Restorative Justice Meets Community Living Roundtable April 22, 2004, SFU Harbour Centre REPORT ON PROCEEDINGS

Transcription

1 Restorative Justice Meets Community Living Roundtable April 22, 2004, SFU Harbour Centre REPORT ON PROCEEDINGS I. Opening Program Meredith Egan, Coordinator of the SFU, Centre for Restorative Justice opened the session by welcoming everyone and describing briefly the day's activities (as shown in the attached agenda). II. Key Messages and Introduction to the Restorative Justice Project * A. Dr. Robert Gordon, SFU Centre for Restorative Justice Dr. Robert Gordon welcomed everyone to the Simon Fraser University (SFU) downtown campus and expressed his delight in hosting the roundtable; saying that it was the Centre's intent to build closer relationships with community. He also said that he was pleased with SFU's partnership with BCACL on this project because BCACL is a significant NGO with an impeccable history of advocating for people with developmental disabilities. Dr. Gordon also mentioned that they had not come across any effort to explore restorative justice approaches in incidents involving people with developmental disabilities. While many people are interested in this possibility, there are few dialogues and no research being done on the topic. This is unfortunate since the results of this research could prove not only beneficial to people with developmental disabilities, but could also have wide application, e.g. to people with brain injuries. He cited that the provincial government is interested in options for people with developmental disabilities because its last research on the criminal justice system did not show a pretty picture. Police and probation officers are practically in despair as they struggle to deal with people with developmental disabilities who are in the system. Moreover, even though there is growing recognition that traditional justice systems may not be appropriate, there are practically no specialized services for this population. They are just processed through the regular system. Exploring restorative justice as an alternative approach would be very interesting. * "Restorative Justice Project" is an abbreviated title used to describe the "Restorative Justice Project: An Alternative Crime Prevention Model for People with Developmental Disabilities or FASD and their Communities"; a project of the BCACL and the SFU Centre for Restorative Justice. 1

2 B. Laney Bryenton, BC Association for Community Living Laney Bryenton acknowledged the support of the SFU Centre for Restorative Justice to BCACL. She defined developmental disabilities for the participants who are not familiar with the term, highlighting that people with developmental disabilities' learning doesn't adapt from one environment to another, and that the disability (unlike mental illness) is a lifelong condition. It is not curable. BCACL includes FASD in the definition because the organization goes by how individuals function and the supports they need, and not by the medical definition of developmental disabilities that involves IQ. Laney explained that her first exposure to a Restorative Justice process was when she attended a sentencing circle, and the experience was very profound. She thought of this when her son, who works with young adults with challenges, related that a woman he supports assaulted a neighbor, an elderly man, and there was no way that he knew of how to support the woman and prevent it from happening again. There was also no way of knowing how to support the neighbor in understanding why it happened and how reparations could be made. Laney said she thought about what could be done for people with developmental disabilities who do harm, and what our responsibilities are in this regard. Thus was born an idea for doing a project on the possible use of restorative justice in a community living setting. This roundtable is the first step in this investigation. III. An Introduction to Restorative Justice Dr. Liz Elliott, Director of the SFU Centre for Restorative Justice gave a brief overview of restorative justice and how this differs from the criminal justice system. She started by saying that the criminal justice system: is predicated on the belief that people know the Criminal Code, which is far from the truth is not preventive but retaliatory, in that involvement in the system starts only after a crime has been committed mirrors back to us how we operate, i.e. threaten people with punishment Liz stated that a justice system needed to start from the basis of Human Values. Restorative Justice focuses on relationships and the quality of relationships, not on rules. It works on its own rhythm and its own time. It is responsive to the needs of the people, not the needs of the system. Retributive justice and restorative justice could be differentiated by the 3 important questions that they ask, viz.: 2

3 Retributive Justice: Restorative Justice: 1. Did a crime occur? (act) 2. Who committed it? (responsibility) 3. What do they deserve? (punishable actor) 1. Who was harmed? (affected actors) 2. What are their needs? (focus on harms) 3. Whose obligations are these? (responsibility) In restorative justice, punishment is de-centered. It is not the response to a harm that has been done. Liz introduced the idea that gangs operate on "The Three Big Lies" (as studied by former police officer Mike Knox, out of Texas) in fact, mirror that which we, as a state, promote as well. The three lies that gangs tell are: 1. We are family 2. We will protect you, and 3. Fear is respect On further examination, we know that our government, like gangs, does not treat us as family, but is willing to discard us quickly (either as offenders or victims) in criminal matters. In contrast, family sticks by family. We also know that government cannot protect each person 24 hours a day, as evidenced by today's culture of fear. We know that fear is not respect, and yet the notion of deterrence as upheld by our criminal justice system is predicated on fear of punishment. On the other hand, restorative approaches to harm, including crime, are based on empowering those most affected by it to work to heal the schism created. IV. Roundtable Discussions on Restorative Justice and Community Living A. Mike Keating and Alan Patola Moosmann The incident. Mike and Alan presented a case where a person with a developmental disability stole money from a staff member, with whom he had previously enjoyed a good relationship. The Community Living agency called in the Fraser-Burrard Community Justice Society (FBCJS) to help in resolving the issue and help the people involved come to terms with what happened. Mike reported that Community Living agencies focus on the individual s needs in terms of support. In incidents of harms, protection for the individual is typically of paramount concern, and not so much seeking resolution for the person who was harmed. Helping the former understand the harm he has caused or to take responsibility for his action does not always happen. 3

4 The individual staff or support person, meanwhile, are concerned with the person's reputation and finding out how to prevent a reccurrence of the offense. In cases where the staff or support person is the person harmed, they feel that they just have to accept it because they don t have avenues or tools for dealing with it. Mike said he thought about restorative justice because of the similarities between its underlying values and principles and those of Community Living. He had earlier attended a restorative justice workshop where he learned valuable information on what language to use, how to talk to family members, as well as restorative processes for getting long term resolutions. He asked the FBCJS to intervene. The process. Alan reported that in the above-named case, they started with a meeting with the individual who did the harm and helped him talk through what had happened. They also had one-on one meetings with someone from the person s home, as well as the staff member who was harmed. Alan emphasized that they were careful to set up a process that was not punitive, incomprehensible or frustrating for the individual. It was important to strike a balance in the process and to enable the person to understand why his action harmed the other person, as well as to understand the consequences of the action if done to other people (to make sure the offenses don t escalate). He said that restorative justice processes should come from a place of love to get to a place of peace. According to Alan, the preliminary meetings with all persons involved took five weeks. When everyone was ready and felt safe talking about the incident, they did a circle. The person who did the harm, as well as everyone else in the circle was asked to respond to the following questions: 1. What he did that day 2. What he was thinking 3. How he felt afterwards In the course of doing the circle, the participants felt that it would be best to draw up a simple document that everyone will sign, as a tool for helping the individual not to re-offend. Among others, the document included the individual s responses to the following questions: How would he feel if he were the victim? What would happen if the police were involved? What was the money for? Where else can I get money for it? The outcome. Alan reported that one indicator of the circle's success was restoration of the trusting relationship between with individual and the staff, and the fact that there had been no re-offense. Also, a month after the circle, the individual approached the same staff member and asked to borrow money. 4

5 Cautions. Alan concluded by saying that RJ practitioners should be careful in designing a process so that they are not seen as advocates for the person who did the harm, but rather as a person who is concerned about everybody s needs. The circle or any other process should also not proceed until everyone is ready and understands that it is not punitive. Some points to ponder are: how do we support the support persons? What language do we use? B. Alana Abramson and Jacquie Stevulak The incident. Alana and Jacquie related their experience working with a man and a woman, both of whom had developmental disabilities, in North Vancouver where their agency is based. They first became involved when a police officer approached them with the man who had been accused by the woman of inappropriate touching. The police officer felt that the criminal justice system was inappropriate for dealing with the incident, and so brought the matter to a community restorative justice society. There were no expectations from either side at this initial meeting, but what was created was an environment of curiosity. The process. Alana reported that they first met with the woman who was harmed. They made sure that she would be supported, before, during and after the process adhering to the do no harm principle. They relied heavily on the help of her caregiver in communicating with her. The woman's strong and trusting relationship with her caregiver enabled the conversation to be fruitful. They then met with the man who caused the harm. Among others, they asked him what was going on for him that day and what led up to the incident. In the conversation with them, the man accepted responsibility for his action and said he wanted to repair the harm that he caused. Because of this acceptance and the fact that the man had the support he needed to undertake a restorative process, Alana and her team decided that there was a basis to go on and respond restoratively. The people who were involved in the incident and their support persons worked on the restorative process together, considering what would feel the most safe for everyone. They used a drawing to illustrate where everyone will sit in the Friendship Circle and decided on the different elements that needed to happen for the circle to be successful. The Outcome. After the circle, a person bridged what had been done earlier by the restorative justice practitioners, i.e. conducted follow-up activities in their own setting. The RJ practitioners made follow-up calls a few months after the circle. Alana and Jacquie agreed that it had been an amazing experience working with people whose values fit those of restorative justice, i.e. love, respect, inclusion, and individual empowerment. 5

6 Questions & Answers 1. Who comes to the circle and under what conditions? Generally, anyone who has been impacted by the harm, and the people who support the person harmed and the person who did the harm needs to be involved before, during and after the circle (or any other restorative process). How big a circle should be is a question of balance. The person who did the harm s capacity to hear all those impacted by his or her action is an important consideration. Who among the person s support people need to be present is determined by whom the person feels safest with. 2. People with FASD have difficulty putting themselves in another person s shoes, so what is their capacity to participate in a restorative justice process? In such cases, the help of a support person/ translator is crucial. If the person who did the harm is supported and accepts responsibility for the harm, then a restorative process can proceed. In cases where it is the person harmed who has FASD: if he can express what he expects to see in terms of remorse, then the process can proceed. 3. Where does the community fit in when restorative justice experts are talking to the person harmed? Circles don t divide, but rather help people come together. Community members can ask themselves such questions as: (1) did I feel pain because of the harm done? (if yes, then they are part of the issue at hand), and (2) how did I (or we) fail this person? 4. What does forgiving and serving time look like in a restorative justice process? In restorative justice, forgiveness is neither a goal nor an expectation, but frequently, it is an outcome. Forgiveness is not imposed; rather, restorative justice makes space for forgiveness to happen. Practitioners do not label people (e.g. victims, offenders) but refer to people as being affected by an event. What passes for doing time (e.g. imposing a set routine to be followed by the person) is imposed only if there is a physical risk to any person. 5. How does denial and minimizing accountability affect a restorative justice process? How can one get input from a young person? Denial slows down the process and drags it out. If a young person does not recognize accountability, then the process cannot proceed. It is important to consider cross-cultural issues in helping someone accept responsibility for a harm and still preserve his integrity as a person. This can only happen if the person is supported front and back before, during and after the process. A 6

7 practitioner should be careful because the potential for shame is huge and the use of shame is in itself controversial and problematic. V. Outputs of Small Group Inquiry Circles All participants grouped themselves into three "inquiry" circles. Each circle had a keeper and a recorder. The responses to the four questions, which were the same for all circles, are summarized below. ( A direct transcript of all responses is also attached. ) 1. Do you think there is an overlap between the restorative justice (RJ) and community living movements? The unanimous response to this was yes. Both RJ and Community Living focus on the individual; his unique abilities, his need and his right to decide what happens to himself Both come from a place of respect, understanding, love and commitment Both are committed to inclusion/ minimizing isolation Both focus on values, and most of these values are held in common, i.e. love, respect, peace, individual empowerment, self-determination Both recognize the importance of a strong community, and the role the community plays in supporting individuals Both are community-building processes Both movements are about building and strengthening relationships; both recognize the importance of relationships in an individual's life Both approaches are flexible and are determined by the individual and community's needs 2. What are the potential advantages of using restorative processes in a community living setting? RJ helps to resolve harms for both the person who did the harm and the person harmed from a therapeutic perspective; it minimizes trauma and frustration, and allows for closure RJ helps to prevent recidivism by addressing the person's needs RJ recognizes the effects of harms done to support people, and also addresses the needs of the person's caregivers RJ circles enable people to engage in meaningful dialogue and allow a person to repair the harm that he has caused; allow the person to feel remorse in a healing way and understand the "wrong" that has been done. The traditional court process is cold and lengthy, and its outcomes are uncertain RJ's flexibility is better for people who have family/background issues 7

8 3. What are the challenges of using RJ with people with developmental disabilities? There is potential for abuse; RJ could be used as a "way out" or a "lesser punishment" than going through the criminal justice system There is potential for doing further harm to an individual, and for revictimization of the person harmed There is potential for RJ to be used as a "one-size fits all" approach Competence of RJ practitioners needs to be assured; there should be training and they should not be overly-burdened with too many cases We must ensure that RJ practitioners are able to recognize when RJ is not an appropriate approach to use in a particular case and will refrain from proceeding Possible negative reaction from community or society at large to the use of RJ (e.g. it may be seen as a panacea, or an "out" for people committing serious crimes) Resources is always an issue. There should be funding available so that RJ has a chance of succeeding instead of being set up to fail Funding should be available for training for advocates so that they are able to properly represent individuals in an RJ process 4. What do you think the next steps for these explorations are? Where should we go from here? There should be more roundtables, forums and other opportunities for RJ and CL organizations to come together more often to dialogue There should be follow-up, continuous networking Law enforcement people need to be invited to be part of the conversations More story telling, gathering of anecdotal evidence More research needs to be done on this topic Find a way to evaluate restorative justice processes that speaks to the government, i.e. convince government to invest in RJ Set up a provincial committee/organization to advocate for using RJ in Community Living settings Volunteers and staff need to be trained on RJ Bring RJ back to the schools (theory and practice) Undertake public awareness activities to encourage buy-in from the communities VI. Reporting Back and Next Steps Speakers from the three inquiry circles reported back the general responses of their circles' members in a plenary session. 8

9 Following the reports, Laney Bryenton summarized the suggested next steps as follows: 1. Organize and hold more roundtables, dialogues, forums on the topic, and mount them in other areas of the province as well; 2. Develop and maintain partnerships, and provide more opportunities for networking between people involved in community living and people involved in restorative justice, and vice versa; 3. Do more research on the application of restorative justice processes for people with developmental disabilities, including evaluating RJ processes and methods; 4. Begin conversations with people in law enforcement, and others in the criminal justice system, as part of advocacy; and 5. Advocate for more government funding to train people involved in Community Living on RJ processes, as well as to support RJ practitioners. She indicated that the participants' suggestions for next steps will guide the future work of the Restorative Justice Project. VII. Closing Program In closing, Laney thanked all the participants, the SFU Centre for Restorative Justice, the practicum students who helped out, and the funders (NCPC and CSC) for supporting the Restorative Justice Meets Community Living Roundtable. She assured everyone that the outcomes of the roundtable would be documented and distributed to all participants. Finally, Laney also announced that BCACL and SFU would continue the work in exploring the use of restorative justice for people with developmental disabilities and may call upon today's participants to be involved. 9

10 Restorative Justice Meets Community Living Roundtable April 22, 2004 Simon Fraser University, Harbour Centre Campus Segal Centre ~Agenda ~ 9:00 AM Registration and Coffee 9:15 AM Welcome Meredith Egan, Coordinator, Centre for RJ, SFU Introduction to the Project: Laney Bryenton, Executive Director, BCACL Dr. Robert Gordon, Director, Centre for RJ, SFU 9:40 AM Restorative Justice: a brief introduction Dr. Liz Elliott, Director, Centre for RJ, SFU 10:15 AM Break - Refreshments 10:30 AM Practitioners Roundtable: Participants: Alan Patola-Moosman, Fraser Burrard Youth Justice Society, with Mike Keating, Community Ventures Society Alana Abramson - North Vancouver Restorative Justice Society, with Jacquie Stevulak - North Vancouver Restorative Justice Society Moderating: Meredith Egan and Laney Bryenton 11:30 AM Questions for panelists (from floor) 12:00 PM Lunch 12:45 PM Welcome back, introduction to small groups - Meredith 1:00 PM Small group enquiry circles 2:15 PM Circles report back to the larger group Closing We gratefully acknowledge funding support from the Community Mobilization Program of the National Crime Prevention Centre, Department of Justice, Canada and the SFU Centre for Restorative Justice, which is funded in part through an initiative of the Correctional Services of Canada. 10