BEYOND RESTORATIVE
JUSTICE
5th ANNUAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE INITIATIVE
CONFERENCE
Marquette University
November 11, 2008
David M. Kennedy
Director
Center for Crime Prevention and Control
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
dakennedy@jjay.cuny.edu
212 484-1323
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE



Extraordinarily powerful and important ideas
Unnecessarily and unconsciously limited by
(usually) implicit framework
If we take the strengths and discard the limits,
we end up in a place that may be even more
powerful and important
RJ CRITIQUE OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE


“Formal social control”
Ineffective and damaging
Doesn’t work as well as we’d like
 Overutilizes punishment: brutalizing
 Stigmatizes and excludes, often permanently
 Creates polarized “others” where there should be
community



“War on crime,” “war on drugs”
Appropriates standing to state, disregards and
weakens community
FOR EXAMPLE

Baltimore:




60% black males 16-30 under criminal justice
supervision
Lifetime chance of prison for black males 1:3
Crime down dramatically while prison
population continues to grow
Growth of “stop snitching” movement
RJ ALTERNATIVE

“Informal social control”

Internal
Shame
 Guilt
 Conscience


External

The views of those we care about
 Family
 Friends
 Loved ones
 Community
INFORMAL SOCIAL
CONTROL

More powerful than formal social control



Internal more powerful than external
Operates without state




Cops vs. grandmothers
(Somewhat less true than sometimes thought)
Operates more or less constantly
Operates, usually, without permanent stigma and
exclusion
Can lead to “reintegration”
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE


The deliberate activation and mobilization of
informal social control
Techniques for activating shame, guilt,
conscience
Contact with victims
 Moral engagement
 Challenging competing norms and narratives


Mobilization of personal and community
networks to set and enforce norms, narratives,
expectations
RESTORATION AND
RECONCILIATION

Framing of offender as moral agent worthy of
respect


Engagement with family, peers, community



Engagement with offender’s moral self
Weakening negative connections, strengthening
positive ones
Central goal of keeping offender in community,
or reestablishing legitimacy and standing
Symbolic and actual reintegration
FRAMED AS FREESTANDING
ALTERNATIVE



Extremely powerful and attractive set of ideas
Couched from beginning in conscious
opposition to existing criminal justice system
and its weaknesses and harms
Becomes in practice alternative case processing
system, sidestepping criminal justice system,
avoiding the damage it does and creating new
benefits
PROBLEMS WITH EXISTING
RJ FRAMEWORK




Unrealistic about actual role of coercive state
power in restorative justice process
Disregards moral standing of state
Disregards state interest in public safety and in
securing a monopoly on criminal enforcement
Disregards role of sanction and deterrence in
underpinning good behavior and positive norms
and narratives
PROBLEMS WITH ALTERNATIVE
CASE PROCESSING FRAMEWORK

Some cases not appropriate, even in principle,
for classic restorative justice



Domestic violence
Some cases too serious
Cannot accommodate need for incapacitation
and/or formal punishment
MORE PROBLEMS

Handcuffs RJ to existing law and police practice


RJ new “back end,” but state and police still “front
end”
Focuses on individual incidents and individual
offenders

Well-established critique from, for example,
problem-oriented policing
 Fundamentally reactive
 No strategic focus
 No attention to underlying problems
EXTREMELY POWERFUL
IDEAS: VERY LIMITED
APPLICATION

In practice, ends up restricted to relatively minor
incidents, mostly involving juveniles


Sweeping critique and response; limited and lowlevel application
Restorative justice has been hobbled by an
unconscious attachment to traditional criminal
justice and by framing itself as an alternative
case processing system
RJ IDEAS TOO IMPORTANT
FOR THIS


Drop “alternative case processing” framework
Not about individual incidents and cases any
longer
Need not be about those under arrest
 Groups
 “Problems”



Can accommodate serious offenses and
offenders
Can involve state authority and deterrence,
formal sanction
“FOCUSSED DETERRENCE”
FRAMEWORK


“Boston model,” “Ceasefire,” “High Point”
Strategic intervention aimed at specific problems
Group and gang violence
 Overt drug markets


Three-pronged intervention
Certain formal sanction: effective formal deterrence
 Help and services
 “Moral voice of community”: or restorative justice


Going on in Milwaukee now, with Marquette:
Safe Streets
CIRV – Network Analysis of Street
Sets
Red – Beef
Green – Alliance
Blue – Volatile
CRIMINAL HISTORIES OF
CINCINNATI GROUP MEMBERS
GROUPS IN CINCINNATI
HOMICIDES
VIOLENCE AS A GROUP/“STREET”
DYNAMIC




Much violence group-on-group “beefs” or vendettas
Powerful peer effects: not just an individual decision.
Street code: this is all OK, no alternatives, not my fault,
don’t mind dying, prison’s not a problem, violence is
required
May not entirely believe this as individuals, but group
dynamic dominates
Seen as supported/tolerated by community: anger
expressed at history, police, whites

Why community “moral voice” so important
MANY KEY PLAYERS KNOWN,
EVEN WHEN NOT LEGALLY
AVAILABLE



Legal system needs legal predicate
Other ways of intervening do not
RJ framework can often be applied
CONSEQUENCES

Group accountability for homicide: group
dynamic, group sanction







Last resort
Explained ahead of time
By any legal means: “pulling levers”
Most serious sanctions on impact players
Careful promise: sanction on next homicide; on
most violent group
Reversal of pro-violence peer pressure
“Honorable exit”
HELP
 Focused
services
 Employment
 Education
 Treatment
 Mentoring
 Others
“COMMUNITY MORAL VOICE”:
RJ IN A DIFFERENT SETTING
Clear, direct, community stand
 Figures respected by offenders








Parents
Ministers, mothers, activists
Offenders and ex-offenders
Set community norms
Make offenders own what they do
Challenge street code
Love the sinner but hate the sin: bring them
back in
MORAL VOICE, CONT.

Set community standard
“There is no excuse.”
 “We need you, you’re better than this.”


Moral engagement
“Who thinks it’s OK for little kids to get shot?”
 “Do you want your mother standing here?”


Challenge street code/norms
“Shot any CIA agents lately?”
 “Who helped your mother last time you were locked
up?”
 “Do you think your friends won’t flip on you?”

Group Member Involved (GMI) Homicides in Cincinnati
July 2006 - March 2008
9
Call-in sessions 10/03
8
Call-in sessions 7/31
7
# of homicides
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Jul06
Aug06
Sep06
Oct06
Nov06
Dec06
Jan07
Feb07
Mar07
Apr07
May07
Likely GMI Homicide
Jun07
Jul07
Aug07
Sep07
Non-GMI Homicide
Oct07
Nov07
Dec07
Jan08
Feb08
Mar08
“HIGH POINT” STRATEGY




Closes overt community drug markets
Explicitly addresses racial conflict and
unintended harms from ordinary drug
enforcement
Involves dealers’ families much more effectively
than gang strategy: large lessons here
Closed market largely sustained by new
community standards
OTHER EXAMPLES




Street robberies
Domestic violence
Prison issues
??
SO: RESTORATIVE JUSTICE







Is an even bigger set of ideas than many
advocates suspect
Works with serious offenders
Can be adapted to core underlying problems
Need not wait for police or state to act
Need not focus on alternative case processing
Engages – very effectively – with community
standards and serious offenders’ consciences
Can fit seamlessly with formal social control
TRANSFORMATIVE
POSSIBILITIES






Greatly increase public safety
Address racial conflict
Reduce incarceration
Strengthen communities
Substitute deterrence for enforcement
Create pathways for seasoned offenders