The embattled San Francisco District Attorney, Chesa Boudin, ran on a program of “restorative justice.” He recently claimed a major “first” in his creation of an online dashboard that describes his restorative justice program.
What does restorative justice mean, and is it a forerunner of how things might be in Oakland or Alameda County? It’s important for us activists to understand these things. The intellectual foundations of the policy were laid down decades ago; in general, restorative justice is a liberal or progressive approach to criminal justice. Boudin’s official District Attorney website calls restorative justice “an approach that focuses on examining who is harmed when a crime has been committed and determining ways to repair the harm.” As part of that repair, restorative justice seeks to bring about “accountability between a person who has caused harm and the people affected by the harm.” There’s a widespread view in America that criminals seem to have more rights than the victims they harm. Restorative justice seeks to reverse this perception, by involving “survivors of crime…in decisions about how we hold people who have caused harm accountable.” In that way, “restoration and repair can happen”; the offender must help to undo the harm he did, with the goal of “long term healing.”
The book Restorative Justice defines the key elements of a restorative justice program: It brings the victim and the offender together in an “encounter,” mediated by a professional. The people talk about what happened, and come to an agreement on how to correct the harm done (beyond whatever penalties the criminal justice system imposes). The offender is expected to make “amends”: various forms of amends are apology, a promise to change behavior, and restitution to the victim (monetary or otherwise). Theoretically, a successful restorative justice session will bring “respect” to both victim and offender, and will “reintegrate” both victim and offender back into the community (some victims report feeling shamed in their community). The book’s authors point out that “fully restorative” justice may be hard to obtain. “Highly restorative” would be a goal, while “less restorative” may be the best that can be accomplished.
A question about restorative justice is whether and how it can be applied across the spectrum of crimes. A misdemeanor (shoplifting, domestic violence that does not result in a serious injury) seems a fitting setting for restorative justice. But what about murder? Boudin has been ambiguous on this subject.
A good example of restorative justice occurred in Boston, where the school board adopted a restorative justice policy for disciplining students. A third-grade girl confessed to putting up graffiti in a bathroom stall. For her restorative justice (to which she agreed), she not only cleaned up the graffiti, but helped her teacher clean up the classroom for a week. In addition, she went to each classroom in the school, admitted what she had done, and apologized.
Here in Oakland, the school district, as in Boston, has adopted a restorative justice program for youth, but the city as a whole has not. The Alameda County District Attorney’s office claims to practice restorative justice, but not in the cohesive or programmatic way that Boudin is proposing in San Francisco. For example, Alameda County has a Restitution Unit for victims of crime, but often the money comes from State funds, not the offender. The D.A. also arranges for various “support services” for victims, but there is no program to my knowledge that specifically brings victims and offenders together in an encounter. In Oakland, Cat Brooks has proposed sending “OGs [original gangsters] trained in restorative justice to deal with…conflict as opposed to police,”
but that does not seem to be the restorative justice model Boudin proposes; indeed, Brooks’ idea seems closer to the MACRO model Oakland already is rolling out.
I’ve been a critic of Chesa Boudin, and I support his recall. But the more I learn about his idea of restorative justice, the more I like it. Clearly there are levels of crime for which it is inappropriate. Just as clearly, crooks dissemble with ease; they’re good at the “con,” so can we really trust an apology, or a promise not to recidivize? It’s far too early in San Francisco to determine whether restorative justice works and should be continued. But that city should give it a chance. At the same time, Boudin needs to address widespread concerns that he lets criminals out of jail, or doesn’t prosecute them at all. The allegation that he’s “soft on crime” may be unfair, but it’s common, and being D.A. isn’t just about law enforcement, it’s about politics.
It’s obvious that the vast majority of Americans, including San Franciscans and Oaklanders, want tougher law enforcement. Restorative justice is nice, as far as it goes, but it can’t replace good old-fashioned “lock them up” justice. As long as Americans keep hearing about revolving doors at the courthouse, about recidivism, about predators with 30 felonies still on the streets, their trust in the criminal justice system will be undermined—whether “justice” is restorative or not.
Steve Heimoff