Restoritive Justice

This Saturday class was on Restorative Justice, which focuses on, “What relationships are broken?”, “What needs to be done?”, and “Who can help?” This mimics our normal response when we see an accident, which is to check on the victim, call 911, and then describe what we know. Restorative Justice really originates with primitive societies, like the American Indians and Australian Aboriginals. This form of relational justice passed from the Aboriginals to Australian society, and then to New Zealand where it was brought to the US.

In the Australian Aboriginal communities, all members are important. There are no prisons to house trouble makers, so they rely on discussions to settle problems. The Navajo people in America convene what they call Peace Courts, at which the victim, family, and perpetrator are brought together to determine what must be done to restore peace in the community. Navajo Americans use the word Huzho which is an inner state that dominates when all is in order. It is usually translated into English as “harmony, the order of the world, beauty, sensitivity, and calm”. Huzho is such a powerful concept that it is the guiding principle in the Navajo justice system. This concept of harmony dominates their justice system because they don’t really have a sense of good and evil. Either the world is in balance or it is out of balance.

Restorative justice can be viewed as a triangle with the stake holders at the corners of the triangle. The victim is on the bottom left of the triangle, the offender is on the bottom right of the triangle, and the community is at the top of the triangle. The left side (between victim and community) represents community safety, the right side (between community and offender) represents competing developments, and the bottom (between offender and victim) represents accountability. The aspects, or principles, of Restorative Justice are responsibility (prison and facing the victim/family), restoration (repairing the relationships of the community), reintegration (integration into community), and respect (allowing the capacity to heal). This can be summarized by saying that forgiveness takes one party while reconciliation takes two parties.

The themes of Restorative Justice would suggest that relationships are more important than the rules. It is a form of justice by participation, rather than proxy: It focuses on the restoration of wounded communities, not just adjudication of offending individuals: and It attempts to restore the continuum of order, by focusing on rehabilitation and right relationship. This can be summarized by saying that while peace is the absence of violence, shalom is a right relationship.

Victims want to be part of restorative justice because it is victim centered, whereas criminal justice is perpetrator centered. Offenders want to be part of restorative justice because it allows for the repair of harm, and it better avoids future crimes. Communities want to be part of restorative justice because it promises to reduce fear, increase safety, and prevent and control crime. There are actually quite a few examples of restorative justice, like offender mediation boards, citizen participation in the justice system, education on the prevention of crime, and a focus on at-risk kids and young people.

The mission of the local restorative justice ministry is to provide a Catholic pastoral presence to the men, women, and children incarcerated in the Diocese of San Jose in our county jails, juvenal facilities, and prisons that reflects sensitivity to the ethnic and cultural differences and needs of this special population. Restorative justice seeks also to provide a healing service to victims, families of victims, offenders, families of offenders, and to all who are affected by the criminal justice system. The primary focus of Restorative justice is to communicate the Good News of God’s unconditional Love for all.

The hierarchy of the San Jose Office of Social Ministries includes the Department of Restorative Justice which oversees the Council of Restorative Justice. The Council provides Mass, Communion, and Bible study for inmates and families. They also assist with liturgies at the various justice facilities; provide community activities, advocacy, and program visibility for the ministry. Their work with victims and victim support groups is billed as a “Very addicting and powerful ministry”. There is also a group called the California People of Faith that works closely with faith communities.

Unfortunately, the Roman Catholic Church’s perspective on the death penalty hasn’t always been consistent, even though Catholic thought has always discouraged the death penalty. Since the time of the early church martyrs early Christians were against the death penalty and war, for obvious reasons. Athenagoras of Athens lived during the second half of the second century was against war. He considered himself to be Athenian, a philosopher, and a convert to Christianity. Today we would add that he was also a Christian apologist. Tertullian wrote that Christianity prohibits killing, and Origen wrote that the death penalty cannot be used by Christians. He believed that it was “not proper to kill even the guilty”, because taking away anyone’s life removes the possibility for repentance.

The first and second Crusades against the Muslims created a slight problem for the church, which changed its theology to allow the third and fourth Crusades against the Protestants. During what we call the Black Plague, about 1/3 of the population in Europe was killed by bubonic plague and during this time the church became very wealthy, as people gave their land and possessions to the church in hopes of being spared by the disease. As a result, the church found itself exercising temporal control during the years that followed.

Evidently, the Inquisition in Spain, France, and Italy was instigated by civil law which made being a heretic illegal. Although it was not church law, Catholics were the supposed “experts” on heresy, so it fell on the church to enforce the civil laws against heresy. While the Catholic Counter Reformation felt that it was not necessary to burn heretics, Bellarmine supported the burning of heretics as a defense against the Protestant movement. As a result of the arguments taken up by the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church began to voice its support of the death penalty.

A bit later, during the Age of Enlightenment which taught reason over emotion, challenges to the death penalty resurfaced. The virtue of taking another life and the fact that the death penalty existed because there was nothing to replace it, led to questions that were difficult to answer. Albert Camus (1930 – 1960) whose father was a very holy man originally supported the death penalty. While witnessing the death of someone, however, he became physically and violently ill. This strongly influenced Albert who later asked, “Why does the death penalty exist”, and he concluded that it was because of fear and hatred.

During Vatican II (1962 – 1965) Pope John Paul II appealed for the end of the death penalty as cruel and unnecessary. He re-wrote two lines of the Catechism blending the early church’s stand against the death penalty and insight from the Age of Reason. Today the Catholic Church (once again) teaches that it is cruel, unnecessarily violent, and leaves no chance for transformation. It violates the respect for life and is contrary to the offer of forgiveness.