{"id":1309,"date":"2013-07-08T19:41:41","date_gmt":"2013-07-09T00:41:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/emu.edu\/now\/restorative-justice\/?p=1309"},"modified":"2013-07-08T19:41:41","modified_gmt":"2013-07-09T00:41:41","slug":"restorative-justice-and-system-change-part-ii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/emu.edu\/now\/restorative-justice\/2013\/07\/08\/restorative-justice-and-system-change-part-ii\/","title":{"rendered":"Restorative justice and system change, part II"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the previous blog entry<\/a>, Carl started his discussion of restorative justice and system change by challenging part of Ross London’s argument in Ross’s recent book,\u00a0Crime, Punishment and Criminal Justice \u2013 From Margins to Mainstream<\/em>. \u00a0This entry led to an important discussion. \u00a0In order to continue this dialogue, we are publishing Ross’ response, with minor editing, as a guest blog entry. Readers may wish to read the previous blog entry and the resulting discussion as a background to what follows.<\/p>\n

Hi Carl<\/p>\n

This is a really important discussion that\u00a0\u00a0I would be happy to be engaged in with you, my friend Gerry Johnstone and others:\u00a0how can RJ move into the world of serious crime and adult offenders?<\/em><\/p>\n

I happen to agree with you that social movements require a bold, radical “avant garde” approach to lay the groundwork for transformation. In positioning RJ as a new paradigm, Howard Zehr was able to ignite an idea and propel it into an international\u00a0\u00a0movement. This\u00a0\u00a0could not have begun with a modest proposal for mere reform.<\/p>\n

But there has been a cost to this way mode of presentation.\u00a0\u00a0What I have argued\u00a0\u00a0is that\u00a0\u00a0positioning RJ as a new paradigm brings with it a kind of dichotomizing tendency associated with many other ideas that have also been framed as new\u00a0\u00a0paradigms. \u00a0This encourages a tendency to dismiss\u00a0\u00a0attempts at reform as “co-optation” and, in insisting on the\u00a0\u00a0original purity of a concept, the automatic rejection of\u00a0\u00a0features of the “old paradigm” regardless of their utility and moral value. \u00a0(Examples include due process of law, equality of treatment, proportionality\u00a0\u00a0in sentencing, the right to counsel etc.) \u00a0Along with this is a tendency to uncritically embrace every feature of the new\u00a0\u00a0paradigm, however questionable (such as penal abolition and\u00a0\u00a0disposition by private negotiation, even for repeat and violent criminals).<\/p>\n

So, how can we move RJ into the ” mainstream” without thereby losing its soul? This has been the focus of all of my work.<\/p>\n

The answer I\u00a0\u00a0believe, is to try to understand what\u00a0\u00a0exactly IS the soul of RJ.\u00a0\u00a0My answer may sound simple but I\u00a0\u00a0really do think it is true: the\u00a0\u00a0soul of RJ is\u00a0the effort\u00a0\u00a0to repair the harm of crime<\/em>. This is an utterly original and unique contribution to our understanding of criminal justice that\u00a0\u00a0Howard has put forth so effectively, and something that every RJ advocate, regardless of political or philosophical orientation, can agree upon.\u00a0 The\u00a0mechanisms\u00a0<\/em>we devise to\u00a0\u00a0achieve the goal of repair are all secondary considerations. What is very clear to me is that the goal of restoration does not\u00a0require\u00a0<\/span>the\u00a0\u00a0dismantling of the current criminal justice (CJ) system and its replacement with a\u00a0radical alternative.\u00a0\u00a0Instead of conceiving\u00a0\u00a0of CJ as the antithesis of \u00a0\u201cconventional\u201d CJ, (i.e. one that is, in Kuhnian terminology, \u00a0\u201cincommensurate\u201d with conventional CJ), what I propose is to conceive of restoration as the overarching goal of criminal justice\u00a0<\/span>– one that may inform, reform and transform\u00a0\u00a0all of our practices toward a common end. The means we choose to achieve repair in every case may therefore extend to\u00a0 every aspect of CJ – from policing to corrections – and may extend to the full range of practices, both within and outside of the conventional system.<\/p>\n

To escape our present marginality, therefore, I argue that RJ\u00a0must be open to a plurality of means to achieve the end of\u00a0\u00a0repair – and must place primary focus on the\u00a0real needs of victims<\/span>. As my book states:<\/p>\n

In truth, nobody \u201cowns\u201d restorative justice.\u00a0\u00a0The original visionaries of restorative justice\u00a0\u00a0have bequeathed to the world a wonderful gift –\u00a0\u00a0an idea to transform criminal justice as we know it.\u00a0\u00a0The true beneficiaries of this gift are neither the theorists nor the criminal justice practitioners, but rather those who suffer from the trauma of crime.\u00a0\u00a0The challenge to restorative justice theory and practice is to develop a criminal justice system that is more effective, fair and humane in order to address the needs of crime victims and communities, without preconceptions as to what they \u201creally need\u201d and without limitation to those practices that conform to a favored \u201cparadigm.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

I would love to explore this further with you and your blog readers. And let\u2019s get together some time and talk it through!<\/p>\n

Best wishes,<\/div>\n
Ross<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the previous blog entry, Carl started his discussion of restorative justice and system change by challenging part of Ross London’s argument in Ross’s recent book,\u00a0Crime, Punishment and Criminal Justice \u2013 From Margins to Mainstream. \u00a0This entry led to an important discussion. \u00a0In order to continue this dialogue, we are publishing Ross’ response, with minor....<\/p>

Read more about Restorative justice and system change, part II<\/span><\/path><\/path><\/svg><\/a><\/div>","protected":false},"author":66,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[108,113],"tags":[4385,4386,4384],"class_list":["post-1309","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-peacebuilding","category-restorative-justice","tag-criminal-justice-reform","tag-justice-goals","tag-repair-of-harm","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/emu.edu\/now\/restorative-justice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1309","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/emu.edu\/now\/restorative-justice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/emu.edu\/now\/restorative-justice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emu.edu\/now\/restorative-justice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/66"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emu.edu\/now\/restorative-justice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1309"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/emu.edu\/now\/restorative-justice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1309\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1320,"href":"https:\/\/emu.edu\/now\/restorative-justice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1309\/revisions\/1320"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/emu.edu\/now\/restorative-justice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1309"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emu.edu\/now\/restorative-justice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1309"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emu.edu\/now\/restorative-justice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1309"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}