The Four Prototypes of Community Justice - Case Study Example

The Four Prototypes of Community Justice Introduction Community justice refers to the broad definition of how the community is involved in enhancing its quality of life. This refers to all the variants of crime prevention, the efforts out by the community to achieve this are usually to achieve a certain set of goals. These goals are focused on long term and short term problem solving strategies (Cadora et al., 2011). Some of the problems that the community looks to solve include effectively integrating offenders back into the community, enhancing normative standards, and victims and community restoration. To achieve this, the community is involved in security procedures and justice activities. The main goal of community justice is preventing community crime, community policing, defending the community, community prosecution and restorative court systems. The idea is formed around the notion that the community takes control of its policing activities in collaboration with the police system (Hayes & Bryant, 2002). This management of the community’s own public safety is essential because it gets everyone involved. This improves the flow of information to the authorities. Research methodology The methodology that will be employed in this analysis will involve an in-depth analysis of books authored and online discussions on the prototypes. This analysis will look to summarize and evaluate the extent of these prototypes and their application in the practical community setting. The idea of community justice will also be evaluated in general, and its practicality analyzed. A study of books authored on this subject will provide an essential source of material in the analysis. The study is also mainly meant to analyze the four different prototypes of the community justice system and their overall effectiveness. Mobilization model Citizen involvement in activities of crime prevention has become a normal practice in many communities. This has led to collaboration with the police to achieve reduced criminal activity in the communities. Because the community structure has changed, the dynamics of the nature of crimes has also increased (Cadora et al., 2011). The community struggles to keep up with these changes. Mobilization is one of the ways of ensuring that the changes felt in the community are achieved. In the mobilization model, police look to act as leaders in the community and mobilize members of the community. This mobilization is done to individuals and also to business representatives, educational institutions, both local and state owned, social providers and the youth. These and other groups are mobilized to work with various law enforcement agencies. The design of this process is made to maximize and fully utilize the individual and organization resources that, in turn, create sustainable and reliable efforts in crime prevention (Karp et al., 2002). The mobilization model is designed to use a multi-disciplinary team organization to approach and mobilize communities. They do this by getting information about problems that the community faces. The agencies approach various representatives of the community to work together (Hayes & Bryant, 2002). These teams mainly focus on strategies of crime prevention. The crimes they are encouraged to focus on are ones that involve schools, families and the community at large. The model is designed so that the existing teams provide resources to new joining members. An advantageous characteristic of the community mobilization model is the monitoring and evaluation component (Cadora et al., 2011). This characteristic enables the model to enhance its transferability and sustainability. The records that are stored on most of the problems that they encounter and solve will help address similar future problems should they arise. Involvement Model In the community justice programs, another model that is applied is the involvement model. Because community justice is mostly concerned with the citizens, getting them involved is one of the ways that the authorities are looking to achieve this (Bursik & Garmick, 1993). This is mostly important because the crimes that happen in the community affect its citizens. So getting them involved gives them great influence and control over what happens in their community. Even some of the busy, or least involved, citizens can influence some practices by attending and sharing their views on the issues of crime. Others, who are more involved, usually commit their time to more involving programs and projects. Their roles mostly include taking part in crime prevention activities, in the community, helping offenders get re-integrated back into the community and also providing support to victims of community crimes (Cadora et al., 2011). Still, there are some community members who are involved on other levels, they take the more administrative and formal roles in the community activities. They can provide their professional input into the organization of these activities. They also help in the management of the community justice practices and how they are carried out. They are mostly on advisory boards of the community justice programs (Hayes & Bryant, 2002). This model is mainly driven by the idea that, in a community, the members operate on a democratic level, that democracy is made to work in the community’s best interests, and the society’s welfare as a whole (Rogers, 2005). Members do not go to look out for themselves. This was learned from the failures of the notion that community crimes and public safety in general should entirely be the responsibility of the system tasked with the duty of handling criminal justice. This model gives the community members the opportunity to fully get involved in the activities and practices that directly affect them. The advantage of this is that the community members have the full information on the practices, whether criminal or otherwise, that happen within their community. So, when it comes to dealing with these problems, they are at a better standing to solve these issues. This is done in collaboration with the authorities, but the greater information input comes from the community. When the offenders are back to society, and they are ready to be reintegrated into it, the community plays a great role in this (Karp et al., 2002). Partnership Model In this model, a community organization partners with government agencies to tackle the community’s social problems and achieve better living conditions in the area. The community organization may be institution-based such as a church, youth club or school, or issue-based such as the popular neighborhood watch associations and community development organizations (Rogers, 2005). The government agency may be locally based, such as the local police department and local government, or it may be higher-up on the level of the state or region such as the Criminal Justice Department. The requirement for notation as an organization is that the members meet regularly, and the organization has a name. For this model to work, commitment from both sides and especially from the community organization is essential. The community organization needs to be serious and committed to acting on the problems the community is facing, such as reducing drug abuse in the school or preventing vandalism and graffiti in the neighborhood. Once this commitment from the community organization is noted, the government agency is more likely to commit itself to projects and provide funding and other resources to projects (Bursik & Garmick, 1993). Several factors are crucial to the success of community justice partnerships. First, the organizations involved must have a deep understanding of the issues affecting that community. For example, if a neighborhood is crime-riddled and many teenagers are involved in crimes and going to prison, there may be underlying issues causing all this crime. Unearthing the ‘why’ of these crimes will be the first step towards arriving at a solution (Cadora et al., 2011). It is also important that the partnership has a clear set of goals and objectives and a method of achieving them. This makes it possible to quantify whether progress is being achieved or not. Partnerships must also try to recruit as much public support and involvement as they can. This should be to get more members of the community and the public, to be actively involved in the justice programs (Moore et al., 2005). Intermediary Model This model utilizes an intermediate person or organization as a go-between who facilitates communication between the community and the justice system. This intermediary is mostly responsible for facilitating communication between the community and the authorities. They are seen as representatives from both sides. The intermediaries may be found on the other levels of community justice such as the involvement model and the partnership model. Intermediary organizations have been found to improve the efficiency of community justice partnerships as they are likely to have more professionalism and experience. They can, therefore, evoke more trust in the partnership, negotiate funding deals from the government and mediate conflicts (Moore et al., 2005). With the necessary funding, the effectiveness of this model is ensured. An example of an intermediary is a faith-based community organization (FBCO) that negotiates reparative justice between offenders and the affected families. Faith- based organizations have achieved success in mediation as they recruit members from the grassroots of the community, have extensive knowledge of the community they work in and may appeal to personal interests such as an individual’s faith to get people involved in community justice (Karp et al., 2002). Intermediaries may also be better equipped to deal with issues such as domestic violence and other family disputes. They are better than the police, as they can adopt methods other than arrests, such as negotiation. In the involvement model, an intermediary may be brought in to negotiate reparative or restorative justice between the offender and the aggrieved (Rogers, 2005). The intermediary may be a volunteer member of the community with experience in the justice system, a law enforcement officer or a judicial system member. A conference between willing victims and recalcitrant, often juvenile offenders may be organized for an arrangement beneficial to all parties (Bursik & Garmick, 1993). Summary Community justice takes an innovative, different approach from the traditional justice system by treating members of the public not as mere consumers of justice, meted out by the government, but as active participants. This system is advantageous because ordinary people get a chance to participate in crime-fighting in their neighborhoods, punishing offenders in their midst and collaborating with law-enforcement agencies to better their living conditions. This can make a big difference especially in high-crime areas where rampant crime has been managed by active community participation (Bursik & Garmick, 1993). The community is responsible for its own public safety and crime prevention strategies. This is easier to achieve because everyone in that community would want to ensure their safety and well-being. Although, sometimes, it is quite hard to achieve, in communities where community justice has been achieved, its advantages are numerous. The law enforcers have sufficient sources of information about the community’s activities. This helps them keep track of crimes and even potential crime doers (Karp et al., 2002). Victims of crimes within the community always find it easier to get comfort from the people familiar to them. Some communities have set up rehabilitation programs to help these victims, especially the ones of serious crimes. This is one of the biggest merits of the community justice system. Community justice, despite its merits, is not without problems. A major problem is getting the community to fully participate (Bursik & Garmick, 1993). Some people may not want to be associated with neighborhood watch programs, viewing their involvement as risky to their lives or livelihoods. In especially dangerous neighborhoods, members who fight crime outspokenly may be ostracized or even physically harmed. The problem of refusal to name people involved in criminal activities is common among young people, who colloquially term it as “snitching”. Refusal to “snitch” on criminals may decrease the likelihood of communities finding the perpetrators of crimes. Legal hurdles may also present a problem as the legality of some community policing methods may be put to question (Rogers, 2005). The ability of the community to deal with offenders always has to be within legal statutes. Contravention of any law, no matter what the mitigating circumstances are, makes the decision of the community illegal. Funding for community justice programs is also a major issue, with the government unable to fund each and every program that comes up. Whatever the good work and intentions of community justice programs, insufficient funding may result in their death. References Bursik, R. J., & Garmick, H. G. (1993). Neighborhood and crime: The dimensions of effective community control. New York: Lexington Books. Cadora, E. T., Hamilton, R. C., & Althur, J. R. (2011). Community justice. London: Routledge. Hayes, J. S., & Bryant, E. (2002). Sustaining comprehensive community initiatives: Key elements for success. New York: The Finance Project. Karp, D. R., & Todd, R. C. (2002). What is community Justice?: Case Studies of Restorative Justice and Community Supervision (Key Questions for Criminal Justice). New York: Sage Publication. Moore, G. E., Roman, C. A. Jenkins, S., & Small, M. K. (2005). Understanding community justice partnerships: Assessing the capacity to partner. Washington: National Institute for Justice. Rogers, B. M. (2005). New directions in community justice. London: Institute for Public Policy Research. Appendix 1-Community Justice Community Justice 2nd Edition By Todd Clear, John R Hamilton, Jr., Eric Cadora Published November 26th 2010 by Routledge – 158 pages View Inside this Book Complimentary Exam Copy Companion Website Purchasing Options: Paperback: 978-0-415-78027-8: $49.95 Add to Cart Hardback: 978-0-415-78026-1: $130.00 Add to Cart Description Contents Author Bio Subjects Community Justice discusses concepts of community within the context of justice policy and programs, and addresses the important relationship between the criminal justice system and the community in the USA. Taking a bold stance in the criminal justice debate, this book argues that crime management is more effective through the use of informal (as opposed to formal) social control. It demonstrates how an increasing number of criminal justice elements are beginning to understand that the development of partnerships within the community that enhance informal social control will lead to a stabilization and possible a decline in crime, especially violent crime, and make communities more liveable. Borrowing from an eclectic toolbox of ideas and strategies - community organizing, environmental crime prevention, private-public partnerships, justice initiatives – Community Justice puts forward a new approach to establishing safe communities, and highlights the failure of the current American justice system in its lack of vision and misuse of resources. Providing detailed information about how community justice fits within each area of the criminal justice system, and including relevant case studies to exemplify this philosophy in action, this book is essential reading for undergraduate and postgraduate students of subjects such as criminology, law and sociology. Appendix 2-Contributing to Community Development Contributing To Community Development There are three activities that Im most keen to develop further as a contribution towards Community Development: 1) Sharing what we own 2) Developing Mutual Support Systems through Timebank Brokerage (Focussed Networks of Time Exchanges that build Social Justice). 3) Building a comprehensive Community Justice System (so that no grievance is left over; everyone knowing how to get support to process any dispute or conflict.) My belief is that to do the above work in a way that really transforms our communities into resilient networks of friends and friendliness, small teams of people committed to working through their differences (& celebrating these differences) are required. I would dearly love to once again be (as I was before moving to St Leonards) in a team of people who develop the skills and fortitude to engage people on their thresholds (door-knockers). (Jeremy Birch stressing the on-going commitment needed from 100 community activists gathered on 9th February 2012 & from others too: http://youtu.be/HTL-V3rUDms) Though I havent yet inspired a St Leonards team to knock-on doors for the sake of the development of our community, I sense that this possibility is getting nearer after the 2012 St Leonards Community Planning meetings began. Below Im with Erica Smith of the Hastings Network and with Jeremy Birch, the leader of Hastings Borough Council: (The link to the film is http://youtu.be/GtFsOBt81y0)  Does anyone want to join me in filming more in this series about (Hastings &) St Leonards being the place we know with the highest quality of life at the lowest cost of living & CAMPAIGNING TO PROTECT THAT FROM INITIATIVES -some of which are sadly, Council led- which threaten the low cost of living here as a questionable regeneration strategy risking generating only another Brightonesque "London by the Sea"?  This film is the first in the new CAMPAIGNING series: "The Cost of Living in St Leonards): (The link to the film is http://youtu.be/ceXVYSa2Qpg) I do much of my work on facebook; the stages of my best work being 1. Dreaming and Visioning 2. Planning  3. Networking & Doing,  4. Reviewing (Then round this cycle again and again. I even taught the dream-cycle to a year group of students in the central city of India -Nagpur- in 2010: http://nagaloka-dream-cycle.blogspot.com) So heres some January and February 2012 Dream Cycling (including the crucial stage of depression, or "inspirational dissatisfaction", which is what I transform depression into, whenever I can): You had a team,possible friendships...we are also still here wtf..a bit of soul serching would probaby help heal that heart of yours sweety. 9 January at 23:53 · Like ·  1 Patsy Solanki  Nobody truly gets pushed out, we pull ourselves out by our own volition. Its our choice to say to others Im outside but with the intention to come back in. That takes courage and commitment Paul. But to blame a society is to take the responsibility from us, where we can control it and make it better, to others, where we expect THEM to change to suit us in our current trend. Blame is irresponsible and also untruthful. If we feel ill at ease, it is us who need to address our own needs and serve them better, the honest way 10 January at 09:13 · Like ·  1 Paul Crosland  After my last relationship (which she ended due to overwhelm), Ive taken 3 months off from seeing her in order to disentangle things. Here now is "Some of the Disentangling of what I have learned from this last relationship?" -which applies also to my interactions with many others in Hastings (eg The Happiness crew): 1) That I wish Id spent more of the period of her & I having significant time for each other establishing how wed want to process the inevitable conflicts ahead. 2) That I took much for granted & built some fantasies for the future without establishing enough of a shared bedrock. 3) That I pressed some buttons that set off alarms. 4) That I could do better. 5) That I know more clearly what Id be looking for in any future relationship in terms of acceptance in particular. 6) That I find it hard to give affection, acceptance, appreciation in the way that it is perhaps most wanted by people of this era and that I crave too. Thursday at 23:18 · Like Patsy Solanki Good learning Friday at 17:27 · Like Facebook helps team-building to a certain extent; yet there is also the practical task of gathering resources and influence into the structure of an organisation with a strong track record. One such organisation that supports me in doing this work is the company I set up after being "Head of Restorative Justice" for 5 years at Mediation UK -the national charity which used to exist to represent and support community mediation services. The company I set up in 2006 to carry on some of this work across England & Wales and which now assists in the delivery of a wider community development portfolio is called Mediation Support Ltd. If you are interested in developing any (or all) of the above areas of work, please drop me an email via the Mediation Support contact form which clearly states what youd like to happen next to further your interests. Another structure that (alongside co-director Edmund Johnson) is being offered to communities in East Sussex and beyond is the Community Interest Company (a bit like a charity but easier to run) that we set up in 2008 and whose work has been hailed both by the leading UK Sustainability Think Tank, Forum for the Future, and within one of the seminal "transition books" of our era: "The Moneyless Man" by (out-there) Mark Boyle. The Community Interest Company that you are invited to apply to co-direct is currently called Freelending CIC. One of the fun spin-off of this work in developing how communities can share more (eg tools, clothes, cars, beachhuts, DVDs, conversations) and build-trust is the creation of the "Lend-It-All Man" persona:  Below are the links to websites & organisations related to these activities and with which I am, or have been, associated:  To see a glimpse of the ideas of how “Sharing what we own” might develop, seewww.streetbank.com, www.freelender.org, www.freelenders.blogspot.com For “Creative Timebank Brokerage”, example websites are www.timebanking.orgwww.stleonardssharing.info www.east-sussex-veg-people.blogspot.comwww.ethicaloutings.blogspot.com  For “Building a Community Justice System”, prototype websites includewww.peoplesjustice.org.uk & www.restorativetechnology.blogspot.com (based on winning the Social Innovation Camp 2010 -”the web idea most likely to reduce youth offending and youth custody” & www.apologyplus.org.uk (earlier foundation work from 2006). For “Door-knocking as a Team-Building Occupation”, my inspiration comes from work which I did whilst employed by www.karuna.org The “two-step” fundraising model they use has great potential as I see it to be applied to increasing our connections with our neighbours. (More background on the skills, ethics and integrity required in the kind of door-knocking that opens hearts available on request; this is what in my opinion Community Development Work could benefit from greatly …..) AGAIN: If you are interested in developing any (or all) of the above areas of work, please drop me an email via the Mediation Support contact form Please reflect first on what youd like to happen next to further your interests & your care for the well-being of your local community. Labels: Door-knocking, Mediation Support Ltd, sharing, st Leonards sharing Read More