Journal of Moral Theology, Vol. 5, No. 2 (2016): 143-157 Restorative Justice in Baltimore Virginia McGovern and Layton Field HE 2000 CATHOLIC BISHOPS’ STATEM ENT Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration rightfully asserts that our re- sponse to crime is a moral test for the nation and a challenge for the Church. Imprisonment binges and increased numbers Tof offenders put to death have not provided the security we seek, and while crime rates have been falling in the past several decades, crime and the fear of it are still polarizing events for many communities.1 While the Church does state that behavior that threatens lives and violates the rights of others will not be tolerated, they argue that both victims and offenders are children of God and the dignity of both should be protected and respected. “Both the most wounded victim and the most callous criminal retain their humanity. All are created in the image of God and possess a dignity, value, and worth that must be recognized, promoted, safeguarded, and defended.” Any system of pe- nal justice must provide provisions that allow inmates to retain their dignity, including food, clothing shelter, safety, medical care, and ed- ucation, they say. For these reasons, the bishops advocate restorative practices over the punitive system currently in place. As a result, the bishops take several strong positions advocating for specific criminal justice reforms. The bishops recommend we end mandatory sentencing and “three strikes” laws. Similarly, the bishops recognize the need to combat the “culture of violence” in our homes and communities, while allowing the victims of crime to engage in the criminal justice process more completely. The bishops also rightfully acknowledge the need for a stronger effort to challenge the widespread impact of addiction and mental illness that is often treated haphazardly by the current criminal justice system, as well as reevaluating the role of the criminal justice system in detaining immigrants. Finally, bish- ops also appreciate the inherent complexity of criminal justice reform by recognizing that any serious reform will require an effort to end discrimination, racism, and extreme poverty, in addition to providing more robust support for families. 1 United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), Responsibility, Rehabili- tation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice (Washington, DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2000). 144 Virginia McGovern and Layton Field Background on Criminal and Restorative Justice and Sentencing Reform, a more recent statement by the United States Conference of Catholic bishops, details the concerns of Pope Francis regarding harsh sentences and the systemic and structural barriers to healing, such as racial and economic inequality, cycles of crime, release, and re-incar- ceration, and the breakdown of the family. Inmates released from prison face unemployment, poverty, homelessness, substance abuse, stress, and social isolation. During the Jubilee Year of Mercy, Pope Francis has called on Catholics to make compassion, love, mercy, and solidarity a true way of life. This includes a restorative justice ap- proach for victims of crime and offenders, which is more comprehen- sive and addresses the needs of the victims, community, and offend- ers.2 Sociologists agree wholeheartedly that rehabilitation and restora- tion are preferred over the retributive system currently in place and so echo the bishops’ call. The punitive system we have neither prevents crime nor rehabilitates offenders. And while we understand the need for formal social control, we recognize that the system is fraught with corruption, racism, and dysfunction. Individuals mired in poverty, op- pressed within a system that privileges power, and devalued because of the color of their skin face monumental obstacles daily.3 The puni- tive justice system itself is one of the primary obstacles. Serious re- form is needed. Yet, there are areas in which sociologists disagree with the bishops’ stance. In Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration, the Catho- lic Bishops give an insufficient analysis of poverty and race. They pro- vide such an analysis elsewhere, but do not integrate it into their ex- amination of the criminal justice system.4 Financial manipulation of the world economy by elites and misguided government policies have eroded family life and made it next to impossible for a single male to support a wife and children. Gentrification of minority areas, urbani- zation, welfare reform, the disappearance of well-paying manufactur- ing jobs, real estate redlining, and the move to a service economy have all conspired to limit the upward mobility of the poor. The bishops and the pope do acknowledge the numerous obstacles to success but differ from sociologists as to the structural nature of the 2 USCCB, Background on Criminal and Restorative Justice and Sentencing Reform, www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/criminal-justice-restora- tive-justice/background-on-criminal-justice.cfm. 3See Jeffrey Reiman and Paul Leighton, The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison: Ideology, Class, and Criminal Justice (Boston: Allyn & Bacon 2010); Michelle Al- exander, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness (New York: The New Press 2010). 4 USCCB, Brothers and Sisters to Us: Pastoral Letter on Racism (Washington, DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1979), www.usccb.org/issues-and-ac- tion/cultural-diversity/african-american/brothers-and-sisters-to-us.cfm. Restorative Justice in Baltimore 145 majority of these problems. For example, the bishops assume that the breakdown of the family is a “personal choice.” While each individual who dissolves a marriage must make a choice to do so, the structural forces that underlie that decision are often outside of their control. Conversely, those who have children, but chose not to marry, are not always making the choice because they reject marriage; they are doing so because of a host of issues that make it more economically rational to forgo marriage.5 These structural conditions are endemic to family disintegration and inseparable from individual action. More importantly, the bishops’ assertion that “Broken Windows” theory is a low-cost, high-visibility effort that can be effective in pre- venting crime, demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of the com- plex social forces and latent consequences of policy implementation. 6 The “Broken Windows” approach to policing received widespread support for many years from those within and outside of the criminal justice system. However, after years of empirical research on this the- ory, it has been shown to be less effective than originally reported.7 In light of this recent research, it is perhaps time for the bishops to recon- sider their position on this specific issue. In this essay, we affirm the emphasis on restorative justice but also push for greater attention to structural inequalities that limit its effec- tiveness. To do so, we examine the role of restorative justice in Balti- more, MD, a major urban center currently plagued by the breakdown of the family, crime, racism, and discrimination. DYSFUNCTION IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM Three of the six officers charged in the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore in April of 2015 have since been acquitted of wrongdoing. The remaining four are scheduled for trial this year. Mr. Gray is one of many of the unarmed, black men in urban areas in the last few years who were killed at the hands of the police. Mr. Gray’s ordeal began when he made eye contact with police, ran, and was arrested. Mr. Gray ran not because he was guilty of a crime, but because he, like many of the black occupants in Baltimore, do not trust the police. He was thrown in a police van and was not secured with a seatbelt, as is policy. He complained of pain but was repeatedly ignored. He died a week later as a result of injuries received when he was jostled in the van. Mr. Gray’s death and the death of many other young black men, such as Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice, and many others 5 Kathryn Edin and Timothy J. Nelson, Doing the Best I Can (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013). 6 USCCB, Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration, 60. 7 Bernard E. Harcourt, “Reflecting on the Subject: A Critique of the Social Influence Conception of Deterrence, The Broken Windows Theory, and Order-Maintenance Po- licing New York Style,” Michigan Law Review 98, no.2 (1998): 291-389. 146 Virginia McGovern and Layton Field have led to demands for reform in the criminal justice system. Citi- zens, especially in black neighborhoods, feel disconnected and frus- trated, so much so that, in 2013, they began a social movement, #BlackLivesMatter, to shed light on the abuses inherent in the system and to demand much needed reform. Those working within the system are also frustrated by the disrespect and mistrust citizens express to- wards them. Rioting and looting by residents and outsiders in Balti- more after the death of Mr. Gray was cited by the establishment as evidence of the volatility of poor, black communities. Critics of the system, however, argue that it is the system that created this explo- siveness. This system, says Jeffrey Reiman in The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison, is one that has grown up piecemeal over time and generally with good intentions. The current beliefs about what is crim- inal and how to deal with crime predate industrial society. Rather than being a conscious plan by the elite to oppress the poor and minorities, our system reflects attitudes so deeply embedded in tradition that they appear natural. While crime falls more frequently and more heavily on poor communities like several areas of Baltimore, those with power benefit from the downward blaming inherent in the identification of crime with the poor, so that there is no incentive to change things.