Second thoughts on restorative justice
Why throwing away the key on our wayward youth just doesn’t work.
I NEVER thought I’d see Sensible Sentencing’s Garth McVicar endorse restorative justice.
Last week, when a drink-driver who killed a mother was spared a jail sentence, McVicar said the judge should be given ‘‘a pat on the back’’.
The offender had attended a fullday restorative justice conference with the victim’s family, paid them $50,000 in emotional harm reparation, and agreed to appear in an anti-drink driving documentary. He was also sentenced to nine-months home detention.
McVicar acknowledged his support would ‘‘put him out on a limb with others in his group’’. I dare say, given the catalyst for forming Sensible Sentencing was the repeated rape and torture, in May 1989, of Karla Cardno by Paul Joseph Dally, a paroled man with previous sexual assault convictions.
McVicar supported Cardno’s stepfather, Mark Middleton, then set up Sensible Sentencing.
Criminals like Dally should be locked away from society for ever. That doesn’t mean all offenders should be treated harshly, but New Zealand is up there with America in terms of high incarceration figures. We are more punitive than restorative in our attitude to justice. When Korotangi Paki, younger son of the Maori King, was conditionally discharged without conviction earlier this month for drink driving, two counts of burglary and one of theft, there was incredible outrage. On Facebook, a site set up campaigning to have him convicted attracted more than 19,000 supporters, and another page was created calling for the judge to be sacked.
The Crown is considering appealing Cunningham’s decision, despite Paki’s three accomplices earlier being discharged without convictions. It’s not as if he’s not been held accountable – Paki completed community work, went through a restorative justice programme, and a Right Path project. Now marae elders have taken him under their guidance.
For a 19-year-old going off the rails, this is far better than going to prison, vulnerable to recruitment by gangs and being turned into a hardened criminal. I say more young people at this end of offending should be steered away from jail and into restorative justice. It doesn’t mean they get home free, and it doesn’t fit every crime, particularly if victims reject the notion.
Restorative justice means repairing the harm caused by crime, not just to those offended against but also the offender; holding offenders accountable for the harm they’ve caused and building peace within communities. In the United States where the criminal justice system wasn’t working, the practice of restorative justice preceded the theory. For example, in 2001 a school west of Mississippi was massively traumatised when three students pleaded guilty to planning to ‘‘do a Columbine’’ (a reference to the 1999 Columbine disaster when two students bombed and shot dead 12 students and a teacher). They decided to deal with the situation through restorative justice.
Susan Mateer’s thesis on the success of this 18-month programme (which mentions Maori restorative justice), proved restorative justice can decrease crime and antisocial behaviour, restore relationships and create safer communities. There are shortcomings, but ‘‘it does strive to restore the victim, the offender and the community, as much as possible, to pre-crime conditions’’.
Also, this school discovered this can go beyond restorative to ‘‘transformative justice’’. That is, a new vision of what that school community wanted to be, and out of the negative they gained something very positive. Think of that. If we pushed pause on our lock-em-all-up attitude, we might give a few more wayward youth a second chance.