My apologies if you have tried to leave legitimate comments unsuccessfully. We have discovered that for some reason, a number of legitimate comments are going into the SPAM file without notifying me that they are there. Meanwhile, I get notice of dozens of inappropriate attempts that don’t end up automatically in the spam file. While we try to find out what is going on, I will check the spam folder on a regular basis in order to catch comments that should be posted.

My apologies.

It takes some effort to educate referring agencies that victims can access our program directly. We don’t get a great deal of people participating, but they are happy to know we could offer something.

They are different, however, in important ways. First, because there are many victims of crimes where the offender is never identified, or never admits responsibility, Parallel Justice describes elements of a communal response that can occur regardless of the status of the offender.

Second, Parallel Justice also recognizes that even if an offender takes responsibility for a crime, repairing the harm often requires many more resources than an offender and individual members of a community can provide. Thus Parallel Justice envisions a very active role for the government, including additional victim-oriented priorities for criminal justice, healthcare, and social service agencies, as well as community-based organizations and individuals. In other words, Parallel Justice intentionally seeks to involve lots of people besides those who might be called stakeholders or affected parties.

My proposal for Parallel Justice for victims of crime sets forth guiding principles for government agencies, communities, and individuals (including offenders) in order to create a more effective and humane communal response to victims of crime. I believe Restorative Justice practitioners can easily embrace these principles because they are designed to promote reintegration of victims.

If Restorative Justice programs offer some victims opportunities to learn more about the crime, secure restitution, hear an expression of remorse, or achieve a greater likelihood of safety, so much the better. Restorative Justice programs should be available for any victim who wants to participate in them. But I believe all victims of crime are entitled to a separate, more comprehensive path to safety and justice–one that does not necessarily replace, but runs parallel to, both traditional– and alternative– criminal justice processes.

Let’s keep our conversation going!

I now refer often to the need for victims-driven restorative justice. That might seem unnecessary to specify but sometimes I think it is something we need to stress. All criminal justice reform (or prison reform) is not automatically restorative justice. I’m amazed at how many people think it is.

I agree with Susan that “victims will never receive justice until their needs are addressed, regardless of whether the person who committed the crime against them is ever identified or prosecuted.” I think this is accurate. I saw that having worked with many victims of violent crime, but also now doing some work around the area of wrongful convictions. One case, which I wrote about at rjonline.org
on the PFI Centre’s blog, tells the story of Greg Wilhoit who did time on death row in Oklahoma for a murder he did not commit. But what about the real offender? Greg, thank God, was exonerated; however, the real murderer was never found. The victims’ family have no justice. They have no healing. Their needs go un-addressed and no hope for healing. But we in the restorative justice movement must acknowledge their needs, as victims, and attempt to apply restorative justice there.

In responding to one point in the above thread, I agree with Susan that restorative justice must be “victims centered” but also victims-driven. I think restorative justice does not reach nearly enough victims (I agree with her). I think that is due to a lack of support for laws that would increase the use of victims- driven restorative justice. I suggest that restorative justice processes should be made available to all victims as an “option”. I think RJ processes can be experienced by victims, and lead to increased satisfaction with the justice system, if the offender does not take responsibility. But it is certainly preferable if that offender does take responsibility and desires to make things right.

Lisa Rea
Rea Consulting
California

In an effort to bring healing to victims without offender participation, including when no offender is identified/charged (appx. 70% of all cases) or the victims simply did not want to meet with offenders (appx. 50% of all cases), in 2002 we provided a pilot here in Hawai’i: Restorative Justice Without Offender Participation: A Pilot Program for Victims The paper describes the outcomes for participants and tells the stories of two victims, one of whom I saw about 6 months ago, who said, “I really appreciated that program.”

In a current restorative pilot providing reentry planning for incarcerated people, which includes their loved ones, who are often the direct victims of their crimes, we find that providing the victims with the opportunity to be heard and being contacted by someone willing to hear thier stories, is a healing opportunity for many. Not all of the loved ones want to participate, yet have said, “Thank you for calling.” In this program too we have found continued satisfaction for loved ones/victims who do participate even when the offender repeats crime or relapses after being released from prison previously having had the restorative intervention with the loved ones.

I will try and get a copy of Professor Herman’s book and mahalo again for your work Howard!