- There is a tension within the criminal justice system between reducing re-offense rates and instilling public confidence
- Improvements to one can come at the expense of the other
- Increasing severity of punishments can make reducing crime more difficult
- Example: California’s 3-strikes law
- Negligible deterrent effect
- Huge increase in prison population
- Our current model isn’t working
- Current sentencing practices only apply to a handful of people, since most cases end in a plea bargain
- This is unfair to victims, the offender, and to the public
- Victims can’t publicly affirm their stories
- Offender and public lose out because the court loses the ability to decide sentences - can only affirm or veto the punishment in the plea deal
- Greater use of restorative justice can lead to a model of criminal justice that avoids the problems outlined above
- Restorative Justice: A First Step
- Two particular forms
- Victim-offender mediation
- Restorative conferencing
- Goal is to “restore” the offender back to being a lawful citizen
- Meetings held by a trained facilitator and only when the offender admits guilt
- Provide an opportunity for constructive dialog
- Participation must be voluntary
- Meeting structure
- Facilitator clarifies parameters and purpose of meeting
- Victim has an opportunity to speak, address the offender and state how their crime impacted them
- Offender speaks last, and accounts for their crime
- Meeting ends with the participants confirming a restorative contract
- Restorative justice is more effective than traditional punishment
- Participants in restorative meetings confirm higher satisfaction in the process than in alternatives
- Re-offense rates under restorative justice programs are up to 25% lower than re-offense rates in traditional sentencing
- The need for a new model
- Restorative justice is currently being held back from wider application because it doesn’t include the possibility of prison as part of a restorative contract
- If prison can be recast as a way of providing more intensive interventions when other options are not feasible, prison can be made compatible with the tenets of restorative justice
- This hybrid model can be termed “punitive restoration”
- Expanding restorative justice to include some punitive options can lead to less punitive system overall
- Can allow for more widespread use of restorative justice without undermining public confidence in the system
- Why is anger a common response to trauma
- Anger is a core part of the survival response in human beings
- Help people cope with stress by shifting focus toward the problem that has to be solved
- However this anger can create problems after the trauma has ended
- How can anger after trauma become a problem
- Person’s response to extreme threat can become “stuck” and become their response to all challenges
- Three key aspects of post-traumatic anger
- Arousal - muscle tension, irritability, feeling of being “on edge”
- Behavior - impulsiveness, only using aggressive responses
- Thoughts and beliefs - belief that threat is all around, even when this is not true
- How can someone get help with anger
- CBT is a commonly used technique that helps with all three aspects
- Arousal - learn skills, such as relaxation techniques, that lower the overall level of arousal
- Behavior - expand on range of possible responses when confronted with stress
- Thoughts/beliefs - come up with more positive thoughts to replace anger
- Premise of book: we are conflating conflict with abuse
- Conflict is “power struggle” and is a normal part of existence for individuals, groups and states
- Abuse is “power over” and is characterized by lopsided domination of one side by another
- Terms come from the social work community and are used at the interpersonal level, but can also be used to provide moral clarity when looking at group and state conflict
- According to Schulman, we live in an era of “overreaction to conflict and underreaction to abuse”
- Need to distinguish overstatement of harm from the harm itself
- The danger of mischaracterizing conflict as abuse is that it lowers the bar for what we term abuse, allowing abusers to claim the position of victim