Introduction
Crime continues to be a rampant problem in many societies, as conflict proves to be a natural engagement between humans. With that, regulating criminal acts have reached varying extents targeting both the punishment of offenders and the elimination of the causes leading to those kinds of acts. Emerging as among the most potent forms of responding to crimes is restorative justice – a concept that requires constructive cooperation and communication between parties to a criminal case (Umbreit 1).
This study serves as a descriptive account explaining the nature of restorative justice, with emphasis on one of its essential component – family group conferencing. Through a detailed presentation of pertinent facts, this study shows that family group conferencing is crucial in realizing the goals of restorative justice. To balance the accounts, this study also presents disadvantages and challenges confronting such measure. Overall, this study stands as a point-by-point discussion of the salient points of restorative justice with emphasis on family group conferencing.
A Briefer on Restorative Justice
Restorative justice is a form of response to criminal offenses, in which victims of the crime meet with their offenders, the families of both sides and the community wherein the crime happened communicates with one another to resolve the main problems that may have caused the occurrence of criminal incidents. Under that system, victims receive top priority through emotional and material support as a replacement for the criminal acts that befell them. In return, offenders gain direct liability in committing their crimes upon final judgment of the courts of law. Communities wherein criminal acts have occurred also benefit under that system through successive movements aiming to uproot the causes of those acts. Since both victims and offenders feel a sense of detachment to the community in which they belonged at the time the crimes occurred, that system stands as a measure that would enable both sides towards reintegration. For offenders, they will gain opportunities to develop their competencies that would encourage and prepare them to live a life free from criminality, while victims will have reassurance over the utmost protection of their welfare through community building programs (Umbreit 1).
Historically, restorative justice has dominated as the primary system of imposing justice against criminal acts. Yet, it did not fully flourish as the sole theme of criminal justice, as the rule of the Normans in England marked any offense against other people as a violation of the authority of the king. From that time, many conceived criminal acts as those that need prevention. The transformative nature of granting justice to parties in criminal acts have met a significant revival from interested parties believing that reformation of both offenders and victims would provide for more peaceful resolutions to solving and preventing crimes and their causes. Currently, there are several hundreds of those programs proliferating in both the US and Europe, with the growth of those numbers accounting for the success of the system itself (Braithwaite 2).
Restorative justice has several programs under its umbrella. Those programs include mediation between victims and their respective offenders, empathy seminars for offenders, community support mechanisms for victims and family group conferencing. The success credited to the system and its programs have met concrete feedback from several pieces of research, which reflected accounts of faster restoration periods for criminals, greater reduction of distress and trauma among victims and significantly lower instances of criminal actions (Umbreit 1).
Definition and Brief History of Family Group Conferencing
Family group conferencing is an innovation presented by the government of New Zealand in 1989. It is a measure adhering to restorative justice that mainly focuses on the welfare of juvenile delinquents, usually between 14 to 16 years old. Such program derived its rationale on the plight of the Maori people, whose experience with juvenile delinquency has violated their culture. Since juvenile delinquents previously went straight to the Youth Courts to hear judgment, members of the Maori people subjected to that kind of program have to be isolated from their families and communities. Such violates the communitarian nature of the Maoris, who highly value the completeness of their families and community members. Thus, the replacement program has placed great value on strong family ties, with the effective restoration of juvenile delinquents seen as possible with the presence and involvement of their respective families. The presence of more people in the conference makes the program different compared to mediation between the victim and the offender, in which those two parties are the only ones present (Van Ness and Strong 28-29).
The Process of Family Group Conferencing
In conducting family group conferencing, three groups of people have to be present in the conference venue – the divergent sides headed by the victim and the offender alongside their respective supporters and the conference facilitators. The facilitators are largely responsible for contacting both sides as they encourage them to send key people among their supporters would could voluntarily speak and argue during the conference proper. Crucial for the proceedings to take off is the full and express admission of the offender on the crime accused against him to render any further denial in the duration of the conference useless (Umbreit 2).
The offender is the person normally tasked to take the floor of the conference first. He should assert, without any further qualms, his involvement in the crime he admitted to have committed as he provides all of the fine details. Afterwards, participants in the conferences gain the opportunity to speak out of their experiences and reactions in relation to the crime in question. Those accounts enable the offender to realize the gravity of his mistakes, especially with the possibly high number of participants claiming that their lives have changed in a particular way after the occurrence of the crime in question. Once participants have finished their role, the victim gets the chance to express himself in light of the crime that befell him. He also has the opportunity to ask questions on the nature of the offense that inflicted him, particularly the terms that would apply to the offender. Subsequently, the victim gets the chance to decide particular parameters that would define the responsibilities the offender has to face in exchange for the crime he has committed. Other participants could contribute to such cause, provided the offender gets to repay for the damage he has done in a desirable manner. A binding agreement signed by all parties in the conference would authenticate the deliberated obligations and expectations (Umbreit 2).
Advantages of Family Group Conferencing
Family group conferencing has gained its positive reception from the fact that it observes the reformation of offenders being highly possible with the help of their families. The involvement of more people in the conference enables the empowerment of the whole community. Since the whole community – mostly composed of the families and supports of the victim and offender, and concerned persons that derived negative consequences from the crime, becomes present in the conference, their consciousness towards issues related to crimes heightens. Thus, condemnation towards criminal activities would grow stronger consequentially due to the people learning more about the ill effects of such acts to the peace of their community. Community members would start viewing themselves as potential victims of crimes within the community – a factor that would encourage them to prevent engagement in, and occurrence of, crimes (Umbreit 5).
Citizens could also offer themselves as volunteers supporting either the victim or the offender. The openness of family group conferencing to several options enables both sides to improve their prospects of reparation and the overall reformation of the system against the occurrence of crimes in the future. Various citizens could apply multiple perspectives based on their experience and professional undertaking to help both the victim – in empowerment and the offender – in repairing damage caused by his commission of the crime. Through that, both the victim and the offender would not have limited choices that could possibly improve their chances of reformation (Umbreit 5).
Furthermore, the most important contribution imbued by family group conferencing is its emphasis on family support. Kinship ties enable both the victim and the offender towards empowerment amidst their respective ordeals caused by the commission of the criminal act by the latter. As juvenile delinquency stands as the main issue involved in such program, the assistance provided by the family of the offender could be a corrective one based on due guidance in solving the main cause of the problem. Juvenile delinquents are presumably more comfortable in expressing themselves before supportive family members. In that case, the offender could derive further motivation from their family members to become more accountable for their actions as they repay for the damage that they have done. For the part of the traumatized victim, family members could provide an ample safety net that could support due emotional needs. As the victim recovers from the ill effects of the crime, family members could constantly check up on him in order to prepare themselves towards providing remedies that might become urgent at any point during his recovery stage (Umbreit 5).
Disadvantages of Family Group Conferencing
Despite the promising potential projected and proven by cases family group conferencing, it remains a relatively young program of restorative justice vulnerable to particular sets of external and internal triggers. Thus, family group conferencing possesses a handful of disadvantages – although that does not mean that those may not meet effective resolutions through appropriate measures.
The failure to organize the conference properly may result to five kinds of dangerous effects that might alter the integrity of the meeting between the victim, the offender and their respective families and supporters. Firstly, it is important to foster a comfortable environment of trust within the conference to encourage openness between both parties. Tension may arise once opposing parties face one another. Thus, it is important to prepare both sides for the conference first before commencement. Both sides should be aware that the conference is for a constructive measure aimed at achieving restoration affecting both of them. Otherwise, lack of preparation could turn perilous to the whole process as it may affect the crucial part of commencement (Umbreit and Zehr).
It is also important for all the people in the conference to give due regard to the victim of the crime. As it stands, victims are the ones who are highly traumatized and they have the tendency to react to the slightest provocation due to his status as the receiving end of justice in the conference. The side of the offender and the conference organizers should observe extra care in dealing with victims, as they may react to the slightest stimulus that could feel constraining on their part. Otherwise, the victim might resort to resistance, which ultimately spells the failure of the program (Umbreit and Zehr).
At the same time, offenders – the juvenile delinquents, should have adequate space for expression once he gains the floor for discussing his side. Given that the offender has met the prerequisite of deliberate admission to committing the crimes involved, the rest of the people within the conference should avoid resorting to trivial emotional matters that could pin down the offender further and cause delay and disarray in the program proceedings. There is an understanding that tensions may surround the atmosphere of any conference between the offender and the victim, but in keeping with the objective of repairing matters in the most cooperative way possible, both parties should observe a deep sense of circumspection in expressing their sides as they give way to one another (Umbreit and Zehr).
A family group conference is not one aiming to pin down the offender. His mere submission to the crime accused of him is, in fact, a sign that he is willing to submit to any specified conditions for reparation. Anyone within the conference should thus avoid persecuting the offender further. Otherwise, his state of mind might not accommodate any idea of cooperation and might lead him to see himself as the real victim due to the excessive mockery hailed against him by the people. To keep things stable during the conference proceedings, it is essential for the virtue of neutrality to embed itself among all participants (Umbreit and Zehr).
Organizers of a family group conference should not hold on to the ill virtue of inflexibility in carrying out procedures. Verily, such danger is highly apparent in the Australian system that has permeated similar programs in the US as well. Every conference should note the importance of observing the cultural standards of the participants. Otherwise, it would become harder for the conference to bear the fruits of effective cooperation between the divergent parties (Umbreit and Zehr).
Introducing and implementing the family group conference may find its way in a complicated web of administrative and legislative conflicts. Whereas the expected outcomes of the program prove to be ideal for both the victim and the offender, it is nevertheless true that if such does not find a proper application within a given setting, it may altogether fail and create further divisions between the parties meant for reconciliation, cooperation and resolution of the main problems surrounding the crime involved. Thus, full support from the government through its administrative and legislative bodies is highly essential. Through that, creative usage of such program could lead to more efficient and expeditious conference proceedings in line with the objectives of restorative justice (Adams and Chandler 113-114).
Synthesis
In terms of advocating the objectives of the restorative justice system, the family conference group serves as a perfect fit. While being a new program, it has marked its success across jurisdictions outside New Zealand and Australia – the two places where it originated, influencing criminal justice systems of the importance of bringing justice not only to the victims of crimes, but also to offenders whose potential to become constructive figures in society remain outstanding. Verily, it would appear that such system portrays offenders as victims in themselves - not because they suffered in the same way as their victims did, but because of the vicious cycle of crime within society. Thus, a community-based approach fostered by the program stands as a viable measure that could encourage more people to unite against the proliferation of criminal activities. The simple take of the program on empathy, justice and peace makes its proposition ideal to the welfare of any community, in general.
Problems besetting the family conference group lie only within the realm of implementation and government support. For such program to work properly, it has to observe particular circumstances accounting for its successful execution. The virtues of respect, sensitivity and impartiality should permeate all participants in the program, so that no one from among them would react violently as the proceedings continue. Government support is another essential factor that could make such system sustainable. Without the support of the government, there would be no solid regard to the implementation of related rules needed to facilitate the program smoothly. The government may also lose viable opportunities from victims who wish to go back to their normal life in society and from offenders willing to undergo reformation to become useful as social beings if the program does not get ample support. Lack of incentives from staying away from crime may also become a problem for a government who refuses to give its backing to the program.
Conclusion
It is noteworthy to emphasize on the point that restorative justice is a highly preferred justice regimen that provides opportunities for both criminal offenders and victims to recover from their unfortunate states. The family conference group is a program that could encourage reformation against the ill effects of crime on the victim and the offender. Such provides an ample medium for the victim and offender parties to express their sentiments and ideas on solving the problems brought unto them by the crime that has occurred. To maintain its effectiveness, it must meet with ample government support – one that serves two roles as a protector of the institution and a staunch regulator of crimes.
Works Cited
Adams, Paul, and Susan Chandler. "Responsive Regulation in Child Welfare: Systemic Challenges to Mainstreaming the Family Group Conference." Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare XXXI.1 (2004): 93-116. Print.
Braithwaite, John. "Restorative Justice: Assessing Optimistic and Pessimistic Accounts." Crime and Justice 25 (1999): 1-127. Print.
Umbreit, Mark. Family Group Conferencing: Implications for Crime Victims. Rockville, MD: Office for Victims of Crime Resource Center, 2000. Print.
Umbreit, Mark, and Howard Zehr. “Restorative Family Group Conferences: Differing Models and Guidelines for Practice.” Federal Probation 60.3 (1996): n. pag. Web. 17 March 2013.
Van Ness, Daniel, and Karen Strong. Restoring Justice: An Introduction to Restorative Justice. Netherlands: Elsevier, 2010. Print.
