What do you think of this re restorative justice

In this book by the Chair of the London Domestic Abuse board she mentions how RJ is particularly inappropriate in DA as the perps are very good at sounding contrite when they can avoid a conviction and are likely to be manipulative types too.

Raped not taped

RJ not rjb

Plan

I was thinking of the link which said that rjb could be useful with youth sex offending.

I'd say it's not appropriate for any sex offending, but if it had to be used, it would be more appropriate for adults than young people. I'm a lot less confused and self doubting about sex offences now as a grown woman than when I was young. I know it's all about them and not about me. When I was taped by an ex at 17 though I struggled to name it as such, I was very confused by the whole thing, I tried to talk to him after to make sense of it etc. I mean I think it's wrong for adults but to say it's positive for young people is bananas to me.

The trainer, like a lot of people, doesn't understand the difference between interpersonal couple violence and coercive control.
Thank goodness we now have laws outlining how coercive control functions as a pattern rather than one-off incidents.

It sometimes makes me a bit impatient when people with no expert knowledge of gendet-based violence sound off about domestic abuse using some kind of guru status.
A mental health nurse did it last week. I had little crescent moon marks on my palms from making fists and trying not to interrupt.

I think RJ can be a good tool and result in good outcomes when it's used appropriately. In my experience more serious violent offences aren't considered appropriate for that approach, so that would rule out a chunk of DV cases right away.

Could it ever work well in those other cases? The way I would want to look at answering that would be to look at the outcomes with cases as they are handled conventionally, vs the outcomes with RJ. I think the latter might work better for some cases if the proper supports were in place, but how well would we be able to see which ones those were, how many mistakes would there be, and what kinds of outcomes would happen then? I don't know if there would be any way to know the answers to those questions without trying it out and collecting some data.

One thing it does make me think of is an article I read (maybe posted here) about female lawyers, on of whom was working in a role with DV where she was able to decide which cases were prosecuted. Typically many were not and she had intended change that and did. But the outcomes weren't at all what she expected, regularly there were instances where it made things worse for the women.

If anyone remembers the article, it is worth reading, it gave me a really different perspective I hadn't thought of before.

Fraggling
I think RJ can be used sparingly with minors for things like theft, vandalism, drug use. Things where rehabilitation is possible and there has been no bodily harm to another living being. I agree it would not be good for youth sex offences or assault because those involve bodily harm with lifelong burden on the victims.

What did you mean by other way around? Did you mean you think RJ can be used for adult offences but not youth?

Agree with most PPs about the issues with RJ. I have a family member that teaches it, and even she thinks there are situations where it isn't appropriate and/or where one party refusing to participate is the right course of action.

In your OP, I think you say that institutions and safe-guarding policies steal conflict from those who might want it?

I think, particularly in light of the most recent post about minimising DV, this also tends towards seeing domestic abuse as a ‘high-conflict’ relationship rather than abuse perpetuated by one person against the other, usually male on female, in a system of inequality. It might masquerade as conflict as the perpetrator may provoke the victim for a reaction, but the dynamics of domestic abuse are not conflict (they are usually the victim doing everything she can to avoid conflict and finding herself abused anyway).

My second point is it seems that restorative justice as discussed here then fits into this doing everything you can to avoid conflict (I.e being abused). Abuse works because victims think if I do x, y or z the abuse will stop, or if I just explain some more, he will understand. Restorative justice fits the ‘if I just explain some more’ point, whereas the truth is there is nothing you can say to make him get it. A waste of time and emotional energy. The best bit of advice is in the Bancroft book which is to concentrate on healing yourself and DC and do not engage at all (I paraphrase).

Sounds neither restorative nor just.

I assume so as well Barbara, the links do suggest that is a good time to use it so I was wondering what the pp had in mind.

Agree it may be useful in some circs it's the modern version of taking your kid round to say sorry if they boot a ball through a window isn't it?

I don't think anyone's suggesting using it with youth sex offences Fraggling - that would indeed be unconscionable. I think the idea was that it might play a role in addressing relatively minor anti-social behaviour (setting fire to bins was one example given upthread).

'I can see a place for it if used sparingly with minors, but not at all with adults.'

Can you expand on this? My instinct is its the other way around. The idea it's a good thing to do with youth sex offences in my previous links is mind boggling.

I am against any restorative justice for adults. I can see a place for it if used sparingly with minors, but not at all with adults.
I agree with much said here about pressuring women to turn the other cheek.
I think it is regressive to more ancient systems of justice that were less just than the criminal code and minimum sentences we have now. For example, restorative justice used to require a woman to marry her rapist in order to restore her honour and community standing instead of becoming a fallen woman and having to resort to prostitution to survive. That’s not justice in any sense.

Well let’s follow that line of reasoning through. If it’s ok because the woman chooses to restore the relationship then isn’t it also ok when she stayed with him while he was beating her? What next? Implied consent?

Your instincts were absolutely right. I would
Have been infuriated

Only alongside a criminal sentence and after the victim has had extensive therapy so they can safely manage any retriggering that results from discussing events with the perpetrator.
As a stand alone response to DV? Someone’s having a laugh aren’t they? If women really do see the conflict as something to keep and not be ‘stolen’ they need to enrol on the Freedom Programme asap .

I’m fast losing patience with so called academics and their preposterous ideas.

I think restorative justice is crap, and that it is absolutely a way of making bad things go away by using women's socialization to be nice to guilt them into not punishing men (see "carceral feminism") for crimes that men have committed against them.

Gut feeling is it's to leverage female socialisation to make it all 'nice' again.

Absolutely, Fragling. I've ranted about this on here before.

Restorative justice works well for minor offences - a kid who's vandalised an OAP's garden might be turned round by having to listen to how much the garden meant to the victim, then a certain number of hours of community service repairing damage from vandalism.

But it is never appropriate for violent or sexual crimes.

And the idea that the aim of handling DV is to repair the family and sweep it all under the carpet - that stinks.

I'm a (female) police officer. I would argue restorative justice is most effective with either lower level offences with first time offenders, or with traffic offences. For example, drink driving or hitting somebody whilst texting. There are genuine opportunities for remorse, understanding, and reparation in those situations.

I would never suggest RJ for a domestic victim or sexual offences. However, the victim ALWAYS has to agree to RJ. So, if one of my victims wanted to meet her ex who abused her, then of course I would facilitate this. It's her choice. It wouldn't be what I'd want to do, but if she thinks it would help then fair play to her. Can't say any of my victims ever have though, and I've never heard of it being suggested to them for these types of offences.

I don't generally think RJ should be used in cases of violence against women and girls.

With an abuser imagine if he has children with the victim which allows him to maintain an ongoing relationship with her. He can use triggers to push her buttons without outsiders (like a naive facilitator ) knowing what he is doing.

Or a rapist might find it arousing.

Just no.

It works when teenagers need to understand why it's bad to set fire to bins.