Restorative Justice

The current justice system in the United States is suffering from being overwhelmed, over crowded and no longer serving as an unbiased and fair system. It is impractical to think of replacing it all together but there is another idea gaining in popularity, Restorative Justice. Restorative Justice, according to “Restorative Justice on Line” (2007) is a notion of restoring things to what they were before a crime was committed. Make things right between a victim and an offender. If a person has committed a crime against another it can be said they have caused the other injury. Instead of being punished by the state Restorative Justice says they should be responsible for help in healing the injury they have caused. The victim should have some say in that will consist of. In the justice system now in use in the US known as Distributive Justice, the victim of a crime has little to no say in what the punishment should be. For the most part, the victim is left out of the process all together. In Restorative Justice both the victim and the offender work together to determine how the victim can be restored. This is accomplished through mediation. It can be as simple as the victim and the offender with one mediator or it can involve many more affected by the crime such as community members, the families of both victim and offender and religious leaders. The biggest key to Restorative Justice is the offender has to take responsibility for his crime. If the offender denies involvement or blames others for what happened, there is no way forward under a Restorative Justice System. Still, there is a lot of promise in Restorative Justice for taking a large burden off the over stretched legal system. A lot of crime involving minors can often be settled in a restorative manner. A case involving minor property crime can be settled quickly without having to get police, lawyers and judges involved. It can also work well with adult victims and offenders. In this paper, we will explore Restorative Justice in more detail. One, it is unlikely Restorative Justice can completely replace the current legal system but many crimes can be better dealt with in a Restorative framework. Two, there are many different formats Restorative Justice can take based on the situation, people involved and the greater community they live in. Three, we will consider some cases where Restorative Justice Practices have been used and considered effective. Last, we will examine what the future may have in store for Restorative Justice.            

Costs of War and other Conflict

Costs of War

This is not a political blog. The point of the link is to point out the costs of conflict in its most extreme manifestation, war. There are many commonalities in conflicts both large and small. Conflict is a unique field of study. Consider the following.

At its heart, conflict is about inequality. I am not being treated fairly as an equal. My husband thinks I'm no good with money and is very controlling. He dies not see me as an equal.  The police treat some in the community less equitably than others. Why does region A get all the benefits from the Federal Government and not us? Country G wants to dominate all the others. They must be stopped.

Fellow human beings are all too often reduced to objects-objectification. The person mistreating me is just a "_____." My husband is a "gold digger." The police become "pigs." The people living in ____ are just a bunch of "hicks." The people in country G are "imperialists." Taken to the extreme, this dehumanization can lead to war and other atrocities. Wh cares? They were only gooks.

Communications can quickly breakdown as the parties cannot see past their own positions, beliefs and sense of entitlement. Instead of talking to each other, thay talk past one another. The husband only hears his wife's insults as she never addresses the reasoning behind her anger. She also feels she will not be herd, even if she tries. The police feel like they are under siege. Regions and countries stick to talking points based on inflexible positions instead of listening to each other to resolve differences.

Feelings of powerlessness are also present. I may feel powerless to stop being treated unfairly, depending in that person's position. The wife feels she's stuck in the relationship with her husband. The community has "lost control" of the police department. My region cannot get the help it needs. No one can stop country G.

The feelings caused by this seeming lack of control are real and impact us all at every level. Stress leads to serious health problems in individuals, groups, communities all the way up to nations. What is a healthy community? In the next post, we will consider different techniques of conflict resolution hat work no matter the size and shape of the conflict.

Social Cubism III

Social Cubism II

The first part of the analysis is Psychological. This covers concepts like psychological needs not being met, individual’s psychological problems, demonizing and basic emotions such as fear and anger. This can apply to both individuals and the society itself in “V for Vendetta”. People are far more complex than characters in a movie but in “V for Vendetta” psychotic characteristics abound, including V himself! High Chancellor Sutler suffers from megalomania. His head of Secret Police, Mr. Creedy, is a complete sociopath. V suffers from amnesia and is homicidal. He has no problem killing others in pursuit of his goals and shows absolutely no remorse. Still, there is something good in V that is completely lacking in the characters representing the regime. In our society fighting injustice with violence is for the most part acceptable. Most people supported the invasion of Afghanistan as a way to respond to the attacks on September 11th. According to a CNN poll on September 28th 2001 over 75% of Americans favored using ground troops for the invasion. (4) It can be argued our government falsely accused Iraq’s Saddam Hussein of having a role in the attacks. This provided a justification at the time for our invasion of Iraq. In the movie, people wind up supporting V. The citizens can be analyzed from a psychological point of view as well.

The citizens in the movie have been traumatized by several mass casualty biological attacks blamed on terrorists but were in reality carried out by their own government. The government of High Chancellor Sutler uses the resulting fear to tighten control and rule out any oppositional narrative from being herd. With the on going threat to their physical safety, the public for the most part accepts the government’s view all of the oppression is necessary. Sutler’s regime detests anyone that not Christian Conservative. Anyone else is open to harassment, arrest and even death. Homosexuals are arrested and most likely executed. It is illegal to own a Koran. If a citizen is found owning with one, they are executed. Life goes on with those left pretending everything is normal. They have traded their freedom and ability to reason for security from a completely fictitious terror threat. According to the BBC Documentary “The power of Nightmares” the threat from Al Qaeda and other such groups has been blown way out of proportion. Our government has used this threat to expand powers through the Patriot Act far beyond anything we have previously known. (5) The citizens in the movie start to turn a blind eye to crimes being committed in the name of security. Anything different is scapegoated by the government. But in reality they are the real problem. Slowly, through the course of the movie, people start to see what has become of their nation and start to rebel in small ways. They start to question the state run media and stand up to the Fingermen. They hear V’s message as an alternative narrative to what they have been being told all along by their government. They awaken to the lies state run media is telling them. For physical safety, they have sacrificed higher needs like freedom of expression, respect from those in power and a sense of morality.

The second area for analysis is Ethnic and Religious. There are no minorities in V’s world, just white people. All the main characters are white. It is a world void of multiculturalism. The government of Chancellor Sutler has zero tolerance for anyone different. It is not clearly stated in the movie but one can imagine there is little to no immigration from other countries. It goes far beyond those with different skin color. Even among the white people there is no room for differences. Homosexuals are rounded up and murdered. There is a zero tolerance for any religion but Christianity. Anything different is vilified in the state run media on television by one network the BTN. Terror acts in truth committed by the state are blamed on Muslim fanatics. Religion shows it’s darker side in the character of Bishop Lilliman. He was appointed Bishop at Westminster Abbey by Sutler. He is one of the darkest characters in the entire regime. On the outside he seems a harmless man guided by faith in a position of power. Under a gentle exterior lies a pedophile and a coconspirator in state sponsored murder. He is a great symbol of the entire regime, seemingly normal but just underneath the surface dark and sinister. In this world there is an overdose of normalcy just underneath the people’s noses. V sets out to single handedly change all of this by reminding the nation of what was lost.

Linguistic is the third area for analysis. For an action movie “V for Vendetta” has an unprecedented richness for language. V is unlike almost any other super hero. He has the typical everyday super hero characteristics. But what makes V unique is his intelligence, knowledge and own dark humor. He can hack into government computer and communication systems and knows enough about art, music and history to make the men of the Renaissance proud. V is also a questioner of authority and legitimacy. “People should not fear their Government, Government should fear their people” V says. This is the opposite of what is going on at the time when government Fingermen patrol the streets acting with impunity to anyone who crosses their path. V makes much use of the power of art and music. His first act of terror is blowing up the Old Bailey preceded by playing Tchaikovsky’s 1812 Overture through the government’s own emergency communication system of loudspeakers throughout London. This wakes people up and lets them know something is about to change. Much of what V says can be taken on different levels. Near the end V tells Evey he is going to meet his maker. Many may take this to mean he is going to die which is true. His “maker” is also High Chancellor Cutler himself and his government. V wants to destroy what created him and in so doing destroy himself. This will in turn create something else, a nation without the Norsefire Party and without V.

The government of Sutler has a language all it’s own far different from that of V. It is direct and demonizing. There is no room for art or history. Right away they label V as a terrorist who kills innocents even showing police shooting people but spinning it as V killing them. They also control the media through the BTN. There is no alternative. They have their own propaganda show called “The Voice of London”. Lewis Prothero is the host who is a key mouth piece for reinforcing government control and views. He is course and condescending toward others and bases his positions on religious conservatism and an unquestioning nationalism. The dialogue of Chancellor Sutler reveals a lot about the man and his government. Later in the movie as control is slipping away, he tells his ministers in a shrill voice “...Remind them (the people) why they need us!” What follows are news stories about wars, disease and terror on the BTN. It is a message of fear meant to regain full control the population. Nothing coming from the government offers a notion of freedom or hope for a better future. Chancellor Sutler’s tone with his ministers is authoritarian and direct. He leads by threats, intimidation and orders. His imagery is larger than life. During his meetings with his various ministers, he is a giant image on a screen overlooking his underlings. The communication is one way. Inspector Finch dares to offer a slightly different view of the V investigation and is promptly reminded not to waste time on hunches and conjecture. He quickly apologizes to the high Chancellor.

The fourth and fifth areas to examine in the movie are the historical and political backgrounds. This can be looked at in two ways. The history of V is one and the recent history of Britain is another. V has no history before he was taken into the lab for experimentation. We do not know where he is from, what he did or even why he was taken. His history starts with destroying the lab that created him. The next twenty years of his life he prepares his revenge for his “creators”. For years he lies low in his underground home amassing an incredible collection of books, music and art works all the while clearing underground tracks leading to parliament for the final event of his revolution. His last year is followed much more closely as he eliminates one by one those responsible not only for what was done to him but the murder of 100,000 citizens. V does not lie to his only friend Evey when she asks if he is responsible for Prothero’s death and if he intends to murder others. He calmly answers yes to both questions. For a masked man, V has little to hide. He shares his story and motivation. He clearly believes in the use of violence but only against those who have harmed him and other innocents. The history of the rise of the Norsefire Party is much darker as told to Inspector Finch by a disguised V.

Like many oppressive governments who have come before The Norsefire Party gains power through democratic processes. It gains power when a frightened population surrenders it’s reason to fear. Just getting elected is not enough, decent has to be crushed. The darkest Character in the movie, Mr. Creedy, head of the secret Police, comes up with the ultimate way to consolidate all power. Instead of using a deadly biological weapon against a foreign enemy, it should be used on their own people and then blame terrorists. In three attacks 100,000 people are killed. A population in shock gives up freedoms for security. The government then provides the cure strengthening their hold on power and making them fortunes in profits in sales. A negative peace sets in and a strange sense of normalcy takes hold in the years following the attacks. People go to work, socialize, and watch TV as if everything is fine. Over the years the Norsefire Party builds a massive intelligence capability again not aimed at possible foreign enemies but their own citizens. They use this power to sweep away dissenters and those who are different. 

No casualty figures are given for those murdered by the government in the name of ‘security”.

The last two areas for consideration are economic and geographic. In the movie we do not get a sense of economic hardship among people in general. Things seem okay. It is worth noting those in the regime are extremely wealthy, far beyond the regular people we see in the movie. As the movie goes we see more crime but this seems to be more rebellion than crime committed out of economic hardship. There is a sense of a worldwide depression brought on by decades of war. The United States has fallen into civil war and chaos as a result of wars started earlier. It is an indirect reference to current day Iraq and Afghanistan. Britain is an island fortress in a world of war and depression. It is clear they have spent a lot on their military which the Sutler Regime is quite willing to use on unarmed civilians. Geographically, the movie takes place in one country, Briton and largely in the city of London. It is one ethnic group, white people. The conflict in the movie has little to do with jobs or land but everything to do with freedom and oppression.

Social Cubism Applied To V for Vendetta Part I

“People should not fear their governments, governments should fear their people” is one of the most memorable lines from the 2006 release of the movie ‘V for Vendetta”. (1) It is spoken by the main character known only as the letter V. This film is not only full of action but offers a lot to think about for anyone concerned about the direction we have taken in the post September 11th world. It deals with many themes but perhaps the most important theme is the relationship between citizens and the state. States often use fear against their own people to expand it’s power over citizens. It can be argued that this is exactly what has happened in the United States since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. “V for Vendetta” may take the argument to an extreme but much of what takes place in the film mirrors what has happened in the United States in the last seven years. In a large multifaceted conflict such as we have now, there has to be a way analyze what is happening to get a starting point for transformation to take place. Social Cubism provides a good starting point for analysis.(2) This is a method of looking at a conflict from many different perspectives to understand as much as possible about what is going on. Before we can apply this to “V for Vendetta” and what we are living through a brief overview of the film is helpful.

Governments can turn against their own citizens. This is what has happened in a not too distant future England. As has happened in the past, a democratic government has been subverted by a vocal small group’s rise to power, the Norsefire Party lead by Adam Sutler. In an ever increasing effort to consolidate their own power, they develop a super bug to use against external threats. Mr. Creedy, head of the Secret Police, points out the best way to build their power is use the new weapon against their own people to create an atmosphere of fear. In the development of this bug, they use citizens as subjects for experimentation. One known only as patient number V  develops superhuman characteristics including lightening quickness, superhuman strength, and nimbleness. One night he uses these to completely destroy the lab doing the human experimentation. He vowels revenge on those who have created the lab and whole system of subjugation. It is interesting to keep in mind we know nothing of V’s life before he was taken into the lab. The government that created the lab also created V. Revenge did not take place over night; it was several decades in the making. The movie picks up the story one year before V bestows final justice on November 5, Guy Fawkes Night. Guy Fawkes was a member of the Gun Powder Plot, an attempt in 1605 to blow up Parliament.(3) Part of V’s revenge is to blow up the parliament building because it has strong symbolic strength related to the power government has build over it’s citizens. The other part of V’s plan for revenge is to remove the government by force murdering the highest members of the Norsefire party one at a time including the High Chancellor Sutler himself. V does not want to be a part of whatever comes next. He knows he will not survive his last encounter with the remaining Norsefire Party members. V even leaves the choice to his only friend Evey Hammond weather to blow up Parliament or not. Evey is a very important character. She goes out one night to see a friend but it is past curfew and she is confronted by government Fingermen (secret police). They do not want to arrest her for breaking the curfew but gang rape her! She is rescued by V. Before this, she is just a normal citizen going about the everyday business of living. Later in the movie she saves V from the police. Through their interaction, Evey awakens to what is happening and loses all of her fear. She is transformed by V much like the population who also loses all of their fear by the end of the movie.

Art imitates life. “V for Vendetta” is no exception. The movie can serve as a warning to a possible future we may one day face. Really large and complex conflicts require a systematic approach for understanding and eventual transformation. By applying Social Cubism to the movie, we can also learn a good deal about the world we now find ourselves in. Social Cubism provides seven areas for analysis. They are:

1. Psychological

2. Ethnic / Religious

3. Linguistic

4. Historical

5. Political

6. Economic

7. Geographic

Mediation II

A second technique the mediator could pick is Transformative Mediation. As the name suggests, this method hopes to transform the relationship between the parties. This method requires a great deal of skill and discipline from the mediator. If transformative mediation is successful a true transformation in the relationship between the parties will take place. One drawback to this method is a risk of not getting a resolution to the problem or problems between the parties. The parties have control of the process and can choose not to work out their differences. At first glance, this looks like a drawback but it is possible the parties will gain a better understanding of each other and what they are facing.

The root cause of the conflict may be obscured by what brought the parties to mediation in the first place. In their book The Promise of Mediation The Transformative Approach to Conflict Bush and Folger provide The Purple House mediation example. It started out as a disagreement over the color of a house between a homeowner and a neighborhood association. Major causes of the conflict were not apparent at first. Rather, it turned out to be a perception of racism and little representation in the homeowners association of minority homeowners. This came to light by the mediator letting the participants drive the discussion in a direction of their choosing. A transformation in the relationship between the parties took place rather suddenly with both agreeing to work for a more representative homeowners association. The relationship between the parties was also completely transformed from mistrust and dislike to one of cooperation and friendship. This method requires a lot of skill from the mediator. This method also gives a lot of control to the participants. In doing so it also runs the risk of not getting some type of settlement or closure. Either side can decide to walk away at any time. Even if this happens, they should get a better understanding of each other and what the next steps will look like. There is another method our mediator can use known Narrative Mediation.

Narrative Mediation views relationships and problems as a story or narrative.  The goal of this technique is to help rewrite the ongoing story between the parties. The mediator is much more involved using this method than a transformative approach. He tries to get the whole story from each of the parties looking for underlying causes of the conflict. By carefully deconstructing the story of the conflict, the mediator can open new possibilities for a different understanding of events. This method is dependant on people’s perceptions, which may or may not be accurate. It ties in largely with the post-modern idea of there being no capital T truth. There are only individual perceptions of truth. A story of conflict can be rewritten to one of cooperation and mutual gain (Winslade and Monk). A drawback to this method can be one or more of the parties being deceptive throughout the process with the others involved. It could prove to be difficult to use this method if there is a looming deadline close at hand. A lot of time could be needed to use this process honestly. Narrative Mediation also requires a high degree of skill on behalf of the mediator. That said, mediation mainly depends on participants and not the mediator to be successful.

Mediation provides a way for parties to work out differences on their own terms with out having to tie up court dockets and wait months for some sort of resolution to be handed down. If a problem or dispute can be solved through mediation, it will likely be a more satisfactory outcome than going to court could provide. By using mediation, the participants retain control of the outcome. While going straight to court this control is relinquished. There are situations where mediation is not a good idea such as domestic violence or if one party has far more power than the other party. Still, there are many problems that can be worked out in a mediated session with a skilled mediator who knows how to employ a variety of mediation techniques based on the situation.

References

Bush, Robert A. Baruch, Joseph P. Folger The Promise of Mediation The Transformative Approach to Conflict Jossey-Bass Publishers San Francisco, CA 2005

Fisher, Roger, William Ury Getting to Yes Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In 2^nd Addition Penguin Books New York NY 1991

Winslade, John, Gerald Monk Narrative Mediation A New Approach to Conflict Resolution Jossey-Bass Publishers San Francisco, CA 2001

Mediation I

Mediation provides parties in conflict a way to work out their differences on their own with out having a solution imposed on them by a judge or other higher authority figure. It can lead to a more satisfactory and lasting outcome seldom matched by an imposed solution. There are several different types of mediation.  We will focus on three types in this paper; Facilitative, Transformative and Narrative. Each type has its own strengths and weaknesses. The best one to use is dependent upon the situation.  A good mediator should be able to pull from all three based on the situation they are trying to mediate. A mediation needs to be well thought out before the first meeting takes place. First, the mediator needs to ask if this conflict is appropriate for mediation in the first place. If there is a serious safety issue such as a threat of violence or mediation is being misused by one of the parties, it may not be a good situation for even trying mediation. Once the mediator has decided he may be helpful, he has important work to do before a successful mediation can take place. He needs to learn all he can about the conflict, the parties and other stake holders. Next, he needs to find an appropriate place and time to conduct the mediation. This could be at his office or a neutral site the parties involved both find acceptable. After the mediator has done his homework, he then needs to think about the best approach to use. We will look at three methods he could consider.

One technique he could use is Facilitative Mediation. This method focuses on different interests and positions of the conflicting parties (Fisher & Ury). This is done by focusing on the problem or problems the parties face and working toward a solution that benefits everyone involved. This is also known as a win-win situation.  The focus remains on the problem not the people. An important goal of Facilitative Mediation is to preserve and promote relationships. This is done by depersonalizing the issues at hand and coming up with creative solutions. Both sides are invited to come up with many different solutions through brainstorming and each idea is judged on it’s own merits and not by who created it. Ideally, the sides work together on the problem and not against each other. Facilitative mediation can be used in a wide variety of situations. If parties are involved in a more distributive negotiation where an ongoing relationship is of little importance, there is less room for a win-win style resolution. Even if there will be no on going relationship, Facilitative Mediation can still be beneficial. An agreement can be reached much quicker than going through to trial. If both sides agree to a settlement that they co-create, it is more likely to be kept and hopefully they will find it more satisfying. The mediator guides the process but is careful not to impose his own ideas for a solution. He is in no way to act as a judge or decider. This would defeat the whole purpose of mediation (let the parties create their own agreement) and discredit the mediation process. Facilitative mediation can work in conjunction with the next two styles Transformative and Narrative.

Some on Negotiation

Going into a negotiation, everyone should be acting in good faith. But this may not always be the case. Why not? There may be unseen agendas or what is on the table may not be the real issue at hand. Negotiations should be a voluntary process and you should feel you could walk away at any time. If the other party(s) is not acting in good faith, walking away is the best option.

 What are some good ways to deal with “dirty” tactics? If the other guys are playing games, address it. Depending on the size and the importance of the negotiation, it may be a wise idea to have one other person with you who understand the issues being considered. Negotiating alone against a team can be a pretty daunting and intimidating task. There are a number of good reasons to have someone with you. Here are a few typical hardball tactics and how to deal them.

 Intimidation. The other person presents his or her self as some kind of “authority” to be feared. A lawyer can be a good example. They have credentials and can threaten a lawsuit if the negotiations do not go to their client’s liking. Using a lot of emotion can also be used for intimidation. It may be tempting to give what the other side what they want to calm them down. The misuse of legitimacy may be another intimidation tactic, citing numerous policies and procedures. There are good ways for dealing with these situations. One idea can be taking a break. Let everyone step back and breathe a moment. Address the tactics directly and remind the other party why we are all here, to address the problem at hand and finding solutions that meets everyone’s needs and interests. This is also where having someone with you comes into play. We are not all intimidated by the same things. You and your partners can back each other up. And together, work out strategies on how to best handle the situation. Be willing to walk away from the table if the problems continue.

 Aggressive behavior. If the other side starts to get aggressive in pushing you to agree to their demands it may be a good time to slow down, review the whole process and purpose for the meeting. Returning in kind will only escalate emotions and risk a break down. Again, taking a break is always an option to let people cool off and regain their composure. All parties should make an agreement based on their needs and interests being met, not on whom can shout down whom.

 Snowballing or snow job. This involves the use of many facts and figures thrown out very quickly to cause confusion. Slow down! When things get unclear, ask for clarification, sources of the information and how it relates to the matters at hand. If there are inconsistencies, highlight them and ask for a further explanation. This is another time having a partner will be very important. Call out the tactic for what it is. The other side should take you more seriously. An important factor in being able to do this is having done your homework before and learning what is most important to the other side and how they may try to get their points across.

 Bogus Issues. It is not only important to know why you are there but why the other side is there as well. They may present one point as being key when that is not the case at all. For example, it may not be about the money but rather acknowledgement, understanding and an apology. Side A may be using money to get side B to the table and while money may be important, the deeper issues of acknowledging an error and truly hearing the other side may be paramount. Ask a lot of questions to be sure the issues being addressed are indeed the most important.

 ______________________________________________________

Good preparation and acting in good faith are most important and will be helpful in getting around people using the tactics (and other similar methods) listed above. Negotiation should always be voluntary. You should never feel you have to settle with others you feel are not acting in good faith. Run, don’t walk away! Remember to bring along someone. An extra set of eyes and ears may prove to be invaluable.