Restorative Community
  • Blog
  • Who We Are
  • Get In Touch
  • Blog
  • Who We Are
  • Get In Touch

Restorative Community

of Aotearoa New Zealand

Opinion: A Call for Considered Thought

30/6/2018

1 Comment

 

Rodney Holm, Facilitator

This is a call to all facilitators urging them to begin to consider the possibility of declining to take on any more Domestic Violence cases that involve Intimate Partner Violence.  The reason for this rather startling claim is that this may be the only way to protect the integrity of the RJ process.  There are two reasons for this suggestion, and I will now examine them both. 

Before a facilitator can do anything with the persons involved in an IPV case, they have to fill in an 18 page document containing a number of questions, including questions about ‘lethality.’  This is so that the innocent female victim of IPV will be ‘safe’ if a conference proceeds.  It is possible to argue that the concept of ‘safety’ is now so overblown that it has become a straitjacket for facilitators and the RJ process.  Both are tightly confined. So confined in fact that the process may no longer be RJ at all.  Changing the metaphor, I want to argue that RJ facilitators have been headlocked  and dragged into the vehicle of the official justice system.  Once in there we become part of the punitive arm of the state.  The ‘offender’ is an individual (male) person, and we are part of the process that is determined to punish him so that he will stop being violent. 

This is morally dubious, ethically suspect, and intellectually fraudulent. It is fraudulent because punishment rarely ever changes behavior and the whole purpose of RJ is to change people’s behavior.  Defining IPV as a ‘crime’ (since 1995) has not altered the incidence of the behavior, yet we continue to act as if it does.  RJ is not interested in punishment,  or singling out one person as ‘the offender’.  RJ is all about relationship, yet this is the very thing that we are not allowed to address in IPV cases on the grounds that it is merely a covert way of blaming the victim.  Something is wrong somewhere.   

The second reason why all facilitators should rebel against IPV cases, is that these intimate relationships have been in place for a long time, and they are the product of long-standing deeply entrenched cultural and family patterns of behavior, which occur against the social structural constraints of education, health, housing, employment, ethnicity, gender and class. If we leave aside the five percent minority of genuinely pathologically violent men, the other ninety five percent are the result of the perfect storm of the confluence of all the negative indices indicated just above.  I have met with many incarcerated men who have wept profoundly at what they have done to their partners, yet whose tears are also for their inability to escape the spider’s web of circumstance which is constraining their ability to carry out the most basic and defining characteristic of masculinity as they understand it, to have a job and provide for their family.  These men cry, and cry out for help.  Yet all we offer them is the harsh face of punishment through incarceration. 
​

As facilitators we have allowed ourselves to be sucked into this god forsaken process of beating up on these beaten men.  Have we forgotten the transformative potential of the restorative justice process?  Facilitators everywhere, begin to think seriously about this.  You have nothing to lose but your belief in a morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest system of punishment. ​
1 Comment

Restorative Justice: Best Practice in New Zealand

25/5/2016

0 Comments

 
rj_best_practice.pdf
File Size: 438 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

​The Ministry of Justice has developed a set of best practice restorative justice principles and standards. These documents are currently being updated. This is to ensure that they continue to support the delivery of a quality RJ service with consistent, credible and safe practices. (2004)
0 Comments

    Contributing Authors

    Chris Marshall
    Kim Workman
    Haley Farrar
    Lindsey Pointer
    Tom Noakes-Duncan
    Andrea Parosanu​
    ​
    Ryan Meachen
    Rodney Holm
    PACT
    Resolution Institute
    Mike Hinton
    ​
    Anna Costley
    Restorative Practices Whanganui
    ​Margaret Thorsborne

    Archives

    July 2019
    June 2019
    April 2019
    November 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    May 2015
    October 2014

    Categories

    All
    Case Study
    Community
    Conference Presentations
    Corrections
    Cyberharm
    Education/schools
    Facilitation
    Family/domestic Violence
    Higher Education
    Indigenous
    Justice
    Law And Policy
    Opinion
    Pedagogy
    Reintegration
    Religion/Theology
    Research/evaluations
    Resources
    Restorative Justice
    Restorative Practices
    Training And Accreditation
    Victims/survivors
    Workplace

    RSS Feed

© COPYRIGHT VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON, 2015-2018. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.