One in a series of papers on restorative justice by Ron Claassen, Co-Director of the Center for Peacemaking and Conflict Studies at Fresno Pacific University and Founding Executive Director of Victim Offender Reconciliation Program of the Central Valley.
This article first appeared in the newsletter of VORP of the Central Valley and may be reproduced in works not produced for profit so long as they are not edited for content, the source is acknowledged, and the legend "Printed by permission" is included. Reproducible hard copy of the graphic for publication is available on request.
Measuring Restorative Justice
Restorative Justice is becoming popular, and I find that exciting. For example, some states have designated a person in their department of corrections to provide education and promote Restorative Justice. Here in California, there are several bills in the legislature that include the term "Restorative Justice."
The US Department of Justice recently sponsored a conference on Restorative Justice and has established several research projects in an attempt to measure the effectiveness of some programs that call themselves Restorative Justice programs. Bibliographies on Restorative Justice now include several hundred titles. We provided training to help establish nine new VORPs last year,and this year the interest is growing. The list of examples could go on and on.
My hope is that the term "Restorative Justice" will be filled with meaning to provide a guide and standard for how Restorative Justice is implemented and measured. My fear is that the term "Restorative Justice" may be used, but the actions and outcomes will not be restorative.
The Restorative Justice Principles I presented in the newsletters last fall were an attempt to contribute to developing a common understanding of what we mean when we use the term and a step toward how Restorative Justice might be implemented.
The table below offers some continuums that I think might be helpful in measuring our actions and/or outcomes to determine if our justice processes are actually implementing Restorative Justice. I use continuums with the arrows extending them because they give us the message that we are not talking about a simple either/or situation; nor are we likely to arrive at a place where it cannot be improved.
| Moral wrong of crime (violation of persons and relationships) minimized | not RJ<-1-2-3-4-5->RJ | Moral wrong of crime recognized |
| Victim, community and offender safety concerns ignored | not RJ<-1-2-3-4-5->RJ | Victim, community and offender safety concerns primary |
| Disempower victims, offenders and community from acting constructively | not RJ<-1-2-3-4-5->RJ | Empower victims, offenders and community to act constructively |
| "Making things as right as possible" a secondary concern | not RJ<-1-2-3-4-5->RJ | Primary focus on "making things as right as possible" (repair injuries, relationships and physical damage) |
| Primary focus on violation of law | not RJ<-1-2-3-4-5->RJ | Violation of law a secondary concern |
| Victim wounds and healing ignored | not RJ<-1-2-3-4-5->RJ | Victim wounds and healing important |
| Offender wounds and healing ignored | not RJ<-1-2-3-4-5->RJ | Offender wounds and healing important |
| Primary decisions and activity between offender and gov't; offender family, victim and community ignored | not RJ<-1-2-3-4-5->RJ | Primary decisions and activity between victim and offender (or substitutes) and their communities, with government help as needed |
| Actions of officials with coercive power or in positions of authority left unchecked | not RJ<-1-2-3-4-5->RJ | All actions tested by whether they are reasonable, related and respectful |
| Government coercive/authority structures the primary response; victims, community and offender left out of process | not RJ<-1-2-3-4-5->RJ | Government coercive/authority structures used as backup when victim or offender not cooperative or either sees the process as unfair |
| Coercion assumed as primary mode of relating to offenders; orders given to offender rather than inviting offender to be cooperative; no attempt at agreements | not RJ<-1-2-3-4-5->RJ | Invitations to offender to be cooperative are primary; agreements preferred over orders; coercion backup response |
| Placements focus on restrictions and following orders | not RJ<-1-2-3-4-5->RJ | Placements focus on safety and/or training and equipping for living in community |
| Religious/faith community not involved in justice process | not RJ<-1-2-3-4-5->RJ | Religious/faith community encouraged and invited into cooperative aspects of justice process |
Scoring:
26 or Less • Justice response dominated by government and very costly: emotionally, spiritually, and financially. High fear in the community. Many mini -communities alienated and angry. Very high crime rate.
52 or More • Justice response balanced between government and community. Mini and macro communities empowered to participatein and contribute to the emotional, spiritual, and financial health of all the members of the community. Very low crime rate.
The permanent URL of this page is:
http://www.fresno.edu/pacs/docs/jscale.html