What do you think of this re restorative justice

[amibeingacunexttuesday]

I attended a conference on restorative justice last week and there was a particular academic speaker who was advocating for restorative justice for domestic violence offenders and victim. She was speaking on the fact that institutions and safeguarding policies shouldn't steal conflict from victims and offenders and if its what women wanted then we shouldn't try and block it. Somebody in the audience raised the point that it had been tried before and the man ended up killing her. Her response was that the media always portray the most severe events and domestic violence incidents like that are rare and most incidents are just one offs and people always assume the most extreme scenarios. I was as it's not rare - the statistic is something like 3 women a week are killed by a partner or former partner. A police officer in the audience also said that we should focus on these cases as there is a relationship that can be repaired and fixed. Another audience member questioned the fact that there are often injunctions to stop contact and social services often also tell women that their children are at risk if they have contact with the abuser. The response was that they would go to court to get the injunction removed to facilitate the meeting. I left the conference a bit shocked tbh and now I don't really know what to think but my instinct is to vehemently disagree with this.

Sorry about lack of paragraphs, typing on my phone.

I wonder which man came up with this nugget?

your instinct is right. These women will still be working through what has happened to them and do not need to be exposed to the inevitable gaslighting.

A police officer in the audience also said that we should focus on these cases as there is a relationship that can be repaired and fixed.

Really?

What is the purpose of Restorative Justice? To give the victim the opportunity to educate the perpetrator? To give the perpetrator the opportunity to understand the damage they have caused and to apologise for it?

Surely in DV, by the time it has come to actual harm, victims fleeing and injunctions, the perpetrator knows exactly what they have done? Knows and understands exactly the effects of their actions? Has made a fully informed choice to continue, rather than change? Where is there "a relationship that can be repaired and fixed"? Surely the time for RJ is well before this?

If OTOH the victim wants to confront their abuser from a protected position of strength, to tell them for their own closure, then, yes, the police should facilitate that. But it should not be the victim's job to educate or reform their abuser.

Eresh, yes he did say that, I haven't made it up. He was a retired police officer so quite old school I suspect. This is why I am posting as I was quite shocked at some of the opinions.

It's cheaper than other options and people can feel like they've done something.

Wasn't there something in the papers a while back with someone suggesting RV would be good for rape and lots of people were wtf

restorativejustice.org.uk/civicrm/event/info?reset=1&id=40

Wtf

www.communitycare.co.uk/2011/06/03/good-practice-restorative-justice-for-children-who-sexually-harm/

Wow

'Because most of the cases AIM deals with concern abuse within the family, restorative justice can be an innovative way to tackle the mediation and planning needed to ensure the safety of the victim and others when the offender returns to the family.'

I wonder how many female Vs male victims this is deemed appropriate for.

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

When men and boys are sexually accused etc it's seen more as a crime.

Abused not accused

'But Prof McGlynn argued that even if that system was the very best it could be, there would still be a potential role for restorative justice because not every victim-survivor of sexual violence has the same perspective. Justice for one woman might be a lengthy prison sentence for her attacker. For another, it may be acknowledgement of the harm caused'

www.sccjr.ac.uk/can-a-restorative-approach-help-survivors-of-sexual-violence-get-justice/

So when it comes to sexually motivated crimes against women and girls, it's up to them to decide the punishment? And of course they are supposed to be 'nice' and forgiving, and if it's in family/ local person who is popular, pressure to accept a chat and move on?

Would they EVER suggest this for gbh, attempted murder etc? No. It's prosecuted, seen as a serious crime. Worry the assailant might be a danger to others etc. But rape etc, esp if in family, well, he'll say sorry and carry on living with you, that sounds like a great result.

Fuck this.

If it isn't up to the state to "steal the conflict" then it most definitely isn't up to the state to decide which relationships are worth saving.
It seems to be a particularly unconsidered bundle of victim blaming, excusing violence and justifying institutional inaction.

And leveraging female socialisation to make everything go away, and not have to bother prosecuting.

We are talking sex offenders including those who rape their own kids ffs

Also why is sexual crime treated differently if the perp and victim are 'youths'?

What an utter load of shit.

Eresh, yes he did say that, I haven't made it up. He was a retired police officer so quite old school I suspect. This is why I am posting as I was quite shocked at some of the opinions.

The face was for him not you. I have no trouble believing that a male police officer would say that!

Oh yes, there was another ex police officer there promoting his phd in restorative justice for sexual offenders

Again, it’s all about the offenders (in the vast majority: men) and giving them second chances isn’t it? What’s in it for the victims? Closure, a chance to confront the offender and tell them how hurtful and damaging their behaviour has been? They fucking know!! That’s why they did it, they enjoyed the fucking power trip that abusing someone gave them.
It’s gaslighting bollocks. Absolute bollocks. Infinitesimal to zilch benefit for victims is what I see.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Your instincts were absolutely right. I would
Have been infuriated

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?