What is Restorative Justice?

Restorative justice has been described by many people and communities. The Department of Justice Canada defines restorative justice in the following way:

"Restorative Justice is a way of viewing justice that puts the emphasis on repairing harm caused by conflict and crime. In this approach crime is understood as a violation of people and relationships and a disruption of the peace of the community. It is not simply an offence against the state. Restorative Justice is collaborative and inclusive. It involves the participation of victims, offender and community affected by the crime in finding solutions that seek to repair harm and promote harmony."

Restorative Justice seeks to heal the harm that is caused by crime. It involves all parties that have been affected by the act – the offender and his/her family; the victim and his/her family; and the community at large. It works on the premise that in order to do justice, people and relationships must be repaired.

· It heals broken relationships and abuses, by people and for people.

· It builds instead of blames.

· It confronts a situation and helps those involved find a place of understanding, healing and acceptance of each other.

· It works to make life better for others and oneself.

Restorative Justice began in Canada with what is often known as The Kitchener Experiment. A Saturday night vandalism spree by a couple of intoxicated teenagers resentful of the local police in a small town called Elmira was hardly the making of headlines or criminal justice history. And when the two young men were subsequently apprehended and pleaded guilty on May 28^th, 1974 to twenty-two counts of willful damage, they had no idea that their experiences would be told and retold as the ‘Elmira Case’ in countless articles, speeches, and conference presentations. They were simply instructed to return to court in July to receive their sentences, and they spent the next couple of months in their homes in Elmira, a few miles north of Kitchener, Ontario.

The probation officer who was assigned to prepare their pre-sentence reports was hardly a crusading reformer. But he was prone to dreaming about new ways of doing things. Mark Yantzi had worked in the probation office in Kitchener for five years, after being a full-time volunteer under a programme sponsored by the Mennonite Central Committee (MCC). To be so directly tied to a part of the criminal justice system was itself an experiment for him as a Mennonite: the church had traditionally maintained a separation from government affairs, and particularly from the legal system with its reliance on coercive power.

At a meeting of a committee that MCC had just convened to explore other forms of involvement with the criminal justice system, the recent vandalism case from Elmira was discussed. “Wouldn’t it be neat for these offenders to meet the victims”, Yantzi said to the group (Bender, 1985). As a member of the Mennonite church, which has maintained a strong pacifist tradition since its beginnings in the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century, Yantzi liked the practical peace-making implications of offenders and victims meeting each other. He then dismissed the idea, assuming that the judge would not even entertain such a notion.

Dave Worth, another participant in the meeting who worked for MCC, challenged Yantzi to give it a try. After struggling over whether to risk his reputation as a probation officer by suggesting something that had no basis in law, Yantzi accepted Worth’s challenge. When he submitted his pre-sentence report to the judge, Yantzi enclosed a letter suggesting that “there could be some therapeutic value in these two young men having to personally face up to the victims of their numerous offences”.

On the day the case was scheduled for sentencing, Worth and Yantzi met in chambers with Judge Gordon McConnell of Provincial Court to present their plan to him. The judge replied that he did not think it was possible for him to ask the offenders to meet the victims. Worth and Yantzi resigned themselves to the inevitable, and went into the courtroom to await the case. When the case was called, the judge ordered a one-month remand to allow time for the convicted pair to meet the victims and assess their losses, “with the assistance of Dave Worth and Mark Yantzi”. As Worth recounts the scene:

“ I don’t know who was more surprised. I remember that Bill Morrison, the Crown Attorney, turned to look at us with a quizzical expression on his face (as if to say, what is this all about?) The two offenders certainly looked confused. The judge had a smile on his face. Mark and I looked at each other. Now what were we going to do?” (Worth, 1986)

Accompanied by Worth and Yantzi, the two offenders (aged 18 and 19) retraced their steps from the night of vandalism. They visited each of the places where they had damaged property, slashed tires, or broken windows. The circuit took them to private homes, two churches and a beer store. The probation officer and the MCC representative simply stood by with their notepads while the two youths knocked on doors, explained who they were, and why they were there. In all they spoke to twenty-one victims (an additional victim had moved and could not be contacted) whose damages totaled $2,189.04. Approximately half of that amount had already been covered by the victims’ insurance policies, leaving $1,065.12 in actual losses to the victims.

On August 26^th the youths appeared in court and Yantzi reported to the judge what had happened. The judge ordered a $200 fine for each, and placed them on probation for eighteen months. Drawing on the information that was presented to him, the judge included as a term of the probation order that each youth should make restitution in an amount up to $550 to be paid to the victims as the probation officer arranged. Both the fine and the restitution were to be paid within three months.

Three months later the youths had visited all the victims and handed each a certified cheque for the amount of his or her loss. The experience of personally confronting the victims had been a difficult one for the two teenagers, but one that also had its rewards. One of them commented afterwards, “I didn’t quit because of my self-respect, and I didn’t want to have to look over my shoulder all the time”. (Yantzi and Worth, 1977)

On receiving the restitution payments, the victims expressed a wide variety of reactions, as reflected by the following comments:

“Thanks, I never expected to see that money. I think I’ll spend it in a very special way to help somebody else.”

“Thanks a lot. I was young, too, only some of us didn’t get caught.”

“Aren’t you ashamed of yourself? You know this really isn’t going to cover it all. Who is going to pay for all those trips to Guelph for parts? Who is going to pay when they raise my insurance premiums? I don’t want anybody to go to jail, but you know I hope we don’t ever have this problem with you again, or anybody else.” (Yantzi and Worth, 1977)

Why is Restorative Justice Important to Kingston Community Chaplaincy?

Restorative Justice is important to us because crime does not just affect the offender, the victim, and their families; but also the community.  Because a healthy community is based on the relationships we build and it’s about repairing those relationships when they are broken.  Incarceration would not have helped those two young men.  Nor would it have helped the victims or the community.  Instead, the practice of Restorative Justice brought some measure of healing to all.  It is only when we make an effort to understand each other that we can truly live in safety and harmony.