Are we becoming too timid? Risk aversion and Restorative Justice
This is a blog by Angie Kaye, a Senior Restorative Justice Facilitator for prisons in the Thames Valley area for 12 years. The case example given in this blog is an amalgamated and anonymised reflection of true cases.
Richard’s Story
Outside a London pub, 23 year-old Richard Simes was the victim of a violent assault. He had just been celebrating his birthday with his girlfriend, Maggie, and was standing outside The Bull chatting to her and some friends. His computer bag was over his shoulder when Adam Geoffrey came up from behind and attempted to wrench it off him.
Richard was taken off guard, but tried to hold onto the bag. Adam produced a knife and slashed the belt strap, then stuck the weapon deeply into Richard’s shoulder. Maggie recalls screaming out as Richard howled out in pain, but their protestations seemed to trigger more anger in the assailant – he punched Richard hard enough in the face to break his nose, then wrenched the computer bag away from his injured shoulder. He ran off down an alleyway at the side of the pub.
Adam was later arrested, and received an 18 month custodial sentence.
The effects of the assault on Richard went well beyond his physical injuries. (The knife wound, though deep, didn’t damage any major arteries.) He began to have disturbed nights and feelings of anxiety. Arguments with Maggie became frequent, and he was taking more and more time off work.
“I couldn’t stop reliving that evening over and over again. I felt useless and weak – what if he’d attacked Maggie? Why was he so violent towards me?”
Maggie was worried, and after several months of disturbed nights, she insisted he saw his doctor. He was given medication for anxiety and depression, but his physician was also well-informed about Restorative Justice, which he thought might help Richard.
Starting the Restorative Journey
That’s when I met Richard. It took a couple of meetings for him to trust me and gain some confidence in the Restorative Justice process.
I was clear to set realistic expectations. He also needed help, in his confused state, to clarify the specific questions he really needed answers to. For example:
“Why me?”
“Did he know me?”
“Did he mean to knife me, or was it just because I resisted?”
“Does he know how much he screwed up my life?”
Not knowing the answers had seriously damaged Richard and Maggie’s life. After some time he expressed a strong desire to take the next step, to have the opportunity to put these questions to Adam in a restorative setting.
Normally I would then find out Adam’s position, and suitability. Was he ready to do this, was he going to answer some of Richard’s questions, and was he able to take responsibility and repair the harm he’d caused?
In another context I’d met his offender manager, and gathered informally that Adam was a good candidate for taking part in a restorative process.
The Impasse
But here was the impasse – I needed permission from the ReHub unit to contact Adam. (This is a department in the Ministry of Justice that was set up to risk-assess and standardise RJ in the UK.)
Eight months later I’d failed to get a reply. Maggie called me to say how pessimistic Richard was becoming about the possibility of any progress. And time wasn’t proving to be a healer: his depression had worsened.
After a year, despite persistent requests for an answer, we had still heard nothing. Then a month later I was finally on a Zoom call with ReHub, Adam’s Offender Manager, his Senior Prison Officer and others. I was the only person on the call who had actually met Richard, several times. I had risk-assessed him, he was keen to go ahead, had realistic expectations and had begun counselling with the support of his family.
However, I was informed that RJ should be stopped, with no reason given. When I insisted that I needed to take something back to Richard to explain the decision, the meeting’s lead said the risk to the victim was too great.
I was furious on Richard’s behalf; it felt to me that we had regressed 10 years in our understanding and practice of Restorative Justice!
When I told Richard the decision he was baffled.
“I’m so angry and frustrated. How the hell can people who don’t know me tell me what’s good for me?” he told me. “I feel completely powerless. I understood not to raise my expectations, and that the process might take some time. But I’ve tried everything else – therapy and all that, and Maggie is getting totally pissed off with me. I’m stuck and really thought this would help me get my life back. “
Richard’s case is not unique – there are many others being blocked from legitimate access to Restorative Justice. Assessing risk is extremely important in all cases, but we’ve moved from this to risk-aversion – or even total risk avoidance. And this stance seems to be part of a wider trend in society…
Is This a Trend?
Are we becoming more timid in our approach to risk?
I believe so: we are experiencing planning constraints, police who are fearful of intervening due to intense scrutiny and punishment for honest mistakes, civil service gridlock and universities avoiding controversial – though possibly valuable – research which touches on issues of gender and race.
Risk-aversion – or even avoidance – has impacted RJ in the following ways:
- Belief that certain types of crime – for example domestic violence, sexual abuse and serious crimes of violence – are not for suitable for RJ. Even when both parties are willing.
- Prioritising ‘safety’ over participation, believing the offender might intimidate or ‘re-victimize.’ (A focus on offender risk over victim needs.)
- A block on cases where the offender doesn’t take full responsibility, or pleaded not guilty.
- Fear of public criticism.
- Delayed or non-existent access to RJ in prisons – priority going to routine and security.
Restorative Justice is most effective in serious and complex crimes. Re-victimization is extremely rare where the RJ Facilitator has risk-assessed the people involved.
Lord Timpson took the risk of hiring around 12% of his staff from the ranks of ex-prisoners, and 75% of them remain as long- term and productive employees.
The flip side of risk is opportunity.
Back to Richard’s story. He is struggling to accept the decision, and said to me: “If you don’t take risks, nothing will change.”
