Taking responsibility in Restorative Justice: How much is needed?
This is a blog by Angie Kaye, a Senior RJ Facilitator for Prisons in the Thames Valley area for 12 years. Previously she worked as Director/Producer of human rights documentaries for BBC TV.
“Restorative Justice can’t even begin when the offender pleads not guilty or takes little or no responsibility for a crime.” This statement is often repeated within the world of RJ but it runs counter to the experience of many RJ facilitators and is refuted by the evidence-based guidance of Dr Diana Batchelor from the University of Sheffield.
While the court system necessarily focuses on simple distinctions like ‘guilty/not guilty,’ Dr Batchelor’s research revealed that, when it comes to taking responsibility, most harmers are somewhere on a spectrum between full acceptance and total denial. She argues that, at whatever point a harmer sits on this spectrum, beneficial work can be undertaken by experienced RJ practitioners.
Minimising the harm
In my experience as an RJ facilitator visiting prisoners, there are many ways to deny guilt, including:
- MINIMISING – “We had a bit of a barney.”
- PARTIAL RESPONSIBILITY – “I was there, but it wasn’t me that hit him.”
- FORGETTING – “It was so long ago, I don’t really remember anything.”
The process of RJ, by its very nature, encourages and develops an offender’s willingness to take more responsibility.
Case study: Tracy and John
John is serving an 8-year sentence for aggravated burglary. He said, “I don’t remember much about it really… I was outta my head on booze and speed. I do really silly stuff when I’m outta it. I’m sorry.”
Tracy and her husband and child were at home when John broke in. Tracy’s husband was beaten and tied up; he suffered permanent brain damage. John did not want to meet with Tracy, but he agreed to answer questions that I put to him on her behalf. This shuttle dialogue went on for a few months, before John agreed to a face-to-face meeting. In the RJ conference, John came to hear the harm he had done and eventually took full responsibility, remembering much more than he’d originally admitted.
The RJ process itself, with careful listening and questioning, brought him to a different and more honest level of responsibility. He answered Tracy’s questions and saw how much it meant for her to hear his responses. The benefit he gained was huge, because he felt he’d done all within his power to answer her honestly and repair the harm he’d caused.
Total denial
In some cases, a harmer may deny all responsibility but, nevertheless, be willing to participate in a restorative process. In such cases, I believe that fully informed harmed people are capable of making their own choice about whether to proceed or not. Obviously, risk assessment is crucial in such cases, which should only be facilitated by highly experienced RJ facilitators who understand the motivations of both the harmer and those harmed.
Case study: Janice and Peter
Janice is a survivor of childhood sexual abuse. Peter, the offender, does not accept any responsibility and entered a ‘not guilty’ plea at his trial. Nevertheless, he agreed to meet with Janice to answer her questions. Janice was well aware of his lack of remorse or acceptance of the crime, but she wanted to meet him for another reason. She wanted to be in control, to show him – and herself – that she had survived and built a good life despite the harm she experienced.
Janice clearly benefited from the process, despite Peter’s starting position of total denial. She reflected: “The RJ meeting with Peter was very difficult but it was transformative in helping me move on – and not to be stuck as a powerless child with no control over my life. I pushed for years to have this meeting and everyone in the prison system was trying to over-protect me. Only my RJ facilitator’s determination and support got me where I wanted to be: looking the offender in the eye.”
More RJ, not less
It’s very important in the RJ world that we take into account the wishes of harmed people, current research and advice from experienced practitioners in the field. ‘Taking responsibility’ is not a black and white issue. Consequently, restoring harm requires a far more complex and nuanced approach.
It seems like everyday we read more depressing news about prisons and yet, in Restorative Justice, we have one of the best, evidence-based tools to improve rehabilitation and lower rates of reoffending. Combined with the obvious benefits to victims and their families, it’s clear that we need more RJ, not less. As RJ practitioners, we should not accept an over-protective, under-researched and risk-averse stasis. This can only harm the very people who most deserve our help.
