400 likes | 582 Views
2. Lesson Objectives. Understand and articulate the values and principles of restorative justice.Understand accountability within the framework of conferencing.Identify the benefits and risks of conferencing.Explain similarities/differences between some face to face restorative practices.Exp
E N D
1. 1 Facilitating Restorative Group Conferences Lesson 2: Conferencing and Restorative Justice
2. 2 Lesson Objectives Understand and articulate the values and principles of restorative justice.
Understand accountability within the framework of conferencing.
Identify the benefits and risks of conferencing.
Explain similarities/differences between some face to face restorative practices.
Explain the history of victim/offender processes.
Explain how conferencing relates to or fits within the restorative justice framework.
3. 3 When faced with harm or wrong doing: Revenge
Retribution
Restoration
4. 4 Revenge:Weaknesses include: People take justice into their own hands - vigilantism
5. 5 Retribution: Weaknesses include: Punitive, impersonal, state-centered
Discourages offender empathy and responsibility taking
Leaves out victim and community and does not address their needs
Worsens wounds by separating justice from healing
6. 6 Restoration: Emphasizes harms and resulting obligations
Keeps victims’ needs/interests central
Encourages offenders to understand and take responsibility for harm
Involves dialogue and the community
Promotes individual and societal healing
7. 7 Retributive Lens What laws were broken?
Who did it?
What punishment do they deserve?
8. 8 Restorative Lens Who has been hurt by this event?
What are their needs?
Whose obligations are they?
9. 9 Restorative Core Principle 1 Harm-focused - laws broken are less
important than how people were harmed
Victim = central
Offender = accountable to understand and make right
Repairing the harm = central
Community suffered harm and is part of obligation to repair it
10. 10 Restorative Core Principle 2 Engagement - assumes that the
offender
victim, and
community
must all be actively involved in the process of resolving the harm
11. 11 Primary Stakeholders
12. 12 Restorative Measures Like Group Conferencing … Allow us to:
talk it through
identify solutions
restore order
13. 13 Conferencing Participants: Victims and Supporters Primary victim or victims
Secondary victims: adversely affected by the harm’s aftermath
Affected parties: arresting officers, school administrators, etc.
Supporters: friends, peers, siblings, neighbors, counselors, teachers, extended family
14. 14 Conferencing Participants: Offenders and Supporters Person or persons who caused harm
Friends, peers, associates or family members who were not actively involved but knew about the harm
Supporters: family, extended family, (including older and younger siblings), friends, teachers, counselors, neighbors, probation officers, etc.
15. 15 Conferencing Participants: Other Community Members Community = Any group of people that share common interest, geography or topic
System and authorities: criminal justice system and school administrators
People who live in the area where the harm happened: neighborhood, classroom, playground witnesses.
Organizations that support victims or offenders
Cultural leaders
16. 16 Risks and Benefits Brainstorm a list of risks and benefits for the victim who may participate in a conference. Brainstorm a list of risks and benefits for the offender who may participate in a conference.
17. 17 Where Conferencing Fits (CJS)
18. 18 Where Conferencing Fits (Schools)
19. 19 Participation Is Based On: Choice – it is voluntary for victim and partly voluntary for offender
An admission of harm done
A willingness to problem solve
Awareness that any participant may stop at any time
Participants decide outcome
20. 20 Zehr & Mika Signposts Focus on the harms of wrongdoing more than the rules that have been broken
Show equal concern and commitment to victims and offenders, involving both in the process of justice
Work toward the restoration of victims, empowering them and responding to their needs as they see them
21. 21 Support offenders while encouraging them to understand, accept and carry out their obligations
Recognize that while obligations may be difficult for offenders, they should not be intended as punishment and they must be achievable
Provide opportunities for dialogue, direct or indirect, between victims and offenders, as appropriate
22. 22 Involve and empower the affected community through the justice process and increase its capacity to recognize and respond to community bases of crime
Encourage collaboration and reintegration rather than coercion and isolation
23. 23 Give attention to the unintended consequences of our actions and programs
Show respect to all parties including victims, offenders, and justice colleagues
Harry Mika and
Howard Zehr, May 1997
24. 24
25. 25 Some Current Face to Face Practices Victim/offender mediation (dialogue)
Family group conferencing
Community conferencing
Community panels
Large group conferencing
Peacemaking circles
Demonstrations!
26. 26 Victim/Offender Mediation First program: 1974, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Joint program – probation and the Mennonite Central Committee
First in U.S: 1978, Elkhart, Indiana, U.S.
Operated by probation first, then transferred to non-profit community organization
Elkhart program included adult offenders, Kitchener only juveniles
Cases of severe violence take more training and preparation
27. 27 VICTIM/OFFENDER MEDIATION (DIALOGUE)
28. 28 Family Group Conferencing FGC was developed in New Zealand out of Maori tribal traditions
used there for child welfare and juvenile delinquency cases
Transformative Justice Australia modified model for JD matters (Wagga Wagga Model)
Wagga Wagga Model brought to U.S. by REAL JUSTICE in 1995
29. 29 FAMILY GROUP CONFERENCE
30. 30 COMMUNITY PANEL
31. 31 LARGE GROUP CONFERENCING
32. 32 CIRCLES OF UNDERSTANDING
33. 33 Evolution of Conferencing Includes adult offenders
‘Personal’ as well as property crimes
Expanded scope of what is addressed
Broadened to other non-justice settings
Incorporated into multi-method programs
100’s of programs in North America, more in Europe and elsewhere
34. 34 Cases of Severe Violence Takes more intense training and preparation
Specialized expertise related to working with victims who have been severely traumatized
Special considerations for dealing with offenders in incarceration
Slower moving process, dealing with grief and healing
35. 35 Goals of Restorative Group Conferencing: Offender Accountability Understanding better the harm done and those affected
Being accountable to the person harmed
Being accountable to the community
Having responsibility to repair the harm
36. 36 Restorative Conferencing’s Goals:Community Accountability
Attending to the victim’s wounds
Participating in a resolution
Providing opportunities for offender’s community service/restitution earning
Identifying and addressing underlying community conditions
37. 37 Restorative Conferencing’s Goals:Victim Opportunities Choice in how they want to proceed
Opportunity to talk about what happened
Voice in how to right the wrongs
A way to feel some power, safety, reassurance
Chance to have questions answered
38. 38 Restorative Conferencing’s Goals:Community Protection/Safety Timely response
Reassertion of community expectations
Stressing individual, parental, and community responsibilities
Reducing recidivism
Strengthening community by building relationships and providing opportunities for empathy between all participants
39. 39 Restorative Conferencing’s Goals:Competency Development Direct community involvement creates community competency and builds relationships
Offender agrees to processes that can develop competency: problem solving, empathy, communication, etc.
40. 40 Activity Simple, Challenging, Outrageous