Statement Of Restorative Justice Principles

1. PRINCIPLES RELATING TO THE INTERESTS OF ALL PARTICIPANTS

a) Participation to be based voluntary and based on informed choice

b) Avoidance of discrimination, irrespective of the nature of the case

c) Access to be available to relevant agencies for help and advice

d) Maintaining access to various established methods of dispute resolution

e) Processes that do not compromise the rights under the law of the participants

f) Commitment not to use information in a way that may prejudice the interests of any participant in subsequent proceedings.

g) Protection of personal safety

h) Protection and support for vulnerable participants

i) Respect for civil rights and the dignity of persons

2. PRINCIPLES RELATING TO THOSE WHO HAVE SUSTAINED HARM OR LOSS

a) Respect for their personal experiences, needs and feelings

b) Acknowledgement of their harm or loss

c) Recognition of their claim for amends

d) Opportunity to communicate with the person who caused the harm or loss, if that person is willing

e) Entitled to be the primary beneficiary of reparation

3. PRINCIPLES RELATING TO THOSE WHO CAUSED THE HARM OR LOSS TO OTHERS

a) The opportunity to offer reparation, including before any formal requirement

b) Reparation to be appropriate to the harm done and within their capacity to fulfil it

c) Respect for the dignity of the person(s) making amends

4. PRINCIPLES RELATING TO THE INTERESTS OF LOCAL COMMUNITY AND SOCIETY

a) The promotion of community safety and social harmony by learning from restorative processes, and so take measures that are conducive to the reduction of crime or harm

b) The promotion of social harmony through respect for cultural diversity and civil rights, social responsibility and the rule of law

c) Opportunity for all to learn mediation and other methods of non-violent resolution of conflict

5. PRINCIPLES RELATING TO AGENCIES WORKING ALONGSIDE THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM

a) Matters to be settled outside the judicial system, except where this is unworkable due to the level of harm done, the risk of further harm, issues of public policy, or disagreement about the critical facts

b) Avoid unfair discrimination by ensuring that rights under the law are not compromised

c) Provide a wide and flexible range of opportunities to enable those who have caused loss or harm to make amends.

6. PRINCIPLES RELATING TO THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM a) Primary aim to be the repair of harm

b) Restorative requirements to be fair, appropriate and workable

c) Where a restorative requirement is appropriate, but victims decline to participate, there should be opportunities for community reparation, or reparation to others who have suffered harm or loss

d) Where a restorative requirement is appropriate, but those who have caused harm or loss decline to participate, community reparation should be enforced

e) Voluntary offers to repair harm or loss, by those who have caused it, to be valued

f) Content of restorative meetings to be considered privileged, subject to public interest qualifications

7. PRINCIPLES RELATING TO RESTORATIVE JUSTICE AGENCIES

a) Commitment to needs based practice

b) Safeguarding of legal human rights

c) Restorative justice practitioners who are seen to be neutral

d) Restorative justice practitioners who act impartially

e) Maintaining neutrality and impartiality, restorative justice practitioners should play no other role in the case

f) Restorative justice agencies making a commitment to keep confidential the content of restorative meetings, subject to the requirements of the law

g) Participants to be encouraged to keep confidential the contents of restorative meetings

h) The engagement of weaker parties in negotiation to be facilitated

i) Upholding respectful behaviour in restorative processes

j) Upholding equality of respect for all participants in restorative processes, separating this from the harm done

k) Engagement with good practice guidelines within the restorative justice movement

l) Commitment by the agency to the use of constructive conflict resolution in general, and specifically in internal grievance and disciplinary procedures, and in handling complaints by clients

m) Commitment to the accreditation of training, services and practitioners

n) Commitment to continually improved practice About the Restorative Justice Consortium

The Restorative Justice Consortium was formed in 1997 bringing together a wide range of organisations with an interest in Restorative Justice. The organisations represented victims, offenders, young people and mediators, and those with a professional interest in RJ.

Originally the Consortium wanted to encourage the adoption of RJ into the criminal justice system and it sought to provide good principles for standards of practice, to share and exchange information about restorative justice, and to promote understanding of the concept, and its use, to the community.

In 1998 and 1999 the Government in England and Wales introduced two pieces of legislation relating to youth justice, (the Crime and Disorder Bill and the Youth Justice Criminal Evidence Act) which started to embrace the principles of RJ.

As Restorative Justice expanded, the Consortium appointed a Director in July 2001 following its establishment as a not-for-profit company with charitable objects in April 2001.

Restorative Justice Practice in Youth Offending Teams and in the police massively expanded in the three years between 1998 and 2001 and the Consortium responded to this in July 2001, by changing its role to that of a second tier organisation, and thus altering it objects.

The Consortium's aims are:

• To promote the use of restorative justice in schools, the community, prisons, the criminal justice system, the workplace and any other situation where conflict arises

• To disseminate information about, and act as a resource for, restorative justice

• To develop and promote agreed standards and principles for evaluating and guiding restorative practice

• To encourage, and to undertake, research on restorative justice

• To promote these objects fully, in September 2001, it was agreed to open up our membership, which had previously been for national organisations, to include local organisations and individuals who agree with our aims.

In September 2001 the Consortium applied for charitable status.

Unit 16 Acacia Business Centre, Howard Road,
London E11, 3PJ
Tel: 020 8988 0720 Fax: 020 8988 0732

Biography

Comments

---

Free subscription to comments on this article

Add Brief Comment

Eric Gilman,   Vancouver WA	eric.gilman@co.clark.wa.us      05/24/02
UK Consortium's RJ Principles
My name is Eric Gilman. I am the Restorative Justice Coordinator with the Clark County Juvenile Court, Vancouver, Washington. I have been working with RJ programs and agencies for over 12 years in both the US and Canada. I have worked primarily in Victim Offender Mediation, but have also done significant work in serious and violent crime meetings. In my present position with the Clark County Juvenile Court I designed and implemented its highly successful VOM program. Beyond that this court has made a holistic commitment to have every practice and policy of the court be based on RJ principles. That is a huge commitment that we are only 2.5 years into, but we have made significant progress. We currently have modified and enhanced several significant pieces of our work to make them restorative in practice. We have started several new initiatives and programs based on a restorative focus. I have had the opportunity to present trainings on VOM and RJ across the US and Canada. I share this background with you as a context for my response to the RJ principles put forward by the folks from the UK. I read them with great interest. One of the challenges of RJ has been to clearly articulate exactly what RJ is, and what its implications are for our society. As the UK folk correctly assert, working restoratively should go far beyond our justice system and impact our schools, workplace and communities in many contexts. I came to RJ work after 15 years in education. My first 10 years of RJ work was with one of the oldest RJ non-profit agencies in North America. I had never envisioned myself working as part of the justice system. But I am. And I have been incredibly fortunate to work for a juvenile court administrator who deeply "gets" RJ, and is totally committed to a holistic application of its values and principles to the justice system. Because of his vision and leadership we have accomplished much in a short time, and the potential seems limitless for growing RJ application and change in our court. This connection with the justice system, working from the inside, has made me conscious of some underlying assumptions and gaps in understanding that we "RJ types" bring to our efforts to impact and change the justice system. Those assumptions and that lack of understanding about the justice system can be among our biggest obstacles to persuading the justice system to embrace a RJ focus and practice. I see several of those assumptions and that lack of understanding in the principles offered by the UK Consortium. Those underlying aspects in the principles would cause even a systems person as committed to RJ as my boss, to not take seriously anyone from outside the system who was putting forth those ideas. These statements/assumptions in the Consortium's work need further thought and discussion. I would be very concerned if this work is held up as the defining statement on RJ for work in the criminal justice system. I am concerned that it will entrench assumptions that are roadblocks to the successful acceptance and implementation of RJ principles and practice in our justice system. That would be a true tragedy. I think the work done by the Consortium is important work. We need to continue to articulate exactly what RJ is. In Clark County we are doing that continually. In our work, our experience and conversations with our community and fellow justice system partners cause us to be sharper and clearer about exactly what we stand for and what makes what we do "restorative". I am convinced that the challenge for RJ advocates working with the justice system is to be knowledgeable about the real world context and legally mandated parameters within which the justice system works. It does no good to ask justice system people to "think outside the box", when they do work inside a box. The box of legislative mandate and the laws of the land. The good news is that it is a REALLY BIG BOX, to quote my boss. The obstacles to the justice system working more restoratively is not really the law, it is "past practice". But that said, there are real parameters that must be respected and worked within. In Clark County we are finding we can do incredibly restorative work within those parameters. Let me speak to just one concrete example of the an underlying assumption I see in the Consortium principles. This one assumption appears to be present in a number of the statements made. If the assumption is not there, there is at least a need for greater clarity in the intent of the statements. Most RJ advocates come from mediation or conflict resolution backgrounds/contexts. This frame leads them to see crime as a dispute to be resolved. Intentionally or not, there is a tendency to see both the victim and the offender as equal disputants facing this conflict. Such a view point is highly offensive to victims - even more so to some victim advocacy groups who have taken strong stands opposing RJ. It is also viewed as both naive and wrong by people in the justice system. It causes them to view RJ advocates who hold such a perspective as people who don't know the reality of working with criminal justice issues, and they dismiss what those advocates have to say or are purposing. Viewing victims and offenders as disputants in a conflict has very practical implications for how both offenders and victims are approached and talked to about restorative options such as VOM. This community mediation/conflict resolution mindset has made it a great struggle for many community mediation based VOM programs to get referrals from their local justice system. That justice system likely questions the credibility of the RJ program as a resource that truly understands how to work with victims and offenders. This conflict resolution mindset has also made it difficult to engage victims and offenders in being willing to participate in a VOM process. It has given victim advocate groups "fuel" to oppose RJ as something that does not really have anything to offer victims. This is all incredibly tragic. RJ has much to offer victims, the community and offenders. Community based VOM programs housed in dispute resolution centers can be excellent homes for VOM programs. Our own VOM program in Clark County is housed in our local dispute resolution center. But our DRC has had to go through a big learning curve to come to understand the clear differences between community dispute resolution and working with victims and offenders. To their great credit they have done so. The document put forward by the UK Consortium provides an excellent opportunity for a focused discussion about how RJ principles can be put into practice in our justice system. More importantly it could provide an opportunity for community mediation/dispute resolution practitioners to engage in dialogue that could result in them better understanding how they can effectively impact their justice system without compromising the values and principles of RJ. Eric Gilman Restorative Justice Coordinator Clark County Juvenile Court Add New Comment

The views expressed by authors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Resourceful Internet Solutions, Inc., Mediate.com or of reviewing editors.