erasmus universiteit rotterdam restorative justice in the netherlands blockades and opportunities...
TRANSCRIPT
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam Restorative Justice in the
Netherlands
Blockades and Opportunities
Dr. J.R. Blad
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
Contents
I. What is restorative justice?
II. The inhospitable Dutch penal climate
III. Chances for development of RJ
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
I. Restorative Justice
Restorative Justice is
‘a theory of justice that emphasizes repairing the harm caused or revealed by criminal
behaviour. It is best accomplished through cooperative processes that include all
stakeholders.’
WWW.RESTORATIVEJUSTICE.ORG
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
What kind of justice?
• A lot of activities going on outside the realm of criminal justice:
• Mediation and conferencing in
• Schools
• Neigbourhoods
• The workplace
• Let’s call them ‘restorative practices’
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
Outside criminal justice
• There is an informal, substantial notion of justice at work
• Conflicts are often not formally defined by law
• There is often no public, legal interest at stake
• There can be ‘full party control’ of the conflict (no imposed definitions)
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
What kind of justice?
• A) What is the implication of speaking of ‘criminal behavior’?
• B) Who are the ‘stakeholders’?
• C) What is ‘repairing harm done’?
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
Restorative Justice
• A) There are formal definitions of substantial criminal law at work
• B) There are legal agencies who are stakeholders in view of public interest
• C) Also public interests are harmed and should be ‘restored’
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
Restorative Justice
• RJ belongs to the family of ‘justice theories’:
• Organizing speech and actions in terms of (legal) ‘subjects’ and ‘subjectivity’
• Dealing with conflicts and what caused them (causality and responsibility)
• Orientation of speech strategies at ‘restoring balance’
• All disciplines of law have these characteristics of ‘justice’
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
Restorative Justice Theory
RJ is ‘a theory of justice’ stating that justice can be done better by:
• including all stakeholders and their views of the conflict at hand and its resolution
• communicating in every day language
• Allowing for emotions to show and be productive
• Combining negative and positive sanctions
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
Restorative Justice
• Sanctioning character in activating the offenders responsibility
• restorative procedure is a better context for effective sanctioning, addressing real causes
• Conferencing allows for affective relations to take influence
• Restorative plan = ideal combination of negative and positive sanctions
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
RJ as a challenge to CJ
Criminal Justice implies
• Exclusive definitional powers of courts and judicial officers such as prosecutors
• Sub-ordination of offenders and victims and their subjective definitions of the situation at hand (‘legal discourse’)
• The a-priori of punishment as the most appropriate resolution of criminal conflict
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
RJ as a challenge to CJ
The challenge is to
• make imposition of punishment the ultimum remedium of criminal justice
• Allow for victim and offender – and their communities of care – to share responsibilities with judicial authorities
• Accept a reformative agenda of ‘participatory criminal justice’
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
II. The inhospitable climate
4 factors
1) The punitive state of mind
2) Managerialism
3) Highly institutionalized Victim Support system
4) Subordination of ‘victim policies’ to dominant punitive strategy
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
1) The punitive state of mind
In contraposition to a long cultural tradition of maintaining a mild penal climate, the Netherlands are now dominated by a
widespread belief in the necessity to impose (severe) punishments
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
150 years of decarceration
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
1985: Crime and Society
• Rational policy to make criminal justice ‘Consistent, consequent and Credible’ again as an institution to deal with crime
Background:
• a strong rise in registered crime (property crime)
• Worries about ‘organized crime’ (drugs)
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
Assembly Line Justice
• Criminal justice as a chain of production
• Police Public prosecutors Courts
• Aim:
• To increase productivity (decrease of ‘law enforcement deficit’)
• to influence behaviour of citizens through its productive factors
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
Differentiated products
Target Groups• Victims• Law abiding citizens• Potential Perpetrators• Perpetrators
Production Factors• Acknowledgement• Normconfirmation• Credible threat*• Punishment
* Deterrence
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
Punishment must be
• All production factors depend on one central product: punishment
• Incarceration of ‘severe’ offenders
• And of ‘frequent’ offenders
• From app. 4000 (1985) to app. 15000 cells
• Great increase in long prison sentences
• Great increase in types of community sanctions, becoming more ‘punitive’.
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
Cultural consequences
• Instrumentalization of punishment
• stress on deterrence and incapacitation
• Higher levels of retribution
• Demise of legal guarantees• Demise of checks and balances in legal
procedure (increase of miscarriages of justice)
• insatiable expansion of the penal system
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
Some prison-figures
(Cells) 1985 1990 2005
• Prisons 4.700 7.500 16.500
• Juv.Inst. 250 800 2.570
• TBS 420 400 1.640
• Det. Cent. ------- ------- 1.260
• Total 5.370 8.700 21.970(x 1,6) (x 4,1)
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
Prison Population
Detainees per 100.000 inhabitants
1975: 17
1987: 33
2002: 95
2005: 123 (± 82.000)
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
2) Managerialism
• Top-down ‘planning and control’
• Pre-defined ‘products’ have to be produced in pre-defined ‘quantities’ (output)
• ‘Performance Contracts’ with police, public prosecutors office, Probation Service and courts (reducing discretionary powers)
• Restorative practices are not in the package of products
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
3)Victim support system
• The Netherlands have one of the best EU systems of victim support (Brienen&Hoegen, 2000)
• But: adapted to criminal justice system
• Working with volunteers who are reluctant to propose a restorative meeting between victim and offender (Evaluation-report 2006)
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
4)Subordinated victim policy
• Criminal law regards a conflict between ‘the state’ and a suspect
• Inquisitorial procedure to find out the substantial truth about the allegation
• Interests of victims are to be taken into account
• But this should not denaturalize criminal procedure
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
Room for reconciliation?
• Only in legal terms
• The verdict gives victim and offender their rightful place in the legal order
• Reconciliation is a possibility in the horizontal relation between victims and offenders
• Criminal law does not deal with that relation
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
Victim policy
• Gradual development of victim ‘rights’
• Adapted to the supposed need for punishing offenders in the classical way
• ‘Most victims want their suspect to be found and punished and have no special need to meet the convicted offender.’
(5400790/06/DSP/18-8-2006)
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
III Opportunities for RJ
1. EU (2001) Framework Decision on the Standing of Victims in criminal proceedings
2. HALT sanction (juveniles)
3. Claims settlement
4. Victim-offender-talks
5. Support in the criminal justice agencies
6. The search for ‘effective sanctions’
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
1) EU Frame decision 2001
article 10:
1. Each Member State shall seek to promote mediation in criminal cases for offences which it considers appropriate for this sort of measure.
2. Each Member State shall ensure that any agreement between the victim and the offender (…) can be taken into account.
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
2) Halt sanction for juveniles
Art. 77e Criminal Code
• Participation in a ‘project’ as diversionary measure
• Often the project implies reparation of damages and harm
• Recent research: making apologies is quite effective in reducing future misconduct
• Restorative Practices are quite suitable here
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
3) Claims settlement
Based on PPS Directive for the care of victims• As soon as possible the damages of the
offence should be compensated by the offender, when found.
• Often administrative, financial procedure.• Offers chances for offering face-to-face
meetings and moral communication.• NOTE: PPS does not prosecute when claims
are settled in ‘not so serious’ cases.
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
4)Victim-offender-talks
Implemented on a national scale from 2007.
• The intended purpose is to serve only the needs of the victim
• With no implications for the criminal procedure
• Hoping for some impact of the confrontation on the offenders future conduct
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
Critique
• VOT’s are not ‘mediation’ in terms of the EU Frame-decision: no ‘agreement’ is intended nor input in the criminal procedure.
• VOT has a one-sided and narrow ‘therapeutic’ nature
• Excluding the possibility of negotiating a restorative agreement ‘disempowers’ both victim and offender.
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
Chances
• VOT’s may turn out to become VOM and provide an occasion for reconciliation
• Provided the offender makes voluntary gestures to make amends
• Recognizing the harm done and his own responsibility
• Expressing his responsibility in obligations, which are in turn acknowledged
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
5) Internal support in CJS
• Many police officers, public prosecutors and judges recognize and support the ideas of RJ and do not support official punitive rhetorics
• The PPS announced in 2002 that public prosecutors would make room for restorative practices (in suitable cases) and take account of the results in their procedural decisions
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
6) Effective sanctioning
Report ‘Restorative Justice: The evidence’, (Sherman & Strang, 2006)
With regard to victims:‘Crime victims who receive restorative justice
do better, on average, than victims who do not, across a wide range of outcomes, including post-traumatic stress.’ (p. 88)
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
Reducing reoffending
Same report with regard to offenders:
‘In many tests, offenders who receive RJ commit fewer repeat crimes than offenders
who do not’
‘In no large-sample test has RJ increased re-peat offending, compared with CJ’
‘RJ reduces repeat offending more consistently with violent crimes than with
less serious crimes’
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
Less Punishment, More Justice
‘Diversion from prosecution to RJ substantially increases the odds of an
offender being brought to justice’
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
Promoting restorative culture
By doing restorative work in more and more informal settings a ‘restorative culture’ could
develop in society at large
Informal restorative justice can pave the road to formal restorative justice and decreasing the level of deliberate pain infliction by the
state.
E
rasm
us
Un
iver
site
it R
otte
rdam
Room for Restorative Justice!
Thank you for your attention
John Blad
Blad@ frg.eur.nl