One of the big arguments against restorative justice processes is that they result in different consequences for similarly situated people. Fairness, many think, equals equality. This is not how we operate in our own lives. We know that different people have different needs, and that to treat everyone the same is actually unfair.
I have two granddaughters nearly three years apart in age. The younger 5th grader thinks that fairness means equality, and that she should have the same rights, privileges and things that the 8th grader has. The 8th grader, looking back on her 5th grade years, thinks fairness means the younger sister having the same rules, restrictions and things she had at that age. I know that a younger sibling will have things and privileges an only child would not, simply because she is present where the older child exercises the privileges of being older.
What we want in sentencing, as in the rest of life, is equity. My reasonable needs are met, and so are yours. Our needs will vary depending on our circumstances. Restorative justice seeks to make victims as whole as possible, and to identify the needs that caused the offense in the first place. It has both a reparative and a preventative agenda.
The article on disparities in sentencing by federal judges exposes the dirty little secret that our criminal justice system does not, nor has it ever, treated people equally. Human behavior is too complex to reduce to a formula. Judges and prosecutors are always working with too little information. What sentence is appropriate given everything about the offender, the crime, and the mores of society? Actions considered heinous crimes in one era become somewhat acceptable in another. The California Penal Code used to have an offense called "the infamous crime against nature." Now the perpetrators of this crime are being given the right to marry.
Crack and powder cocaine sentencing disparities are notorious and efforts are being made to bring them into line with each other. There are many ways in which prejudice affects sentencing. Any time one person has the power to make another person do something the act is fraught with the possibility that prejudice will have too much to do with the outcome.
Restorative justice processes are less likely to be abused in this way since the outcomes are collaborations of the affected parties. If the offender doesn't agree there is no agreement. This fact alone pushes the process more towards equity. That this good result is accompanied by the risk of disparity does not bother me, since disparity is a straw man trotted out when convenient rather than something that guides daily practice. Now that we have the data to back this up it is time to get serious about restoring equity to our criminal justice process so that victims can be made whole, and the community can be protected by identifying and meeting the needs that led to the offense in the first place.
Prison realignment in California moves more prisoners from state institutions to local jails. One of the opportunities that comes along with this change is that prisoners can receive treatment services closer to home, and there can be continuity of care as they are released and re-enter the community. The state system has provided no significant rehabilitation services to the vast majority of prisoners, and what services were provided ended abruptly upon release.
Realignment is a wonderful opportunity to enhance community safety through assisted reintegration of prisoners upon their release. Unfortunately, local jails and probation departments need to gear up to receive an influx of prisoners, and that has absorbed all the money made available for the transition.
It is not too late to take advantage of the opportunity we have. Successful reintegration of prisoners into the community is the single best way to enhance community safety. We have proven over the last decades that we cannot arrest our way to safety. What we can do is make sure that offenders have a way to create a productive life for themselves after their release. We can also use the same restorative mindset to close the school to prison pipeline by offering students with difficulties the services they need to be successful.
We have proven that mass incarceration does not work. It is time to try something that does. Restorative justice practices offer that possibility.
Prison realignment in California moves more prisoners from state institutions to local jails. One of the opportunities that comes along with this change is that prisoners can receive treatment services closer to home, and there can be continuity of care as they are released and re-enter the community. The state system has provided no significant rehabilitation services to the vast majority of prisoners, and what services were provided ended abruptly upon release.
Realignment is a wonderful opportunity to enhance community safety through assisted reintegration of prisoners upon their release. Unfortunately, local jails and probation departments need to gear up to receive an influx of prisoners, and that has absorbed all the money made available for the transition.
It is not too late to take advantage of the opportunity we have. Successful reintegration of prisoners into the community is the single best way to enhance community safety. We have proven over the last decades that we cannot arrest our way to safety. What we can do is make sure that offenders have a way to create a productive life for themselves after their release. We can also use the same restorative mindset to close the school to prison pipeline by offering students with difficulties the services they need to be successful.
We have proven that mass incarceration does not work. It is time to try something that does. Restorative justice practices offer that possibility.
