[Here's something a little silly. One of the phenomena cropping up today is the overwhelm

[Here's something a little silly. One of the phenomena cropping up today is the overwhelming number of little groups which spring up with the expressed purpose of "justice reform." What these groups usually are are racial-oriented groups which believe their phenotypes are being inequally treated under the law. If you review the "manifesto," you'll notice this is yet another. The individual below refused to provide any serious answers to my questions about why America needs yet another "justice reform" group. The glib, off-handed comment I received was "all those don't work." In other words this is yet another racist group unhappy with how they think they're being treated under the law. - flr] The Campaign for Equity-Restorative Justice (CERJ) John V. Wilmerding 1/15/97 Dedicated to the late Quaker justice reform advocate Fay 'Honey' Knopp, to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and to the vast numbers of African-American and Latino men and boys whose lives and human potentials are largely wasted due to misguided public policies and to a catastrophic mass indifference to their fates "Peace is not the opposite of war; rather, it is the opposite of indifference." - Elie Wiesel (paraphrased) "Justice as retribution" does not work. It is a false idea of justice which has been discredited for its cost and ineffective- ness. Leading criminologists now say that retribution does untold harm in the name of justice; that it is a thinly-disguised form of state-sanctioned vengeance which only contributes to the vicious cycle of crime and violence rather than making things better. Hence, over the past quarter-century or so, and in order to help explain the remarkable dynamics of a few innovative 'alternative' justice practices (especially Victim-Offender Mediation/Reconcilia- tion), activists for justice reform have been reaching for a 'new' concept of justice based upon reconciliation. And yet some have pointed out that not only is this approach to justice very old; it can also inspire us to re-evaluate or 'recycle' traditional justice methods of antique origin. By advancing various interpretations of 'principles' and 'elements' which these methods seem to share in common, reformers have given this theory several names. Three have achieved some wide recogni- tion: Community Justice, Relational Justice, and (per psychologist Albert Eglash in 1977) Restorative Justice (RJ). At this juncture, the latter name is the one most commonly used. With the popular awareness and trend toward RJ gaining momentum, those who formulate public policy are doing more than just taking notice; they are beginning to try to use RJ principles in state- sponsored corrections. And while their motivation in doing so is usually above-board, reform advocates note that sometimes RJ's core approach and philosophy are lost in the process; indeed they raise the ugly specter of governments "co-opting" RJ (ref: Howard Zehr). This problem of confusion over the 'purity' of RJ methods, compli- cated by the presence (noted above) of several names for this type of reform, has forced the question of the definition of Restorative Justice. However, as we are now spending time and energy strug- gling to unite around one common name and description, our preoccu- pation with this question threatens to sap the momentum of reform. With the above concerns in mind, some questions suggest themselves: 1. In considering the essential meaning of RJ, are we striving to define something that cannot be clearly defined? Indeed, is there any compelling reason to differentiate 'Restorative Justice' from the fundamental concept of justice itself? One interpretation of the popularity of the term 'RJ' is that it is a 'flag of convenience'; that reformers, witnessing the urgent need for radical systemic change, are trying to unify their efforts using the term RJ as a 'banner' for their very worthwhile cause. Given the crying need to elevate the moral level of the public policy debates on justice and crime and provide justification for a strong compensatory 'course-correction', it is easy to see that as a matter of historical coincidence (if for no other reason), RJ has almost become an effective 'battle cry' for the compensatory reform movement; that people are trying to use it to call popular attention to the destructive role of retribution, and to beg the alternative vision that as the very foundation of justice, public policy should manifest the noblest functions and essentially humane qualities which most people instinctively associate with this all- important function of governance. And so while some leading theorists now speculate that the question "What is Restorative Justice?" has no useful answer at this time, others feel very strongly that clarity in this regard is absolutely necessary; that if we are to continue to move in the direction of constructive reform, we must be able to (A) clearly articulate our reasons for doing so; and (B) do so using terms that make common sense; that most people, including the stakeholders in the estab- lished justice systems, find easy to understand. Leaning toward the latter premise, and assuming that the idea of "restoration" has proven attractive not only because it suggests 'balancing the scales' of justice, but also because it answers the public's perception that reliance upon retribution is essentially destructive of the 'fabric' of society, one recent line of inquiry assumes that the following question is crucially important: 2. In Restorative Justice, who or what is restored? Today, RJ advocates usually say variously that their methods enable victims, communities, offenders, or even the entire 'trinity' of these to benefit; to be "restored". However, the historic tension between those committed to offender-centered and victim-centered approaches to justice has clearly shown up the weakness of the idea that particular entities -- persons or communities -- benefit from 'restoration' in RJ. In particular, proponents of the victim-centered interpretation maintain that the central reason for using these methods is to arrive at ways for offenders to make "restitution" to victims. However, in practice this interpretation seems to be contributing to a retributive 'backslide'; in sympathy for victims, people tend to over-generalize "restitution" into the emotionally-based, vin- dictive idea represented by the quintessentially retributive slogan "It's pay-back time!" without examining the conditions which have tended to precipitate crime and conflict; in other words, without providing any guarantees against recidivism (re-offending). Hence the additional questions: 3. Do any of these interpretations suffice? Or are they each too vulnerable to valid criticisms from different quarters? Many justice reform advocates say that the struggle between these disparate orientations further disturbs -- even completely blocks -- the essential task of deriving a working definition of RJ. However, another answer to the question "Who or what is restored?" is now emerging. Heralded in antiquity, crystallized in religious teachings, and brought to bear upon practical social theory by Alexander Hamilton during the American Revolution was the premise that a cardinal component of justice is equity, and that some types of justice processes are uniquely well suited for its restoration. It may now be possible to unite around the much more explicit and conceptually-incisive 'banner' of: Equity-Restorative Justice What does the Campaign for Equity-Restorative Justice (CERJ) look like? It is taking the form of a charitable educational mission toward a new popular consensus for justice. CERJ activists will organize community justice initiatives, engage in public policy debates, raise public awareness of Restorative Justice methods, and sound the alarm about the harm done through "retributive justice". One possible consciousness-raising initiative: a 'full-stop' propo- sal (similar in function to Randall Forsberg's 1980s Nuclear Freeze resolution) directed against the 'prison-industrial complex'. This would probably include a moratorium on the building of new prisons (per a four-point reform plan proposed in 1991 by Fay Honey Knopp). CERJ will promote RJ methods of all kinds, including peer media- tion, aboriginal Sentencing Circles, Family-Group Conferencing, VORPs (Victim-Offender Reconciliation Programs), Victim-Offender Mediation (VOM), Court Diversion programs, Community Justice Conferencing (an outgrowth of Family Group Conferencing), the Alternatives to Violence Project (AVP), Victim Impact and Empathy Panels, and Community Justice Planning (a new concept built upon the Topsfield Foundation's Justice Study Circles method). And of course, CERJ will continue its already very effective Internet- based advocacy for Equity Restorative Justice - a mission which has already significantly elevated the intellectual and moral levels of the public crime and justice policy colloquia. In order to unite -- and, in some ways, simplify -- the public's understanding and appreciation of Equity-Restorative Justice and what it offers, CERJ intends to 'package' a broad array of charit- able giving opportunities under one 'umbrella', as it were. Thus CERJ will mount an inter-agency collaborative major-donor fund raising campaign which will enable donors to earmark their support for various organizations with practical missions that are directly supportive of equity-restorative justice. CERJ will also mount community-based development initiatives such as walk-a-thons, etc. How can one get involved? EmERJency! InCERJency! This early in the life of this inCERJent movement, there are opportunities in almost all areas. CERJ will hold its formal organizational meeting in New York City on May 9. If you are thus called, you could be there and help us constitute our first steering committee or Board. You could also offer to join our Board of Advisors -- if you happen to be on-line, you don't have to come to New York for that, as the Advisors will meet and discuss the work of CERJ over the Internet. Another thing you can do is get involved in Internet discussions yourself! CERJ is using a number of email discussion groups for public education around the urgent need for justice reform. Send email to John Wilmerding and ask for informa- tion about the justice discussion lists, for a Restorative Justice bibliography or reading list, or any other questions or concerns. However, CERJ will, by definition, be a peaceful inCERJency -- a movement built upon grass-roots community organizing. Everyone gets in at the ground floor! The greatest contribution you can make at this early stage of our work is to 'get the message' yourself and then do your very best to help your family, friends, and neighbors see the absolute necessity of 'switching the gears' of our public justice systems over to Equity-Restorative Justice. Schedule a CERJ program and form a local chapter now! The National Council of Churches has produced a 50-minute video titled 'Restoring Justice' which is ideal for local organizing purposes. Show it to friends and neighbors in a public gathering, show it at your house of worship, have it shown locally on public access television, or order it for your own benefit. It costs only $5.00! To order, call (toll-free in the USA): 1-800-524-2612. For further information, please contact: The Campaign for Equity-Restorative Justice (CERJ) John Wilmerding, Convenor 111 High Street * Brattleboro, Vermont * 05301-3018 Phone: 802-254-2826 * E-Mail: jwlmrdng@sover.net "Delay is the enemy of reform." - William Jefferson Clinton, 1996