Evelyn Zellerer: Restorative justice would accomplish much more than tough riot sentences
How do you feel about Ryan Dickinson’s sentence? That was the opening question I was asked in an interview with CBC News.
Dickinson, who is 20 years old, is the first person sentenced in connection with Vancouver’s Stanley Cup riot. He pled guilty and was given 17 months prison and two years probation.
I feel some relief that finally the cases are being dealt with. It’s been eight months since the riot and that’s a long time to wait for closure. The criminal justice system is a very slow, cumbersome, and expensive bureaucracy. Shortcomings are obvious; B.C. premier Christy Clark just announced a review of the justice system with a focus on reform.
I also feel sad and frustrated. Authorities in B.C. have chosen a strictly criminal justice approach—police, courts, and prison. What a tremendous loss of an opportunity for healing and building community.
I raise a fundamental question: what is the purpose of our response to an offender?
Do we simply want punishment and retribution? That’s what this first sentence was about. Authorities wanted to send a clear message. If we continue to choose this get-tough, eye-for-an-eye approach, we really need to acknowledge what kind of a society that ultimately creates. And what about victims’ needs?
Crime hurts. Doesn’t it make more sense that justice should be about healing?
I think the purpose of our response to rioters, or any offender, should be to meet the needs of all parties through accountability, healing, and resolution.
The rioters attacked our community and many people were hurt and traumatized. Victims should be offered support and to have a say in what is required for resolution. Offenders need to be held accountable by taking responsibility, directly facing those they hurt, and helping to determine how they can make amends. And it’s our community, so we need to also be participants in a justice process.
The evidence is very clear: deterrence does not work; we have extremely high recidivism rates. Restorative justice does work. Recidivism is very low; victims report high satisfaction and reduced posttraumatic stress symptoms as well as less fear, anger, hurt, and vengefulness. Interestingly, research shows restorative justice makes the biggest difference with serious and violent crime.
So there are practical, evidence-based, and philosophical reasons for choosing restorative justice.
Dickinson is now going to spend the next year in prison. What have we truly achieved? Are the victim’s needs met and are they now healed? Is Dickinson going to be better off when he returns to our community? Are we a safer, stronger, healthier society?
And we’re about to continue to rack up an enormous bill, spending millions of dollars responding to the next 125 accused.
Imagine what we could accomplish if we redirected even a small fraction of the costs, say a million dollars, toward incorporating a restorative response?
Evelyn Zellerer is a consultant, facilitator, and speaker, founder of Peace of the Circle, and a part-time instructor at Kwantlen Polytechnic University. She holds a PhD in criminology.




Follow us on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Comments
or what ever the court deems as their punishment for the actions.
(yes, we need to punish those that commit crimes.fines,jail time,lack of freedom,curfew etc.. )
As well all know a slap on the wrist and a scolding does nothing.
We can not continue to make excuses or poor little Johnny and Mary will never learn that with every action comes a consequence. Good or Bad., Welcome to adulthood.
It would likely be the first time in his life he'd been given any responsibility, the first time anyone expected him to be anything but a punk in the system.
Restorative justice decisions, as long as they are significant (i.e. full value restoration), could turn some of these people around.
Oh well, at least Preemie didn't get her "show trials".
No, rioting and looting and gleefully reveling in a mob rampage are pretty major societal offenses and I think that jail time (within reason) fits the crime.
A special court should have been set up to deal with these people that would have used the promise of no criminal record (an exception being crimes of violence) as an inducement to come forward. Restitution would have been a part of this, with offenders working with victims to repair the damage done. Offenders should have also been sentenced to assist in the production of other big celebrations (fireworks, resurrected sea fest, etc) as a taste of the hard work and effort (largely volunteer) that goes into putting on these events. And we could have saved the stick for those who really deserved it.
We might have Ryan Dickinson off the streets for the next 13 months, but you can bet the traditional approach will all but guarantee that he or others similarly sentenced will be back to haunt us after they're out.
We had an opportunity here for a win/win, financially as well as practically. How hard is that to figure out? Unfortunately, the fact that there was serious political hay to be made over this has probably been paramount in guiding things in the current direction.
I think that most rational people who think about the matter a slight bit are more concerned about Dickinson and his kind for the rest of his life---he'll be 22 once this sentence runs out, so that leaves an awful lot of living for him to do with a criminal record and with fairly heavy psychological stress administered to him during a fairly important part of his development---young adulthood.
I'd rather a solution that uses the next 13-18 months to help Dickinson find his place in society, seeing as he'll need some place in society for 40+ years after his release.
It is debatable if that is even possible via any sort of criminal justice system, for rioting it certainly is not.
The rest of you; stop the hand wringing, it was not a pogrom, it was a fairly small (by real riot standards) group of people who did a trivial amount of damage to corporations with the resources to deal with it if they have not already been reimbursed with public funds