Find Mediator by Practice Area:
Find International Mediators:
Find Mediator by State:
Find Mediator by City:
|
Make a 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
