Restorative Justice and Collective Responsibility: Lessons for and from the Rwandan Genocide

Genocide struck Rwanda in 1994. Since then, national and international trials have endeavored to promote reconciliation, deterrence, peace, justice, and human rights. This article posits a disconnect between these trials and the attainment of their avowed goals. This disconnect emerges in part from the influential agendas of international lawyers who equate selective criminal prosecution with the "rule of law" and espouse criminal prosecution as the preferred and uniform response to mass atrocity. Creating a presumption in favor of criminal prosecution has dampened the need to explore whether such trials actually are suitable for the particular afflicted society. A socio-legal analysis suggests that Rwanda is precisely a place where constructed notions of what "rule of law" ought to be are supplanting the need to implement reconstructive policies that may be best for Rwanda. In particular, the populist nature of the Rwandan genocide, coupled with the vast level of victimization, suggest that a shame-based restorative approach may be more successful in promoting reconciliation, deterrence, and peace than the guilt-based retributive approach currently in vogue. This article argues that, when the law blames occurrences of genocidal evil largely on the existence of some evil people, it obscures the fact that so many people, to varying degrees of complicity, are required for this evil to result in so many deaths.     

Editor's Note

An evaluation approach that is collaborative and elicitive may well serve as a catalyst for transforming relationships of power, standing in stark contrast to more conventional and staid evaluation practices that are technical in nature and actuarial in intent. Election of an orientation is the most decisive and strategic choice that is made in approaching evaluation and articulating value imperatives in fieldwork, coloring as it surely does the pragmatic stages of evaluation and good practice for the peacebuilder.     

Paradigm Muddle or Paradigm Paralysis? The Wide and Narrow Roads to Restorative Justice Reform (or,a Little Confusion May Be a Good Thing)

McCold (2004 McCold, P. (2004). Paradigm muddle: The threat to restorative justice posed by the merger with community justice. Contemporary Justice Review, 7: 13–35. [Taylor &; Francis Online] , [Google Scholar], this issue) argues that community justice and balanced and restorative justice (BARJ) models confuse people and distort the restorative justice movement. We argue that there are many sources of confusion and explain the differences between these approaches. Neither model poses any threat to restorative justice, and both community justice and BARJ can garner new support for restorative justice. We respond to misleading portrayals in McCold’s account of these movements (and of our writings about them) and suggest that more time should be spent on truly critical debates within the restorative justice movement, and in confronting real barriers to restorative justice reforms.     

Revisionist history,visionary criminology,and needs-based justice

Although there may be some value in debating the question of whatever happened to radical criminology, I believe that it is more productive to think in terms of radical and/or critical continuities in pedagogy, research, and practice that have survived time and can be linked to current efforts in visionary criminology and transformative justice. Examining changes in the study of crime and justice from such a perspective, it can be argued that the antiestablishment criminologies of the year 2003 are not any more marginal, and in fact may be less marginal today than when radical criminology first burst onto the scene in the early 1970s.     

Drugpeace

A society’s conceptualization of “human nature” determines both how its people behave and their perceptions about justice. This paper contrasts societies that see humans as naturally competitive and selfish and requiring behavioral training (Skinnerian approaches to social control) with societies that see humans as naturally pro‐social and cooperative, striving to contribute (the premise of the prophets of major religions). Whereas the former rely mainly on rewards and punishments, and utilize retributive forms of justice, the latter rely more on apology, forgiveness, and restitution, with restoration of harmony as the goal of justice. The paper evaluates these two approaches in light of an image of human nature (recently developed by the author) that identifies three evolutionarily selected psychological needs that we all share: for acceptance, autonomy, and meaning. When any are denied, we tend to respond in anti‐social ways. Societies where that happens – particularly punitive authoritarian hierarchies – serve human nature less well, and are inherently unstable. Smaller, more egalitarian communities tend to evolve dialogic processes for resolving social rupture, a psychologically preferable process to coercion and shame.     

Immigration and Justice: The Allocation of Goods to Newcomers from the (Former) Soviet Union in Israel1

This paper looks at ways in which notions of membership and of just allocation were articulated in the everyday practices of a voluntary organization set up in the early 1990s to distribute clothing and household goods to newcomers from the (former) Soviet Union in Israel. Based on an ethnographic account of the distribution centre, this paper describes its underpinning ideology and demonstrates the implications of this ideology for the rules governing the allocation of goods. The paper analyzes three inter‐related axes around which notions of rules of just allocation were equivocally interpreted and implemented. The first of these axes related to the discourse of justice deemed most appropriate to the newcomers; the second to the status of the newcomers; and the third to the creation of social categories—primarily defined in ethnic terms—and the hierarchical relationships between them.     

Restoring Faith: Resolving the Roman Catholic Church’s Sexual Scandals Through Restorative Justice (Working Paper I)

Two years ago, Independent Academic Research Studies, a UK based international network, started a research and implementation project to explore the potential of restorative justice to help resolve sexual offending cases involving children and young people. One aspect of this project is the use of restorative justice with sexual offending cases that occurred within the Catholic Church. The purpose of this article is to report on the main findings of the first stage of the project, based on desk research into existing or past international projects dealing with the matter. The aim, however, is not to provide a literature review of the main arguments surrounding the topic, but rather a critical overview of the restorative programs and research projects that have been implemented to test the notion’s application in sexual offending cases. The results of these programs will be contrasted with notorious cases that have been processed through the traditional criminal justice system. Therefore, this article is the first in a series on how restorative justice could be applied to help resolve the sexual scandals in the Catholic Church.     

Narrative accounts from the citizens,victims, and offenders restoring justice program

This paper describes the Citizens, Victims, and Offenders Restoring Justice (CVORJ) program, a prison-based program conducted as a pilot study at the Washington State Reformatory. The program brings together offenders and victims - though not involved in the same crime - in the company of interested community members to discuss restorative justice principles. The program focuses on the sharing of personal narratives of crime to explore how the harms resulting from crime can best be addressed and justice achieved. Of interest was how a restorative justice model that highlighted community participation could be incorporated into a correctional setting and whether healing could result from the use of surrogate offenders, victims, and community members. The restorative nature of the program, its method of operation, results from the qualitative evaluation, and key implementation challenges are presented.     

Justice in relationships: Calgary community conferencing as a demonstration project

Contemporary and alternative justice paradigms lead to definitions of wrongdoing as "lawbreaking" and "harm to social relationships" respectively. The retributive model within the contemporary justice paradigm results in strategies to accomplish justice that focus almost exclusively on the wrongdoer. In contrast, the restorative model within the alternative justice paradigm yields justice practices that focus on the relationships among all individuals harmed by the wrongdoing. Calgary Community Conferencing is an example of a restorative approach to wrongdoing. The relational emphasis of this program is operationalized through its organizational location, intended outcomes, and program activities. The challenges faced by Calgary Community Conferencing provide other agencies with ideas about dilemmas they might encounter in attempting to develop restorative justice programs.     

Reconciliation: I Know It When I see It 1

States emerging from conflict increasingly seek ways in which to address the violence and human rights abuses of the past in order to move forward into a more peaceful future. The initial responses to mass atrocities were based in legal processes focused on the punishment of the person responsible for the harm. The inadequacy of such an approach resulted in the introduction of a variety of new goals in the transitional period, including the abstract notion of reconciliation which is increasingly advanced as the central goal in dealing with the legacy of the past. This article argues that the failure to examine the relationship between a discourse originally based on human rights and legal approaches and the introduction of reconciliation has only added new challenges rather than resolved existing ones and therefore must be re‐examined. The article also argues that no single approach should take prominence in addressing mass atrocities. Rather a range of options should be available to victims, in particular given the relative youth and inexperience of approaches to violent conflict.