite, Nova Ipken, and Min- 97–MUMU–K006 between the National Institute of Victim Compensation in Austria and Germany— Mee The, Experiments in Restorative Policing: A Justice and the University of Minnesota. Stock-taking and Perspectives for Future Progress Report to the National Police Research Research,” European Journal of Crime, Criminal Unit in the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Findings and conclusions of the research reported Law and Criminal Justice 5 (1997): 58–78. Experiments (RISE), Canberra: Australian Federal here are those of the author and do not necessarily Police and Australian National University, 1998. reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. 6. Umbreit, Mark, Victim Meets the Offender: Department of Justice. The Impact of Restorative Justice and 12. Bonta, James, Jennifer Rooney, and Suzanne Mediation, Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, Wallace-Capretta, Restorative Justice: An The National Institute of Justice is a component 1994. It should be noted that evaluations of Evaluation of the Restorative Resolutions of the Office of Justice Programs, which also restorative justice conducted in the United States Project, Ottawa: General of Canada, includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the are usually not based on experimental and control 1998. Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile groups, do not often measure recidivism rates, 13. Bazemore, Gordon, “The ‘Community’ in Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the and seldom use sophisticated research designs. Community Justice: Issues, Themes, and Questions Office for Victims of Crime. 7. Gustafson, Dave, “Facilitating Communication for the New Neighborhood Sanctioning Models,” This and other NIJ publications can be found between Victims and Offenders in Cases of Justice System Journal 19 (1997): 193–228. at and downloaded from the NIJ Web site Serious and Violent Crime,” The International 14. Skogan, Wesley G., and Susan M. Hartnett, (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij). Community Corrections Association Journal on Community Policing, Chicago Style, New York: Community Corrections 8 (1997): 44–49. NCJ 175723 Oxford University Press, 1997. 11 Sentencing & Corrections

The Executive Sessions on Sentencing and Corrections Convened the following distinguished panel of leaders in the fields:

Ronald Angelone John Gorczyk Dennis Maloney Thomas W. Ross Director Commissioner Director Judge, Department of Corrections Department of Corrections Deschutes County (Oregon) 18th Judicial District Commonwealth of Virginia State of Vermont Department of Community Justice Chair, North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission Neal Bryant Kathleen Hawk Sawyer Larry Meachum Senator Director Director Dora Schriro Oregon State Senate Federal Bureau of Prisons Corrections Program Office Director U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Department of Corrections Harold Clarke U.S. Department of Justice State of Missouri Director Sally T. Hillsman Department of Correctional Services Deputy Director Mark H. Moore Michael Smith State of Nevada National Institute of Justice Guggenheim Professor of Criminal Professor of Law U.S. Department of Justice Justice Policy and Management University of Wisconsin Cheryl Crawford John F. Kennedy School of Government Deputy Director, Program Martin Horn Harvard University Michael Sullivan Development Division Secretary Secretary National Institute of Justice Department of Corrections Norval Morris Department of Corrections U.S. Department of Justice Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Emeritus Professor of Law and State of Wisconsin Criminology Barbara Damchik-Dykes Susan M. Hunter University of Chicago Morris Thigpen Project Coordinator Chief, Prisons Division Director Executive Sessions on Sentencing National Institute of Corrections Joan Petersilia National Institute of Corrections and Corrections U.S. Department of Justice Professor of Criminology, U.S. Department of Justice Law and Society Walter Dickey Michael Jacobson School of Social Ecology Michael Tonry Evjue-Bascom Professor of Law Professor of Law and Police Science University of California, Irvine Sonosky Professor of University of Wisconsin John Jay College of Criminal Justice Law and Public Policy City University of New York Kay Pranis University of Minnesota Ronald Earle Restorative Justice Planner Project Director District Attorney Leena Kurki Department of Corrections Executive Sessions on Sentencing Austin, Texas Research Associate State of Minnesota and Corrections Law School Tony Fabelo University of Minnesota Michael Quinlan Jeremy Travis Director Project Associate Former Director Director Texas Criminal Justice Policy Council Executive Sessions on Sentencing and Federal Bureau of Prisons National Institute of Justice Corrections U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Department of Justice Richard S. Gebelein Superior Court Judge John Larivee Chase Riveland Reginald A. Wilkinson Wilmington, Delaware Chief Executive Officer Principal Director Crime and Justice Foundation Riveland Associates Department of Rehabilitation and Correction Joe Lehman State of Ohio Secretary Department of Corrections State of Washington