In Part 1, I said that since "tough on crime" began in the early 90's, crime rates have dropped. That statement may have given the impression that there was some sort of jump in crime that triggered a public or political reaction. Such is not the case.
In the 20 years prior to 1994, crime rates had fluctuated only slightly, but had generally dropped through the 80's. There was really no reason for the  whole "tough on crime" madness to have occurred. It was no more than a political campaigning issue.

Restitution is part of a larger concept - Restorative Justice

Restorative Justice is a radically different approach than we're used to in the U.S. By comparison, our current system could be called Punitive or Retributive Justice. We concentrate on punishing lawbreakers, usually by incarcerating them. I've shown you a little about how destructive that approach is to our whole society, from massive costs, to destroyed lives, to an ever-more-threatening government.

One factor I haven't dealt with very much in this series is the effect of our criminal justice system on the victims of crime... the injured parties. One reason it hasn't come up is that victims are almost irrelevant under our present system. In criminal cases, victims may become witnesses, but otherwise, they're largely ignored. The state handles the case. Criminal cases are even filed as [government body] v. [defendant]. The person wronged is almost tossed out of the loop.

Think about how different that is from the way in which we personally act when one person wrongs another. Most of us teach our children that when they have harmed someone else, they try to make it up to them... at the very least to apologize. We usually do something similar as adults too... we try to "make it right". That concept is embedded in the morality that most of us adhere to. Remorse, repayment, confession, and forgiveness are all part of religious beliefs too, yet, in a nation that considers itself Christian, we have a criminal justice system oriented toward cold, hard punishment.

Some Christians will quote "eye for an eye" as justification for harsh punishment, but as  Paul Bischke, co-director of the Drug Policy Reform Group of St. Paul puts it:

"The eye-for-an-eye ethic put a lid on this escalating violence, insisting that punishment or restitution be proportional to the actual, demonstrable harm done, and that it not be determined by the rage of the party offended. For example, Leviticus 24:18 says, "And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast." The eye-for-an-eye principle placed rational limits on retribution and punishment -- a true step of moral progress. America's `get-tough' laws violate this modest standard, reversing moral progress and paving the way to modern barbarism. Injustice toward the unruly hurts us all. But a little dose of compassion never hurt anybody."

One of my own favorite quotes is Gandhi's
"An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind"

The goal of restorative justice is to restore, as nearly as possible, conditions to what they were before the offense. Here are a couple of simple definitions of it:

Restorative justice is a response to crime that focuses on restoring the losses suffered by victims, holding offenders accountable for the harm they have caused, and building peace within communities. 

Restorative justice is a process whereby all the parties with a stake in a particular offense come together to resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of the offense and its implications for the future.

From the Restorative Justice website... benefits include:

• it views criminal acts more comprehensively: rather than defining crime only as lawbreaking, it recognizes that offenders harm victims, communities and even themselves
  
• it involves more parties: rather than giving key roles only to government and the offender, it includes victims and communities as well
  
• it measures success differently: rather than measuring how much punishment has been inflicted, it measures how much harm has been repaired or prevented
  
• it recognizes the importance of community involvement and initiative in responding to and reducing crime, rather than leaving the problem of crime to the government alone. 

"From more than 20 years of experience in many thousands of cases and more than 42 empirical studies, it has clearly been found to be a practical and time tested approach that results in many positive outcomes for victims, offenders, family members, and the larger community."

Here's a short slide show called - Justice that Heals
For a bit more information, you can take a Tutorial

Restorative Justice, despite it's obvious and proven success, and the incredible need for serious reform, seems to be slogging through a typical slow-growth cycle of pilot projects, intellectualizing, and research "proof".

Why? Not because the idea is that complex, or difficult to implement, but because it's goals are to change deeply embedded, bureaucratic systems... government systems... perhaps the most difficult of all systems to change.

Is there another way? I think there is, and as usual, a libertarian will look to our marvelous free market rather than to government.

Visualize private, profit-making organizations providing restorative justice services.

Let's say that my home is broken into, and I'm physically attacked and robbed. Let's assume that I can identify the perpetrator (if I can't, the police are unlikely to be much help anyway). Suppose I contact the perp and offer two choices... work with me to make this right, or I'll call the police and press charges.

Chances are pretty good that, knowing the latter isn't going to be any fun,  the perp will choose the former. Using the services of the organization... mediation services... we try to work out a result that will be better for both of us... restitution for my losses, including emotional losses, and avoidance of arrest, trial, and sentencing for the perp.

Worst case is that we fail to reach a reasonable agreement, and proceed as if there was no such thing as restorative justice. Very little loss in having made the attempt.

Best case, however, has remarkable possibilities. I may get the return of anything stolen, plus reasonable payment for my grief, and for the cost of mediation. The perp avoids the legal hassle (as do I). The community avoids the involvement of law enforcement, prosecution, detention, trial, and possibly incarceration.

What may also happen is that the perp may actually get a clue that crime really doesn't pay... and that his act caused more harm than just breaking a law. My face in his may make the violation real to him. We may well arrange for restitution payments over time, which will mean that the perp will feel the suffering of the loss as I did. It's even possible that, over time, the perp and I might come to understand each other. I may find that his act is understandable, if not justified. He may come to understand what his act did to me.

This is not a system of perfection, but the upside has such remarkable possibilities that we are fools not to attempt it.

There are goverment agencies making some attempt at using these techniques (including here in Minnesota), but I suspect that if we have to wait for government systems to make it happen in any significant way, we could wait a very long time, and we know what waiting is costing us in dollars and lives.

This is a great opportunity for private organizations. There are a lot of private mediation firms, and they are already resolving many disputes outside the criminal justice system.

It's likely that what is preventing restorative justice from becoming a private solution to a government problem is no more than a public education problem. Hopefully, this article will make a small dent in that problem. I urge you to investigate further.

Remember the simple strategy, Tit for Tat?  You may recall that game theory tests showed that FORCE simply doesn't produce good results, but that a simple strategy that was forgiving, but responded in kind was a winner. Tit for Tat doesn't defeat others... it just gets better results. The same could be said for restorative justice.

Our current criminal justice system is, at it's roots, insane. The cure is worse than the disease, and that happens frequently with government systems. I like the calculation someone made about the new Twin Cities light rail line... that it would be cheaper to buy every future rider of light rail a new Lexus. In the same way, it would be cheaper to set all the convicted criminals free and give them a $30,000 annual pension than it is to run them through our current system.

I'm reminded of a trap that I, like most parents, fell into at least once. Ever ground your child and then realize that you just grounded yourself too? Our criminal justice system is very much like that; it's an angry reaction to hurt... it's a system built around an emotional response, and naturally, that just doesn't solve any problems... it creates more.