David M. Kennedy Director Center for Crime Prevention and Control

1. BEYOND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE5th ANNUAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE INITIATIVE CONFERENCEMarquette UniversityNovember 11, 2008 David M. Kennedy Director Center for Crime Prevention and Control John Jay College of Criminal Justice dakennedy@jjay.cuny.edu 212 484-1323

2. RESTORATIVE JUSTICE Extraordinarily powerful and important ideas Unnecessarily and unconsciously limited by (usually) implicit framework If we take the strengths and discard the limits, we end up in a place that may be even more powerful and important

3. RJ CRITIQUE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE • “Formal social control” • Ineffective and damaging • Doesn’t work as well as we’d like • Overutilizes punishment: brutalizing • Stigmatizes and excludes, often permanently • Creates polarized “others” where there should be community • “War on crime,” “war on drugs” • Appropriates standing to state, disregards and weakens community

4. FOR EXAMPLE • Baltimore: • 60% black males 16-30 under criminal justice supervision • Lifetime chance of prison for black males 1:3 • Crime down dramatically while prison population continues to grow • Growth of “stop snitching” movement

5. RJ ALTERNATIVE • “Informal social control” • Internal • Shame • Guilt • Conscience • External • The views of those we care about • Family • Friends • Loved ones • Community

6. INFORMAL SOCIAL CONTROL • More powerful than formal social control • Cops vs. grandmothers • Internal more powerful than external • Operates without state • (Somewhat less true than sometimes thought) • Operates more or less constantly • Operates, usually, without permanent stigma and exclusion • Can lead to “reintegration”

7. RESTORATIVE JUSTICE • The deliberate activation and mobilization of informal social control • Techniques for activating shame, guilt, conscience • Contact with victims • Moral engagement • Challenging competing norms and narratives • Mobilization of personal and community networks to set and enforce norms, narratives, expectations

8. RESTORATION AND RECONCILIATION • Framing of offender as moral agent worthy of respect • Engagement with offender’s moral self • Engagement with family, peers, community • Weakening negative connections, strengthening positive ones • Central goal of keeping offender in community, or reestablishing legitimacy and standing • Symbolic and actual reintegration

9. FRAMED AS FREESTANDING ALTERNATIVE Extremely powerful and attractive set of ideas Couched from beginning in conscious opposition to existing criminal justice system and its weaknesses and harms Becomes in practice alternative case processing system, sidestepping criminal justice system, avoiding the damage it does and creating new benefits

10. PROBLEMS WITH EXISTING RJ FRAMEWORK Unrealistic about actual role of coercive state power in restorative justice process Disregards moral standing of state Disregards state interest in public safety and in securing a monopoly on criminal enforcement Disregards role of sanction and deterrence in underpinning good behavior and positive norms and narratives

11. PROBLEMS WITH ALTERNATIVE CASE PROCESSING FRAMEWORK • Some cases not appropriate, even in principle, for classic restorative justice • Domestic violence • Some cases too serious • Cannot accommodate need for incapacitation and/or formal punishment

12. MORE PROBLEMS • Handcuffs RJ to existing law and police practice • RJ new “back end,” but state and police still “front end” • Focuses on individual incidents and individual offenders • Well-established critique from, for example, problem-oriented policing • Fundamentally reactive • No strategic focus • No attention to underlying problems

13. EXTREMELY POWERFUL IDEAS: VERY LIMITED APPLICATION • In practice, ends up restricted to relatively minor incidents, mostly involving juveniles • Sweeping critique and response; limited and low-level application • Restorative justice has been hobbled by an unconscious attachment to traditional criminal justice and by framing itself as an alternative case processing system

14. RJ IDEAS TOO IMPORTANT FOR THIS • Drop “alternative case processing” framework • Not about individual incidents and cases any longer • Need not be about those under arrest • Groups • “Problems” • Can accommodate serious offenses and offenders • Can involve state authority and deterrence, formal sanction

15. “FOCUSSED DETERRENCE” FRAMEWORK • “Boston model,” “Ceasefire,” “High Point” • Strategic intervention aimed at specific problems • Group and gang violence • Overt drug markets • Three-pronged intervention • Certain formal sanction: effective formal deterrence • Help and services • “Moral voice of community”: or restorative justice • Going on in Milwaukee now, with Marquette: Safe Streets

16. CIRV – Network Analysis of Street Sets

17. CRIMINAL HISTORIES OF CINCINNATI GROUP MEMBERS

18. GROUPS IN CINCINNATI HOMICIDES

20. VIOLENCE AS A GROUP/“STREET” DYNAMIC • Much violence group-on-group “beefs” or vendettas • Powerful peer effects: not just an individual decision. Street code: this is all OK, no alternatives, not my fault, don’t mind dying, prison’s not a problem, violence is required • May not entirely believe this as individuals, but group dynamic dominates • Seen as supported/tolerated by community: anger expressed at history, police, whites • Why community “moral voice” so important

21. MANY KEY PLAYERS KNOWN, EVEN WHEN NOT LEGALLY AVAILABLE Legal system needs legal predicate Other ways of intervening do not RJ framework can often be applied

22. CONSEQUENCES • Group accountability for homicide: group dynamic, group sanction • Last resort • Explained ahead of time • By any legal means: “pulling levers” • Most serious sanctions on impact players • Careful promise: sanction on next homicide; on most violent group • Reversal of pro-violence peer pressure • “Honorable exit”

23. HELP • Focused services • Employment • Education • Treatment • Mentoring • Others

24. “COMMUNITY MORAL VOICE”: RJ IN A DIFFERENT SETTING • Clear, direct, community stand • Figures respected by offenders • Parents • Ministers, mothers, activists • Offenders and ex-offenders • Set community norms • Make offenders own what they do • Challenge street code • Love the sinner but hate the sin: bring them back in

25. MORAL VOICE, CONT. • Set community standard • “There is no excuse.” • “We need you, you’re better than this.” • Moral engagement • “Who thinks it’s OK for little kids to get shot?” • “Do you want your mother standing here?” • Challenge street code/norms • “Shot any CIA agents lately?” • “Who helped your mother last time you were locked up?” • “Do you think your friends won’t flip on you?”

28. “HIGH POINT” STRATEGY Closes overt community drug markets Explicitly addresses racial conflict and unintended harms from ordinary drug enforcement Involves dealers’ families much more effectively than gang strategy: large lessons here Closed market largely sustained by new community standards

29. OTHER EXAMPLES Street robberies Domestic violence Prison issues ??

30. SO: RESTORATIVE JUSTICE Is an even bigger set of ideas than many advocates suspect Works with serious offenders Can be adapted to core underlying problems Need not wait for police or state to act Need not focus on alternative case processing Engages – very effectively – with community standards and serious offenders’ consciences Can fit seamlessly with formal social control

31. TRANSFORMATIVE POSSIBILITIES Greatly increase public safety Address racial conflict Reduce incarceration Strengthen communities Substitute deterrence for enforcement Create pathways for seasoned offenders