Commentary: law, morality and restorative justice Special features 9 3 R e f e r e n c e s Dejemeppe, B. Le ministere public demain, epee ou canne blanche? Revue de droit p~nal et de criminologie, vol. 76, no. 7-8, 1996, pp. 843-854 M o n d o n , D. Justice imposee, justice negociee: les limites d'une opposition, I'exemple du parquet Droit et societe, no. 30-31, 1995, pp. 349- Renault, G., E. Derricks La collaboration entre les trois services de polices r~guliers Bruxelles, Politeia, 1996 Rubel, H. Victim Participation in Sentencing Proceedings. In: E.A. Fattah (ed.), Toward a Critical Criminology London, MacMillan, 1992, pp. 238- f u l k e n s , F., M. Van de Kerchove Introduction au droit p~nal; aspects juridiques et criminologiques Bruxelles, Kluwer, 1993 (2nd ed.) Tulkens, F., M. van de Kerchove La justice penale: justice imposee, justice participative, justice consensuelle ou justice negociee? Revue de droit p#nal et de criminologie, vol. 76, no. 5, 1996, pp. 445-494 Van de Kerchove, M. L'interet a la reparation et I'int~ret ~ la reparation. In: Droit et int~r~ts Bruxelles, Publications des FUSL, 1993 Commentary: law, morality and restorative justice H a n s Boutellier o p e n s the last issue o n restorativ~ justice a n d m e d i a t i o n q u o t i n g James Q. Wilson: ' I f society is to m a i n t a i n a b e h a v i o u r a l equilib- rium, a n y decline in m o r a l i t y m u s t b e m a t c h e d b y a rise in law' (Wilson, 1994, p. 489). Boutellier rightly p o i n t s o u t t h a t w e s t e r n c o u n t r i e s h a v e t r a n s f o r m e d ' f r o m relatively stable n o r m a t i v e cultures into cultures o f explicit m o r a l pluralism' (p. 7) a n d t h a t t h e p r o m i n e n c e of criminal law e n f o r c e m e n t in enforcing social o r d e r h a s risen. Boutellier's o w n c o n t r i b u - tion, t o g e t h e r with t h e r e m a i n i n g essays in the issue o f this journal, s h o w a direction for r e s p o n d i n g to m o r a l pluralism in m o r e d e c e n t a n d effective ways t h a n building m o r e prisons. Punitive criminal justice is h a r d l y a credible r e s p o n s e to m o r a l p l u r a l i s m b e c a u s e it is s u c h a unicultural, univocal tradition - o n e j u d g e s p e a k s the law o f o n e p e o p l e following p r o c e d u r e s of justice e n s h r i n e d b y the d o m i n a n t culture in t h e society. An a p p e a l of restorative justice is t h a t it c a n b e multicultural. Restorative justice c a n m e d i a t e p r o b l e m s of European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research vol. 5-1 9 4 order here according to procedures that make sense to y o u n g brown w o m e n , there by procedures that make sense to old white men. This is b e c a u s e the less law-like procedures o f restorative justice create a space where participants can be empow- ered with process control. This is a key reason participants like it so much, a p o p u l a r appeal discussed in the contribution of Walgrave and Aertsen to this volume. Boutellier points out that while criminal law is less sustained by the 'self-evident social cohesion' of a national community, the west is discovering a new kind of consensus over 'protection against victimization' (p. 14). If we seem hopelessly frag- m e n t e d over what constitutes 'the good society' and 'fair procedure', preventing and healing the suffering of victims of crime and holding a c c o u n t a b l e those who are responsi- ble for it is s o m e t h i n g a b o u t which we c a n a n d do agree. At first, Boutellier's 'victimological turn' in criminal law s e e m e d danger- ous. Progressives saw victims as angry, retributive people; victim social m o v e m e n t s were at the v a n g u a r d of vengeance. The women's m o v e m e n t has complicated this stereotype as it e n c o m p a s s e s punitive a n d restorative traditions which b o t h have considerable vitality. And now the empirical experience o f the kinds of m e d i a t i o n p r o g r a m m e s discussed in this issue shows that even with a fairly m o d e s t dose of e m p o w e r m e n t , victims can be remarkably forgiving, constructive in their e n g a g e m e n t with problem solving, often actively seeking to advance their own restora- tion by helping with the restoration of the offender. In o t h e r words, victims a n d victims' organizations were at the vanguard of v e n g e a n c e because of the way their voices were silenced by the white male voices of judges enforcing the unicultural legalism of the criminal law. Tony Marshall's essay on 'The Evolution of Restorative Justice in Britain' identifies a p r a g m a t i s m in the tradition that gives it more resilience than a social work ideology that y o u n g people simply 'grow out of crime'. It m a y be, as Marshall points out, that m a n y grew out of crime 'precisely because they were c a u g h t and it was m a d e evident to t h e m that such behaviour was u n a c c e p t a b l e ' (p. 22). Marshall is right that restorative justice has grown not as a result of the persuasiveness of its theory, but because it 'offered pragmatic solu- tions to everyday p r o b l e m s ' (p. 34). The best criminal justice t h e o r y is inductive, drawing out the insights of c o m m o n sense practitioners. But then it gives their p r a g m a t i s m a m o r e abstract quality a n d puts it into a deductive structure. In the shuttling back and forwards b e t w e e n i n d u c t i o n a n d d e d u c t i o n that the best t h e o r y does (Scheff, 1990), the deductive part is important, n o t just an after- thought. Top-down, it shows where the b o t t o m - u p practice has a wider relevance. If restorative justice has Special features 95 p r o v e d m o r e c o n s t r u c t i v e t h a n p u n i t i v e justice with p r o b l e m A for r e a s o n s X a n d Y, a n d X a n d Y a p p l y to p r o b l e m B, t h e t h e o r y forces a challenge as to w h y restorative justice is n o t b e i n g u s e d with p r o b l e m B. While restorative justice p r o g r a m m e s h a v e proliferated at a r e m a r k a b l e rate d u r i n g the 1990s, m o s t o f the p r o - g r a m m e s h a v e b e e n m a r g i n a l r a t h e r t h a n m a i n s t r e a m , as Marshall a n d D~inkel p o i n t o u t in their essays, b e c a u s e the centres of punitive p o w e r h a v e m o s t l y o p t e d to refer only m i n o r cases. A r m e d with strong t h e o r y a n d r o b u s t research t h a t h a s t e s t e d it, assaults c a n b e l a u n c h e d against the b a t t l e m e n t s o f p u n i t i v e power. Victory is far f r o m guaranteed; yet w i t h o u t a credible t h e o r y a n d research t h a t s u p p o r t s it, defeat s e e m s certain. P r a g m a t i s m t h a t leaves restorative justice marginal, p r a g m a t i c a l l y shying a w a y f r o m a n a t t e m p t to s u p p l a n t the m a i n s t r e a m punitive tradition, will leave the b e n e f i t s of restorative justice m o o t . The m o o t n e s s , well illustrated b y Dullum's c h a p t e r o n the h i s t o r y o f the Norwegian Mediation Boards, arises f r o m t h e risk t h a t diversion f r o m p u n i s h m e n t to r e s t o r a t i o n will be e x c e e d e d b y diversion f r o m b e n i g n t o l e r a n c e to excessively intrusive c o m m u n i t y c o n t r o l over m a t t e r s b e s t dealt with b y a s i m p l e c a u t i o n (see Alder a n d Wundersitz, 1994). Frieder Dfinkel's c o n t r i b u t i o n o n ' G e r m a n Experiences w i t h Mediation in a E u r o p e a n Perspective' suggests s o m e e a r n e s t n e s s o f thinking a m o n g criminal justice o p i n i o n l e a d e r s a b o u t e x t e n d i n g m e d i a t i o n f r o m less to m o r e serious offenders. E x p a n s i o n o f restorative justice into adult offending is r e p o r t e d for b o t h Austria a n d Germany. DOnkel's essay shows t h a t this rests in p a r t o n G e r m a n - language r e s e a r c h indicating specific a n d general p r e v e n t i o n effects, high rates of r e a c h i n g s e t t l e m e n t s a n d of delivering t h e c o m m i t m e n t s m a d e in a g r e e m e n t s . Lode Walgrave a n d Ivo Aertsen concur that ?~s e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e a n d theoretical reflection o n r e s t o r a - tive justice increase, c o n f i d e n c e in it is growing' (p. 68). This is s o m e t h i n g o f a reversal o f the usual p a t t e r n in criminology, w h e r e c o n f i d e n c e declines as d a t a a c c u m u l a t e a n d t h e o r y b e c o m e s m o r e sophisticated. Walgrave a n d Aertsen find a t e n s i o n b e t w e e n s h a m i n g a n d restoration. T h e y think t h a t s h a m i n g t h e c r i m e is i m p o r t a n t to restoring t h e victim, signifying to the v i c t i m w h o is d e g r a d e d b y a c r i m e t h a t it is t h e c r i m e t h a t m u s t b e s h a m e d n o t t h e victim. However, Walgrave a n d Aertsen see it as difficult to s h a m e the c r i m e w i t h o u t stigmatizing t h e criminal. Picking u p a t h e m e in Crime, Shame and Reintegration, t h e y t h i n k reintegrative s h a m i n g is o n l y p o s s i b l e in c o m m u n i t a r i a n societies. It is m o r e possible in c o m m u n i t a r i a n societies; b u t there is a lot o f reintegrative s h a m i n g in individualistic societies (for example, in t h e families a n d schools in the US t h a t c a n b e s h o w n European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research v o l . 5 - 1 9 6 e m p i r i c a l l y to do t h e b e s t job o f p r e v e n t i n g crime) a n d a lot of s t i g m a t i z a t i o n in c o m m u n i t a r i a n societies. Walgrave a n d A e r t s e n see restorative justice c o n f e r e n c e s as k e e p i n g s t i g m a t i z a t i o n within r e a s o n a b l e b o u n d s b e c a u s e t h e s h a m i n g is k e p t right a w a y f r o m the view o f m e m b e r s o f t h e p u b l i c n o t directly involved in the incident. This s e m i - p r i v a t e c h a r a c t e r of c o n f e r e n c e s is a w o r r y given t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f h a v i n g a publicly a c c o u n t a b l e c r i m i n a l justice system. My own inclination is to believe t h a t w e c a n design restorative justice institutions t h a t e n a b l e g r e a t e r effective public a c c o u n t a b i l i t y t h a n criminal courts. T h e y c a n do this while r e m a i n i n g confidential p r o c e e d i n g s until s u c h t i m e as t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s agree t h a t it is b e t t e r t h a t t h e y b e public p r o c e e d - ings w h i c h issue p u b l i c decisions (which t h e y occasionally do in Australia). T h e g r e a t e r effective a c c o u n t a b i l i t y m i g h t c o m e f r o m : - - h a v i n g a g r e a t e r a v e r a g e n u m b e r o f citizens e n g a g e w i t h t h e details o f a case for a l o n g e r average p e r i o d of t i m e w i t h great p r o c e s s c o n t r o l in c o n f e r e n c e s t h a n in t h e a v e r a g e c o u r t case; - - a u t o m a t i c r e p o r t i n g o f t h e o u t c o m e s o f c o n f e r e n c e s to a p u b l i c l y f u n d e d a d v o c a c y service w h o s e j o b is to b e p r o a c t i v e in advising d e f e n d a n t s o f t h e i r right to a p p e a l to a c o u r t w h e n a c o n f e r e n c e o u t c o m e s e e m s d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y severe. Audio t a p e s could b e k e p t o f all c o n f e r e n c e s a n d m a d e available to the a d v o c a t e s w h o h a d p e r m i s s i o n f r o m the d e f e n d a n t to listen to t h e m . Such a d v o c a c y c o u l d b e a m o r e reliable check o n a b u s e o f p o w e r t h a n the h a p h a z a r d publicity o f criminal trials held in public. Victim a d v o c a c y services also h a v e a n i m p o r t a n t role to p l a y in a well designed s y s t e m of p u b l i c a c c o u n t - ability. At the m o m e n t in Australia a n d New Zealand, I s u s p e c t the strongest check is the right o f t h e d e f e n d a n t to walk o u t o f t h e c o n f e r - e n c e at a n y point, d e m a n d i n g his o r h e r right to h a v e t h e m a t t e r tried in a c o u r t o f law. Research is u n d e r w a y to assess w h e t h e r this s u s p i c i o n is right or wrong. Questions a b o u t w h i c h institutions deliver m o r e effective public a c c o u n t a b i l i t y are u l t i m a t e l y empirical. In a d v a n c e o f t h e o u t c o m e evaluations, t h e y are also m a t t e r s for research a n d d e v e l o p m e n t t h a t innovates with n e w a c c o u n t a b i l i t y m e c h a n i s m s . It is s i m p l y too early to p r o n o u n c e o n w h e t h e r c o n f e r e n c e s do or will o u t p e r f o r m c o u r t in t e r m s o f public accountability. It d o e s s e e m i m p l a u s i b l e t h a t d y a d i c m e d i a t i o n b e t w e e n individual victims a n d individual offenders could do so, given the small n u m b e r o f citizens involved. W h a t is especially interesting in l a n e Dullum's analysis of ' T h e N o r w e g i a n Mediation Boards' is the c o n s i d e r a - t i o n o f t h e d i l e m m a o f w h e t h e r to aspire to h a v i n g restorative justice t r a n s f o r m t h e m a i n s t r e a m c r i m i n a l Special features 9 7 justice s y s t e m or to functioning i n d e p e n d e n t l y of it. My o w n suspi- cion is t h a t unless the social m o v e - m e n t for restorative justice c o m m i t s to the f o r m e r t r a n s f o r m a t i v e agenda, taking o n the m a i n s t r e a m o f the criminal justice system, it will b e forever marginal in its impact. The N o r w e g i a n Mediation Boards Act is an interesting case b e c a u s e (boldly) it m a n d a t e d all municipalities in the c o u n t r y to p u t Mediation Boards in place, effectively in parallel to t h e criminal justice system. In 1995, the Boards m e d i a t e d o n l y 4387 cases ( m a n y n o t criminal), w h i c h c a n only b e a tiny p r o p o r t i o n of t h e cases p r o c e s s e d by the N o r w e g i a n criminal justice system. Anke Z a n d b e r g e n rejoins s o m e o f the t h e m e s in the Walgrave a n d Aertsen article. While Walgrave a n d Aertsen asks w h e t h e r m y ideal s h o u l d b e restorative s h a m i n g r a t h e r t h a n reintegrative s h a m i n g , Z a n d b e r g e n asks w h e t h e r it s h o u l d b e reintegra- tive 'guilting'! At this stage, w h e n so m u c h r e s e a r c h is u n d e r w a y b u t i n c o m p l e t e a r o u n d the world, I would prefer n o t to a n s w e r this q u e s t i o n at a theoretical level. It s e e m s too n e a r to t h e d a y w h e n e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e will e n a b l e useful r e f i n e m e n t (rather t h a n a b a n d o n m e n t , I h o p e ) o f the c o n c e p t o f reintegrative s h a m i n g . Z a n d b e r g e n ' s e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e Halt p r o g r a m m e in the N e t h e r l a n d s is o n e o f t h o s e projects. It finds t h a t in a p r o g r a m m e with s u b s t a n t i a l e l e m e n t s of reintegrative s h a m i n g , feelings of guilt are m o r e c o m m o n o u t c o m e s t h a n feelings of s h a m e a m o n g offenders, t h o u g h s h a m e is also a c o m m o n o u t c o m e . In conclusion, the w o r k in this issue shows w h a t a vital tradition r e s t o r a - tive justice is in Europe. T h e r e is a healthy a b s e n c e o f a n y o n e c l a i m i n g they have got a n y m o d e l 'right' or t h a t w h a t s e e m s to w o r k in o n e place will work well in another. T h e r e is curiosity a b o u t the effects o f revising f r a m e w o r k s a n d a c o m m i t m e n t to serious research a n d d e v e l o p m e n t . In time, this will b r i n g us a r i c h e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of h o w j u s t i c e is d o n e 'in m a n y r o o m s ' (Galanter, 1981). A w a y of f r a m i n g t h e challenge o f restorative justice h e r e is to d e v e l o p practical strategies t h a t t r a n s c e n d tendencies for 'declines in m o r a l i t y ' to b e m a t c h e d by rises in p u n i t i v e law. The a s p i r a t i o n is for f o r m a l law t h a t checks the injustice a n d n u r t u r e s the justice o f i n d i g e n o u s o r d e r i n g in the restorative tradition of m o o r i n g morality; institutions o f restorative ordering t h a t c h e c k t h e injustice a n d enliven the m o r a l i t y of law (Parker, 1997). John Braithwaite Head, Law P r o g r a m Research School o f Social Sciences The Australian N a t i o n a l University C a n b e r r a ACT 0200, Australia References Alder, C . J. Wundersitz (eds.) Family Conferencing and Juvenile Justice: European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research voL 5-1 9 8 The Way Forward or Misplaced Opti- mism? Canberra, Australian Institute of Crimi- nology, 1994 Galanter, M. Justice in many rooms. In: M. Cappelletti (ed.), Access to Justice and the Welfare State Alphen ann den Rijn, Sijthoff, 1981, pp. 147-181 Parker, C Lawyers' Justice, Lawyers" Domination: Regulating the Legal Profession for Access to Justice Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Austra- lian National University, Canberra, 1997 Scheff, T. Microsocio/ogy Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1990 Wilson, J.q. Crime and public policy. In: J.Q. Wilson, J. Petersilia (eds.), Crime: Twenty-Eight Leading Experts Look at the Most Pressing Problem of our Time San Francisco, ICS Press, 1994, pp. 489- 511