Restorative Justice--Good method to good promises

Abstract:

Restorative justice is a popular terminology in recent years. In my paper, I analyze why restorative justice can successfully attract our attention. Since restorative justice leads to good promises and the promises made in that practice is quite effective, my paper will focus on how restorative justice does a better job in field of promise or accountability than traditional justice does.

Key words: restorative justice, traditional justice, promise, accountability

I: Definition of restorative justice

Restorative justice is a process to involve, to the extent possible,

those who have a stake in an injustice to collectively identify and address harms, needs and obligations in order to heal and put things as right as possible (Braithwaite, 2006). Restorative justice is reactive, consisting of formal or informal responses to crime and other wrongdoing after it occurs (Wikipedia).

Restorative justice promises a better way of responding to offending. It promises to better address the needs of crime victims, to better hold offenders accountable for their behavior, to provide a better mechanism through which offenders can repair the harms caused by crime, and through which offenders can they successfully reintegrated into the communities they have wronged (Hayes, 2005). Compared to traditional justice, restorative justice does a better job in reaching promise and holding promise provider (provider) to be accountable.

II: What has led to prosperity of restorative justice?

A: Transformation of community and government

Because traditional justice seldom involves community in decision

making, communities did not make use of its power in healing and preventing hurt. One principle of restorative justice is about rethinking the relative roles and responsibilities of government and the community in the response to crime by increasing the responsibility and resources of the latter (Bazemore, O’Brien & Carey, 2006). With involvement with community in coping with crime, promise providers take accountability proactively. Furthermore, with support from the community, the process of promise accomplishment is more fluently.

B: Development of knowledge management

Knowledge management is defined as the process of creating, acquiring, sharing and managing knowledge to augment individual and organizational performance (HR Magazine). Without a systematic method of sharing and hoarding knowledge of making promises in restorative justice, people around the world cannot implement such skills in their real life. Fortunately, development of technology helps improvement of knowledge management. Through referring to databases, people understand how to make good promise and how to achievement promise effectively. By sharing information, people let others know how to manage promise effectively. Thus, updated knowledge management leads more people to know restorative justice and apply it in their communities.

III: Restorative justice leads to reach good promises

Restorative justice provides stakeholders ways in achieving good promises.

A: Free speech leads to good promises

In order to reach a meaningful promise, both sides must explicitly

thrash out what the customer wants and why, how the provider would go about satisfying the request and any constraints or competing priorities that could derail fulfillment of the promise (Braithwaite, 2006). Through traditional justice in school, teachers or headmaster take charge of punishment. The result is that the victims continue to suffer from violence or the perpetrators are insulted by the victims after they are punished. On the opposite, in terms with restorative justice, three parties of administrators of schools (mediators), victims and offenders have a chance to express their problems, needs and solution. In this situation, the victims can explicit their pain, so the offenders know the victims’ request. Meanwhile, the offenders also have an opportunity to clarify their problems. Through the win-win negotiation, the pie was enlarged and everyone gets what they really wants (Thompson, 2009). Based on clarification, promises are effective.

The following case can show the advantage:

In the case of Oakland classroom, during the conference, three parties express their problems. Tom told others why he felt tired in the classroom and the teacher talked about her reason of assault. Then three parties reached good promise that Tom should show respect to the teacher while the teacher should take care of students in return.

In restorative justice, three parties can obtain a common and

realistic understanding of what it will take to satisfy the victims, possible obstacles to delivery, and what the community and victims can do to help if difficulties arise or other priorities compete for the offender’s time and attention (Sull & Spinosa, 2007). Compared with traditional justice, restorative justice provides three parties an opportunity to get to know each other better. In traditional justice, such opportunity is rare. In the case, I have mentioned, if there is no conference for the teacher and Tom, the teacher would quit the job and Tom may continue his misbehavior.

Furthermore, accountability is sharpened when the discussion in a restorative justice circle leads to the conclusion that what the offenders have proposed is not enough to acquit their responsibility; further deliberation is required and a fresh account must be provided of the responsibility to be taken (Braithwaite, 2006). In restorative justice, stakeholders’ common goal is to benefit both victims and offenders. By free speech, bundles of choices are provided to all people, when they are dissatisfied with one, they can select another that meets their request.

The following case can reveal the advantage crystal clear:

Johnson’s camper-van was stole and crashed by Terry who was

only 16 years old. This tragedy brought Johnson not only rage but also economic problem since Johnson depended on that van to make money. During the process, at first, Johnson accepted Terry’s apologize, but he thought it was not enough, since his family suffered from economic lost and scary. Then, Terry promised to do what he can do to help them, such as writing letters and giving presents to Johnson’s children. In the court, Johnson may get compensation from Terry no matter it is enough to heal or not. Yet, in direct communication with Terry, he can make more requests to heal.

B: The way of achieving the promise in under supervision

It is easy to say than to do. A promise is fragile when it is talked by mouth or even written. However, in restorative justice, the process focuses on the process of achieving the promise. The victims or offenders can continue to seek for help or start negotiation when they have found that the promise cannot be done (Sull & Spinosa, 2007). On the opposite, in traditional justice, the punishment or sanction is only one-time available.

In the case of indecent assault on sister’s best friends, in family

group meetings project, Robert and other groups had an action plan. In the reflection, the mediator wrote that further negotiation was needed in the future to ensure the safety of the victim. Thus when Robert cannot achieve what he was expected to do, new negotiations will start to make new plans to protect victim and Robert can get more help in returning to the right track.

C: Long-term benefit

From a restorative justice perspective, justice is always unfinished

business until an account has been accepted by the stakeholders in the injustice (Braithwaite, 2006). In restorative justice process, not only the way of achieving promise is in public supervision, but the feedbacks are publicly collected. Unlike traditional justice in which the result is publicized for one time, hosts of restorative justice record the result of surveys and re-offend rate.

In the case of four boys damaging the classroom, the conference was successful. After the mediation, victim satisfaction surveys are all returned and recidivism rate is also recorded.

In addition, in the case, two girls stole money from their friend. The victim, Leilani, got help from the mediators after the two girls apologized.

Furthermore, in contrast with formal legal system, restorative

justice lays foundation of further negotiation. One core value of restorative justice is to heal the victims and reintegrate offender to the community again. On one hand, by keeping in touch with the stakeholders, mediators can track whether the promise is achieved or not. If the providers cannot accomplish on time what they have mentioned, the mediation can intervene to help. Through continuous open and honest negotiation, trust can be built (Hurley, 2006), thus offenders can get involved in the community again. On the other hand, the mediators can help victims heal the pain whenever they need such aids.

In a brief summary, in the aspect of getting to promise, restorative

justice meets the three phases of reaching effective promises. Firstly, it provides an opportunity to all stakeholders to meet each other’s minds. Thus what can be done or cannot be done is clear to everyone. Secondly, restorative justice offers a platform for everyone to restart negotiation when they dissatisfied the promise. Finally, unlike traditional justice focuses on the past and decision on punishment, restorative justice looks forwards to long-term benefit (Kidder, 2007). Through trilateral negotiation, it reduces cost in long-term promise achievement.

IV: Good promises

Besides the way of getting promise is effective, the promise itself is powerful.

A: Good promise is public

Promises that are made, monitored, and completed in public are

more binding–and therefore more desirable – than side deals hammered out in private. When people promise before their families, friends and other witness, they can’t conveniently forget what they said they would do, recall only a few conditions of a promise, or back out of an uncomfortable commitment entirely (Sull & Spinosa, 2007). In restorative justice, three parties are sitting together, thus there is a chance for them to express their resolution in public. In contrast with traditional criminal justice, all parties make promise during the meetings. Naturally, they cannot easily forget what they say in the public. Even if they pretend to forget the commitment, other parties can show them evidence.

In the case of burglary of a factory caused by a group of boys, they

brought large economic lost to the factory. After the conference, the factory manager forgave the boys and promised to give a job to Damien after he left school. This promise was effective despite that Damien was 11 years old at that time, because this promise was made in the conference, among all parties. If the manager could not make it, he has to undertake high cost of rebuilding his trust in the community (Thompson, 2009).

B: Good promise is active

Active conversations should comprise offers, counteroffers,

commitments, and refusals rather than endless assertions about the state of nature (Sull & Spinosa, 2007). In participation-based system which is similar to restorative justice, one significant step is to enable different stakeholders to form a clear idea of how they achieve the mission (McAllum, 2013). If they misunderstand others’ meaning, trust may destroy and the relationship may worsen (Thompson, 2009). In traditional court, offenders and victims just have chances to provide evidence to show them guilty or not. Thus there is no chance for them to express what they want others to know clearly. In restorative justice process, every party collaborates to heal. Through restorative justice practice, everyone has an equal chance to make their ideas clearly.

In the case of restorative justice, one girl assaulted another girl by

beating her with a vodka bottle. The victim, Jodie felt scare. If the school implemented traditional punishment, Jodie’s frighten could not have been heard by the offender, so that no action would be taken to heal. Restorative justice offers her a chance to express her feeling and two girls committed to end their friendship and avoid further incidents. Through clarification and commitments, Jodie can get on her own life without anxiety.

Furthermore, this kind of negotiation becomes more effective since everyone listens carefully to the other. By active listening, not only others know the problem better, but also more creative solution may be raised (Mehta, 2012).

In the case of indecent assault on sister’s best friend, in family group meetings project, victim, Laura and her mother listened to the meeting carefully and raised powerful ideas to draft the action plan for Robert. If they two did not listen and understanding the meeting, misunderstand would raise.

C: Good promise is voluntary

The most effective promises are not coerced; they are voluntary.

The provider has viable options for saying something other than yes (Sull & Spinosa, 2007). Using legal statues or evidence to sanction the offender is important, but justice cannot be achieved by simply giving responsibility through commands. The restorative justice ideal of responsibility is active responsibility as a virtue, the virtue of taking responsibility, as opposed to passive responsibility we are held to (Braithwaite, 2006). Through win-win negotiation, promise providers know what others want and after assessing what they can do, they make their commitment without commands.

After three boys breaking the windows of a church, reparation work

began among the Vicar, Curate, their parents, offenders and the mediator. Having listened to Vicar and Curate closely, three boys promised to undertake weeding and ground work in the church. This promise is mentioned proactively instead of accepting orders from policy station only. Before the mediation, three boys had already received Final Warnings from the policy. With only one warning, the boys did not acknowledge what they had done have serious impact on the community, let alone promise. Oppose to traditional justice, through restorative justice intervention, three boys made proactive promise.

D: Good promise is explicit

Customers and providers should clearly acknowledge who will do

what for whom and by when. Requests must be clear from the start, progress reports should accurately reflect how the promise is being executed, and success (or failure) should be outlined in detail at the time of delivery (Sull & Spinosa, 2007).

Based on facts and evidence, traditional criminal justice orders promises to offenders or victims, without taking whether the promise is practical or not. This kind of promise is easy to talk, but few can walk the talk, since one party may never accomplish the promise because of incompetence. What is worse, if one party cannot keep the passive promise, the trust between the party and community destroyed, then the party can hardly reintegrate the community again.

On the other side, restorative justice provides stakeholders plans

and feedbacks in accomplishing the commitment. During the negotiation, plans are made, everyone knows what to do to correct the delinquents and heal the victims. In the process of achieving the commitment, when one party cannot deliver the promise, others will be involved in renegotiation and helps will be given. A plan may be delayed for factors that people cannot control, while, if someone cannot walk the talk, he or she may lose trustworthy. However, restorative justice avoid that since, during the life cycle of promise achievement, open negotiation is continuous, if the plan cannot be finished, new plans can be made.

Paul aged 16 robbed a 15 year old boy named Gavin who went to the same school as him. During the period of court adjournment, Paul was referred to victim- offender mediation project with his sister. Gavin and his mother also attended the mediation. After the mediation, they had a detailed agreement, related to how they interact when they meet on the campus. In launching the agreement, both parents support them to fulfill the plan.

E: Mission based promise is effective

The most effective promise is mission based. When the providers know the importance and rationale of the promise, they are more likely to persist in executing even they encounter roadblocks (Sull & Spinosa, 2007).

Orders and commands are key solution for traditional justice practice. Seldom illustration about why people should do so is given. Thus, promise broken is usual. What is worse, without taking promise seriously destroys trust among people and community, distrust makes it more difficulty to reintegrate into the community again.

On the opposite side, in the perspective of restorative justice, because crime hurts, justice should heal (Braithwaite, 2006). In restorative justice practice, it involves open and honest communication, thus, everyone gets to know the value of the promises and they will persist in healing the offender.

Three teenage boys hung a sack of manure from a bridge leading to an accident to the train passed by. In order to repair, three boys were given a chance to work with the clean team during the night. Since they knew they can repair in this way, though the work was tough, they persisted to fulfill that.

Conclusion:

Having found the weakness of formal traditional justice, change of

our society and development of knowledge management, restorative justice is an alternative that attracts our attention in solving conflicts. Through open and honest negotiation, restorative justice offers us a plat form for effective promises. Unlike traditional justice system, people passively accept responsibility, restorative justice allows stakeholders to promise, and achieve their promises proactively. Furthermore, restorative justice has the advantage that not only the promise is good; the way of walking the talk is also effective with the participation of the whole community.

Reference: 

Braithwaite, J. (2006). Accountability and Responsibility Through Restorative Justice. London: Cambridge University Press.

Hayes, H. (2005). Assessing Reoffending in Restorative Justice Conference. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology. 38(1). 77-101.

Bazemore, G., O'Brien, S., Carey, M. (2005). The Synergy and Substance of Organizational and Community Change in the Response to Crime and Conflict: The Emergence and Potential of Restorative Justice. Public Organization Review. 5(4). 287-314.

HR Magazine. (2009). Leveraging HR and Knowledge Management in a Challenging Economy. HR Magazine. 54(6). 1-9

Thompson, L, L. (2009). The mind and heart of the negotiator. Boston: Pearson. 

Sull, D. N., Spinosa, C. (2007). Promise-Based Management. Harvard Business Review. 85(4). 78-86

Hurley, R, F. (2006). The Decision to Trust. Harvard Business Review. 84(9). 55-62

Kidder, D, L. (2007). Restorative justice: not "rights", but the right way to heal relationships at work. International Journal of Conflict Management. 18(1). 4-22

McAllum, K. (2013). Workplace Conflict: Three Paths to Peace. IESE Insight. Third Quarter (1). 48-55

Mehta, K. (2012). Five Essential Strategies for Creative Negotiations. IESE Insight. Fourth Quarter (15). 50-57

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_practices 

Source of cases

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmpGg8Dy-K4

http://www.restorativejustice.org/RJOB/discipline-with-dignity-oakland-classrooms-try-healing-instead-of-punishment#1393798172668898 

40 cases: Restorative Justice and Victim-Offender Mediation. (2003) Bristol: Mediation UK. 

Should I trust you again?

One popular myth in company is that never collaborate with your friends. To some degrees, it is true, since cooperation can do harm to trust among friends. However, there are skills for us to work with friends effectively and efficiently. In the following context, I will share one failure of working with my friends and I will summarize what I have learned from this lesson.

I. Collaborating with friends → broken heart

In 2012, when I worked as a management trainee, I got a chance to

form my own team and finish the annual report. After asking some of my friends whether they were willing to work with me, I formed the team of 6 persons, all were my friends. I thought that I could work well with my friends, unfortunately, however, during the collaboration, I have found that they were not trustworthy since they could not walk the talk. Besides finishing my task independently, I had to finish their task. Finally, I chose to never trust them anymore, since I believed that they gave me low scores in peer evaluation. As for my friends, yet, they thought I treated them unfairly, since they did not get enough bonus.  

II. My model of trust

A. Evaluation of myself

Generally speaking, I tend to take an overly rosy view, assuming that most people are decent and would never harm me (Kramer, 2009).

a. Risk tolerance (high level)  

Naturally, I have high level risk tolerance. In this case, I thought that though the project was crucial, it was simple, since all data and information were available. Without finding any obvious problem, I was sure that my team would finish the project perfectly (Hurly, 2006). Confidant could motivate us. However, without taking potential troubles into account could lead me to trouble without preparation.



b. Level of adjustment (high level)

I see the world are full of people with a beautiful mind and I also believe that nobody will do harm to me if I treat them well. Since I prone to trust other easily, I should get better at interpreting the cues when I choose to trust others (Kramer, 2009).

c. Relative power (medium-low level)

Though I am the team leader, in the office, we are peers. In this team, I had limited power to sanction a team member. With communal norms in mind, I had to be sensitive to the needs of my friends (Thompson, 2009). Therefore, when they could not finish their task, I had to undertake the burden instead of punishing them.

B. Peers evaluation

a. Job security (high level)



No worry about losing jobs

At that time, I formed a task force. When the annual report finished, our team disbanded. If we did a good job, our manager would give us extra bonus, whereas, if not, I would be criticized, but we all could keep our job. Therefore, in that situation, we all had high level of job security.


b. Physical similarity (high level)

As the saying goes that
people tend to more easily trust those who
appear similar to themselves (Hurly,2006). Affect-based trust also influenced my judgment, since we worked and lived in the same circumstance and gave support to each other in our work (Thompson, 2009).  Yet, trust depends on physical similarity is weak. In building trust, everyone should share the same vision (Thompson, 2009).


Based on these factors mentioned above, I made the decision to trust my team, however, the result was unexpectedly terrible. The root of the problem is that I rely mostly on my affective route to build trust while ignore the cognitive route. In further analyze, I have found that the following factors totally destroyed our trust.


c. Alignment of interest (low level)

Though we are physically similar, I ignored mental factors.  In particular, our tendency to judge trustworthiness on the basis
of physical similarities and other surface cues can prove disastrous (Kramer, 2009).

We did not have the same interest. At that time, my duty was to finish the annual report on time and in good quality, yet, my friends, they did not care much about the report, what they cared most was the coming holiday. Meanwhile, my friends prefer doing administrative work to data analyze. While I would rather do numeric analyze than paper work. Without same interest, I cannot trust their work. Besides revising their work, I had to undertake more since I believed that the more they did, the more I had to redo.

d. Predictability and integrity (low level)

Unfortunately, I had not realize the problem that my friends had a

fame of delay and unqualified job until we worked in the team. Failing to note such characters brought me frustration and also broke our trustworthy. Yet, this also reminds me that I should collect as much information as I can in avoidance of boundary decision and keep vigilant in collaboration.

e. Open communication (low level)

If the factors about no common interests or unpredictable behavior does harm to our trust, then no open communication was the last straw.

At the time of selecting team members, I should have open communication with my supervisors, friends and other colleagues. From these communication, I could find someone who has the same interest as mine. Based on cognitive route, I can make my decision smarter.

Assume that even if I had chosen the wrong persons, when I found these friends are not dependable, I should have open communication with them instead of keeping silent and undertaking extra burden. Poor communication created information asymmetry and suspicion (Kramer, 2009). As no open communication among us, I had complaints that my friends could not complete their task while my friends tended to perceive that they had finished their task successfully.


Miscommunication causes us to feel betrayed, which leads to a

greater breakdown in communication and, eventually, outright distrust (Hurly,2006). During the process of peer evaluation, I did not inform my friends, that I would implemented exchange norms in allocating welfare. Yet, I guessed that they thought I would make judgment on communal norm, taking their needs and our relationship into consideration (Thompson, 2009). With information asymmetry, they felt furious about the result, in return, they gave me low scores without taking my effort into consideration.



Illustration of My Trust Model

III. What did I learn?

After the horrible experience, I became quite vigilant. In the future, if I can have chances to collaborate with my friends, I will do the following things.

A. Know myself

Human beings change their behavior in term with the environment. In my case, I tend to be good at trusting others. Yet, in the future, in different occasions, I will alter my disposition towards trust. However, no matter what change will be, the key solution is to know myself clearly. If I still easily trust others, I will be vigilant and collect more information before I make a decision. If I become good at recognizing cues but have difficulty forging trusting relationships, then I will note to expand my repertoire of behaviors so that I will not lose a chance (Kramer, 2009).

B. Negotiating with friends

 

To negotiate with friends is inevitable though we will be faced

with internal value conflicts between personal relationships and needs for achievement. In accordance with the win-win negotiation skills, I think the following ways can improve our negotiation.

a. Send strong signal when team formed

In order to keep the trust relations on an even keel, and the playing field level, I have to be willing not only to take chances by initially trusting a bit (signaling the willingness to cooperate) but also to retaliate strongly, quickly, and proportionately (signaling
that you will strike back when your trust is abused) (Kramer, 2009). Thus, when my team built, I will illustrate that I am willing to trust them and I have confidance in our collaboration. However, if someone cannot walk the talk, then, severe punishment will also come.  

b. Open communication when trouble comes

Without efficient communication, my team disintegrated at last. Thus, when troubles such as when we have found that someone does not have the same vision with us or someone does not own the capability of undertaking specific tasks, then, go ahead to communicate with them.

Besides, the key agenda for open communication should not limit to sanction others. Show empathy in communication can not only help solve problem, but also enhance trust. In the process of preparation, taking others' dilemma into consideration. Keep it in mind, that, sacrifice a little now can bring us more in long-term!

c. Path to win-win negotiation

When we talk about win-win negotiation, we should take the point

that, each person has different interest. In avoidance of O. Henry effect, knowing needs of the other party, get to know the needs at first. Then, in the second step, offer multiple choices with equal value to the other pary. With these two steps, I think, lose-lose negotiation will be avoid at least and each member can get what they really needs.

d. Procedural justice

The last problem is inequity feeling which leads to distrust. My recommendation here is to listen to them, show respect and explanation. When team members feel unfairly treated, tell them what factors are taken into account. Do not hold the assumption of illusion of transparency since miscommunication can destroy trust (Thompson, 2009).  Also, if objective data about performance and evaluation are available, procudrual justice can be further improved (Posthuma & Campion, 2008).
 
As a conclusion, cooperating and negotiating with friends is tougher than collaborating with business people, since more factors and conflicts will happen. However, if we can get more information, consider more about others and talk more, our trust can remain and we can collaborate well.

Reference:

Thompson,L.L.(2009).The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator. (4th ed.). Prentice Hall (NJ).

Hurley, R.F. (2006). The Decision to Trust. Hardvard Business Review, 84(9), 55-62.

Kramer, R.M. (2009). Rethinking Trust. Hardvard Business Review, 87 (6), 69-77.

Posthuma, R.A., Campion, M.A. (2008). Twenty Best Practices for Just Employee Performance Reviews. Compensation & Benefits Review, 40(1),47-55.