Domestic Violence and Restorative Justice: A New - Research Proposal Example

?Domestic Violence and Restorative Justice: A New Proposal Introduction Domestic violence has dominated the criminal justice scene on an increasing level for the past decade at least. Because it is often experienced and undertaken in a familial setting behind closed doors, the law has struggled to deal with instances of domestic violence. This however only serves to increase the damaging effect it has on the victim as well as family members. The law has struggled greatly to not only detect instances of domestic violence (due to reluctance of victims to report it), but also to deal effectively with offenders as they are pushed through the criminal justice system (Hester & Westmarland, 2005, p. vii). The criminal justice system however prefers to deal with violent offenders through retributive aims, often ignoring the potential for rehabilitative and restorative aims to develop rather than punish the offender (Hanmer & Griffiths, 2000, p. 338). Such retributive aims also fail to place adequate focus on the victim and the root causes of domestic violence evident in the status of women in many societies (Howe, 1998, Ballinger, 2011, p. 41). Indeed it is considered to currently be “an approach that sees tackling violence against women simply as a matter for the criminal justice system...[which]...misses the point” (May, 2009, para. 2). This paper will analyse the main components of restorative justice programs and analyse their strengths as well as their weaknesses. This will be used as the foundation for the development of a restorative justice program which seeks to deal adequately with instances of domestic violence. What is Restorative Justice? Literature Review Restorative justice emerged as a response to the flawed nature of retributive and other forms of justice. It attempts to restate the concept of justice by focusing on the importance of the victim and correcting or acknowledging the harm done to them. Restorative justice, then, places the victim at the centre of the criminal justice system, giving them direct input into the definition of and repercussions of crime. Critics have incessantly claimed that short-sighted focus of retributivism on principles of justice and harm done to the state has little impact on the reduction of offending (Andrews & Bonta, 1998; Gendreau & Goggin, 1996), and instead propose a more victim-focused response to crime (Messmer & Otto, 1992). Restorative justice thus attempts to repair the harm done to victims and society as a whole through a form of informal, direct-contact approach to both the offender and the victim. It has famously been linked mainly to the aim of forgiveness, though it includes many more aims and seeks additional achievements to just this. Restorative justice also seeks to bring home to gravity of the offence to the offender, so that he may realize the impact of his actions on the person it is directed at through meetings between the victim and the offender (Umbreit, 1994). The community is also given a large role in dealing with the offender rather than the segregation of community and offender that occurs under retributive aims of justice. Restorative justice thus does not propose incarceration to be the best option in most cases (Nuffield, 1997), and prefers to keep the offender in the community setting. Restorative justice programs have multiple goals and thus do not suffer the disadvantages of being focused on a single rationale, which can cause them to become blinkered. Such programs seek to achieve the meeting of offender and victim (Kurki, 2000), the restoration of damages suffered to the victim (particularly financial), and the added goal of reducing reoffending. Programs also attempt to adopt programs which provide an alternative to imprisonment, which often do not achieve rehabilitation of the offender, or reductions in recidivism rates, and well as causing the victim to feel isolated from the criminal justice system. The inclusion of community service in restorative justice programs has also become an important element (Richardson & Galaway, 1995). Treatments which involve counseling and rehabilitative aims are often inclusive of restorative justice in an attempt to get the offender to change his violent or criminal behavior. Programs designed to ease alcohol and drug addiction behavior are also implemented if such behavior is evident in the offender, as such behavior is often causative of violent behaviour. One can thus begin to see that restorative justice programs encompass a broad range of treatments and goals. Braithwaite (2002) claims that effective restorative justice programs should be able to restore communities, human dignity, property loss, and prevent future crime, to name but a few (p. 569). Indeed, both offenders and victims claim that this is what they desire in any restorative justice program (Strang, 2000). Restorative justice programs have attracted much attention and indeed praise, which highlights their successes (Hudson, 1998, Braithwaite & Daly, 1994). Reports show that in general, victims and offenders are satisfied with restorative programs, particularly when reconciliation meetings and community services agreements are implemented. Restorative justice provides the opportunity for victims and offenders to have direct participation in the criminal justice process; this is particularly important for the victim. Restorative programs, in placing the victim at the centre of the criminal justice process, can allow the victim to come to terms with what has happened to them, causing them to understand that they are not to be blamed for their experiences: this is particularly important when applied to the domestic violence setting. Of course, restorative justice programs are not without their critics, particularly in relation to the evident difficulties experienced in adopting such programs for domestic violence offenders. Bringing the offender and victim together in instances of domestic violence often causes negative results, and such victims are often reluctant to even meet their offenders in the first place (Gehm, 1990). It is often argued that the implementation of informal meetings and mediation is not suitable for domestic violence cases (Astor, 1994), because such practices may further ingrain the inequality of the victim and the offender. Restorative justice is considered to be more suitable for youth offenders who commit generally less serious crimes; victims in such circumstances are often more willing to meet their victims (Gehm, 1990). Coker (1999) criticizes restorative justice, claiming that it fails to adequately deal with the offender, and is rather just a softer “cheap justice” option (p. 85): she rather suggests that domestic violence is a grave offence and thus should be treated as such. Restorative programs, however, serve to undermine the seriousness of such criminal behavior, thus worsening the situation rather than improving it. Restorative justice is also criticized as failing to address the societal causes of such behavior; particularly in societies or areas that condone or tolerate domestic violence; restorative justice thus is “an under-theorization of the nature of domestic violence” (Curtis-Fawley, 2005, p. 7). Restorative justice also depends on the type of victim that is involved: Umbreit (1990) categorizes victims into three groups: those who want to participate in the rehabilitation of the offender, those who want to receive compensation for their damages suffered as a result of the crime, and victims who may simply want revenge on the offender. Depending on which category the victim falls into, restorative justice may achieve differing levels of success. The amount of criticism aimed at restorative justice programs is also linked to the lack of studies conducted to examine the effect of different forms of restorative programs on both the offender and the victim (McCold, 1997). It is clear that a great deal more research is required before both criticisms and praises can be given much weight. Why does Domestic Violence Need Restorative Justice? Instances of domestic violence are a special form of criminal behaviour, particularly because they are often recurring and occur between persons who are in a relationship or marriage. Restorative justice programs have the opportunity to address the problems associated with domestic violence on a societal as well as individual level (Coker, 2006, p. 68): this includes gender differences often ingrained in societies (Coker, 2004). Restorative justice can promote and achieve change in response to a form of criminal behaviour that is not akin to burglary or property damage. The importance must be placed on the victim; the greatest developments and support can be provided through conveying to the victim that she is not suffering alone and that her suffering is not called for or condoned (Herman, 1992). Restorative justice in a domestic violence setting provides for the condemnation of gender-inequality attitudes which condone domestic violence, whilst also allowing for the victims to express their emotions and explain their experiences. This provides for a greater understanding for the offender to understand the effect of not only his actions, but also his underlying beliefs which could be described as the root cause of his behaviour (Curtis-Fawley, 2005, p. 8). Such programs also encourage the offender to admit to his destructive behaviour rather than simply ignore or deny it, something that retributive aims rarely achieve. Similarly, the familiarity between the victim and offender also results in failure to prosecute because the victim may not want to see the offender incarcerated. Restorative justice programs thus provide a suitable alternative which aims to deal with the offender in a manner that does not see him passed through the courts and inevitably his stay in prison. The more informal approach of restorative justice increases the likelihood that instances of abuse will be both reported and followed up by the victim. It is evident that domestic violence cannot be treated as any other crime, even on a restorative basis. It is thus necessary that a rather unique or specialised approach be taken to the issue, and an effective program be implemented and tailored to acknowledge the specific nature of domestic violence. Proposal Having regard to the aforementioned positive and negative aspects of restorative justice programs, as well as their proposed content and aims, it is thus necessary to propose a novel restorative justice program which seeks to incorporate the positive aspects, whilst avoiding the negative aspects in a specialised domestic violence setting. It is primarily necessary to thus establish what the program aims to achieve in its approach. The approach will consist of restorative, rehabilitative and retributive aspects, as it is suggested that a single, concentrated approach to dealing with violent offenders is not effective (Pence & Shepard, 1999). Because of the rather distinct and special setting within which domestic violence crimes are placed, the program must respond to the familiarity between the offender and the victim. As has already been stated, domestic violence is often not a ‘one-off’ instance of criminal behaviour; it is rather a circle of repeated violence within which both the offender and the victim become entangled (Holder, 2001). The following aims can thus be proposed: 1.) Breaking the cycle of occurrences of domestic violence: offenders coming to term with their behaviour, and victims regaining their autonomy and self-worth (Coker, 2006, p. 67). 2.) Communication between victim and offender so that they may express verbally their emotions in a neutral and safe environment. 3.) Rehabilitation of both victim and offender: counselling and therapy on an individual and group basis. 4.) Ensuring the safety of the victim. 5.) Community service for the offender. 6.) Participation of family and friends, particularly where offspring is involved. 7.) Reconciliation, if possible though not forced, and only at the express agreement and willingness of the victim. 8.) Follow-up support on a long-term basis. The program primarily needs to disentangle both parties from the circle of domestic violence. The victim needs to regain her sense of self and autonomy which requires that the danger or threat posed by the offender is removed. The offender, on the other hand, must come to terms with his behaviour, and understand the effect his actions have on the victim. It is suggested also that separation (if the couple are residing together) is necessary during the program, so that each may develop separately, and gain maximum benefits from face-to-face meetings. Such separation also allows the victim to escape any recurring violence which can be detrimental to the program. The next element of the program encompasses communication between the victim and the offender. Both will have the opportunity to meet on a regular basis (if desired and consented to) in a controlled and neutral environment in order for the victim to express her feelings, emotions and experiences. The offender will also be able to express himself, so that an effective level of communication may be reached between the parties. The offender may begin from an early stage to place himself in the position of the victim, thus increasing the likelihood that he accepts blame for his actions and well as understanding the gravity of his violence. Communication also encompasses talking to therapists and counsellors, both individually and together. The therapist or counsellor will coax the expression of emotions and explain what is happening whilst providing guidance for primarily the victim, but also the offender. Both victim and offender must be rehabilitated back into normality. It is often the case that they become accustomed to the cycle of domestic violence; this causes the offender to excuse, or even become used to his behaviour and the victim to become cut off from society such as friends and family, while she also is likely to become used to the occurrences of violence. Abuse of drug or alcohol on the part of the offender must be addressed and treated, as well as the root causes of his violent behaviour. Anger management courses will be made mandatory, as well as group sessions with other offenders and other such psychological treatment. The low self-esteem often caused by domestic violence must also be located and eased within the victim, allowing her to regain her autonomy and self-value and to come to terms with (a) what she has been through, and (b) that such a life will and can stop. Both parties must also be able to express themselves in face-to-face meetings, conducted in a safe and controlled yet comfortable environment, with supervision to analyse or coax the verbal quality of the meeting. Such a meeting in a neutral environment removes both parties from the environment in which the abuse cycle occurred, in an attempt to re-establish their equality. Optimum levels of safety must be provided for the victim so that she is able to participate in the program comfortably and effectively without fear. Such safety will also increase the likelihood that she will participate in the program from the outset. This may require that the offender be placed into a refuge, which will help her to socialise with other victims, allowing her to come to terms with her experiences and share them with others who understand her plight. The retributive aspect of the program will focus on community service in the form of community labour, or some other labour suited to the offender’s experiences and qualifications should he harbour any. This will of course avoid the use of incarceration, which can often be more disadvantageous than advantageous, yet still satisfy the need for the offender to repair his damage done to the victim and society. It is imperative however that the offender remain in society, because this will increase the likelihood that he will come to terms with his behaviour and seek to correct it rather than become segregated from normality through incarceration. The financial gain earned by the offender will be given to the victim in order to help her support herself and regain her freedom, as well as begin a new life. The participation of family and friends is also an option (Pennell & Burford, 2002, p. 108). This could encompass meetings with those directly involved or aware of the situation, in which they can also express their reaction to the offender’s actions, against helping him to acknowledge what he has done. This can also provide support for the victim, so that she does not feel as though she must participate in the program wholly alone. Support from family and friends who have direct participation in the program can be extremely beneficial for the victim. This is an aspect, however, which should not be mandatory, and only if the victim allows the participation of others – privacy is paramount in terms of the victim and thus the program must only inform or include others if the victim expressly agrees. This also applies to reconciliation. This is a final option for the program, yet not applicable to all. It may be the case that the offender and victim are married and do not wish to part, particularly if the offender displays great improvement and change in his behaviour. Reconciliation should never be recommended to the victim; rather it is an available option should she chose to restart her life with the offender. This will also encompass follow up support which will be undertaken on a long term basis, to ensure that repeat instances of violence are not occurring and that both parties remain developed and improved. This will also prevent instances in which the victim may not report repeat abuse, thus causing the cycle to dominate once again (Holder, 2001). Follow-up support is an important part of the program, consisting in visits which begin on a regular basis and gradually become less often as time passes. Overall, the program must constantly prioritise and focus on the safety of the victim (Coker, 2006, p. 67), the material as well as the social support given to the victim, and the more general root causes of domestic violence on a broader societal level. Reconciliation should never be promoted as a main goal of the program; should the victim or the situation require that permanent separation be maintained, the importance of material support becomes increased as the victim begins a new life free of domestic violence. This could also include support to find permanent housing as well as employment and relocation to prevent the victim experiencing fear of meeting the offender by chance. Overall, the program will not seek to ‘restore’ the victim and offender back to their ‘previous’ normality: it rather seeks to avoid the assumption “that a prior state existed in which a victim experienced significant liberty and the offender was integrated into the community”, because neither assumption may be accurate (Coker, 2002, p. 143). Conclusion: Proposal Outcome The proposed restorative justice program seeks to target and develop every area relating to domestic violence. While ultimate focus will be placed on the victim, it also realises that this inevitably connects the victim to the offender. While the treatment given to the offender is important, the program aims to support the victim in all areas, not only in terms of psychological problems caused by domestic violence. The program is flexible so that it can be altered to suit the needs of specific situations: this is relevant and necessary as a rigid application of the program may result in its detriment to some circumstances. The program aims to deal effectively with the victim, allowing her to participate as much or as little as she desires in the program, whilst keeping any contact between the victim and the offender controlled and safe. It aims to reinstate the victim as a member of society who is not to be blamed for the abuse she has suffered, as well as support her materially so that she main regain the autonomy she has inevitably lost as a result of the violence. The program also aims to rehabilitate the offender, with the help of the victim who will be able to help the offender understand his actions whilst she is also able to express her feelings and reaction to what has happened to her. The support provided to the victim will enable her to regain her life and thus be able to decide whether she chooses reconciliation or separation. It focuses on both offender and victim, whilst allowing the help of one to benefit the other in a mutual manner. The program appears promising, though time and application can unveil whether it will require alteration or revision in some areas. Bibliography Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1998). The psychology of criminal conduct (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. Astor, H. (1994). Swimming Against the Tide: Keeping Violent Men out of Mediation. In J. Stubbs (Ed), Women, Male Violence, and the Law. Sydney: The Institute of Criminology Monograph Series. Ballinger, A. 2009. Same as it Ever Was? In R. Coleman, J. Sim, S. Tombs, & D. Whyte (Eds.). State Power Crime. London: Sage. Braithwaite, J., & Daly, K. (1994). Masculinities, Violence and Communitarian Control. In T. Newburn & E. A. Stanko (Eds.), Just Boys Doing Business? Men, Masculinities, and Crime. London: Routledge. Braithwaite, J. (2002). Setting Standards for Restorative Justice. British Journal of Criminology 2(42), 563-577. Coker, D. (1999). Enhancing Autonomy for Battered Women: Lessons from Navajo Peacemaking. UCLA Law Review 3(47), 1-111. Coker, D. (2002). Transformative Justice: Anti-Subordination Processes in Domestic Violence Cases. In H. Strang & J. Braithwaite (Eds.). Restorative Justice and Family Violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coker, D. (2004). Race, Poverty, and the Crime-Centered Response to Domestic Violence: A Comment on Linda Mills's Insult to Injury: Rethinking Our Responses to Intimate Abuse. Violence Against Women 10(11), 1331-53. Coker, D. (2006). Restorative Justice, Navajo Peacemaking and Domestic Violence. Theoretical Criminology. 10(1), 67-85. Curtis-Fawley, S. (2005). Gendered Violence and Restorative Justice: The Views of Victim Advocates. Source: http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/50279/vaw_paper.pdf. Accessed: 01-12-2011. Gehm, J.R. (1990). Mediated Victim-Offender Restitution Agreements: An Exploratory Analysis of the Factors Related to Victim Participation. In B. Galaway & J. Hudson (Eds.). Criminal Justice, Restitution and Reconciliation. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press. Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A Meta-Analysis of the Predictors of Adult Offender Recidivism: What works! Criminology. 10(34), 575-607. Hanmer, J., & Griffiths, S. (2000). Policing Repeated Domestic Violence by Men: A New Approach. In J. Hanmer & C. Itzin (Eds.). Home Truths About Domestic Violence. London: Routledge. Herman, J.L. (1992). Trauma and Recovery. New York: Basic Books. Hester, M., & Westmarland, N. (2005). Tackling Domestic Violence: Effective Interventions and Approaches. Home Office Research Study 290, Stationery Office, London. Holder, R. (2001). Domestic and Family Violence: Criminal Justice Interventions. Australian Domestic & Family Violence Clearinghouse Issues Paper 3. Sydney: University of New South Wales. Howe, A. (1998). Sexed Violence in the News. Sydney: Federation Press. Hudson, B. (1998). Restorative Justice: The Challenge of Sexual and Racial Violence. Law and Society. 4(25), 237-256. Kurki, L. (2000). Restorative and Community Justice in the United States. In M. Tonry (Ed.). Crime and Justice: A Review of Research. Chicago: University of Chicago. May, T. (2009). Labour’s Failure to Tackle Violence Against Women. The New Statesman, 7 January 2009. Source: http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2009/01/rape-women-violence-government. Accessed: 30-11-2011. McCold, P. (1997). Restorative Justice: An Annotated Bibliography. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press. Messmer, H., & Otto, H.U. (1992). Restorative Justice: Steps on the Way to a Good Idea. In H. Messmer & H.U. Otto (Eds.). Restorative Justice on Trial. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Nuffield, J. (1997). Diversion programs for adults: User Report #1997-05. Ottawa: Solicitor General Canada. Pence, E., & Shepard, M. (1999). An Introduction: Developing a Coordinated Community Response. In E. Pence & M. Shepard (Eds). Coordinating Community Responses to Domestic Violence: Lessons from Duluth and Beyond. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Pennell, J., & Burford, G. (2002). Feminist Praxis: Making Family Group Conferencing Work. In H. Strang & J. Braithwaite (Eds.). Restorative Justice and Family Violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richardson, G., & Galaway, B. (1995). Evaluation of the Restorative Resolutions project of the John Howard Society of Manitoba. Canada: Ministry of the Solicitor General. Strang, H. (2000). Victim Participation in a Restorative Justice Process: The Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments’ Australian National University, Canberra. Umbreit, M. (1990). The Meaning of Fairness to Burglary Victims. In B. Galaway & J. Hudson (Eds.). Criminal Justice, Restitution, and Reconciliation. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press. Umbreit, M.S. (1994). Victim Meets Offender: The Impact of Restorative Justice and Mediation. Monsey, NY: Willow Tree Press. Read More