Restorative Justice Responding to Shoplifting

Restorative justice asks fundamentally different questions, and is based on a different set of assumptions, than the current criminal justice paradigm (Restorative Justice for Oakland Youth, n.d.). The most notable and important difference between the current criminal justice paradigm and the restorative justice paradigm is that restorative justice does not focus on the punishment and does not advocate a punitive criminal justice system. Instead, the restorative justice model is based on several different points of views including how to repair harm. Restorative justice is solution-focused and also victim-centric in its approach to criminal justice. The National Institute of Justice (2007) describes restorative justice as being “grounded in community involvement,” which places a considerable degree of responsibility upon the members of the community in addition to the victims. As the Insight Prison Project (2017) puts it, restorative justice is “a philosophy and a social movement which provides an entirely different way of thinking about crime and victimization,” (p. 1). Restorative justice is similar to the rehabilitation model in that it recognizes the potential for an offender to reform and change his or her behavior. Yet restorative justice goes beyond the basic principles of rehabilitation to also focus on repairing the harm done to victim and community.
Restorative justice seeks to remedy the anomie that breeds some types of criminal behaviors. Advocates of restorative justice view crime “as a breakdown of society and human relationships and attempts to mend these relationships,” (iinsight Prison Project, 2017). According to Crawford & Newburn (2011), there are four primary components of restorative justice including encounter, reparation, reintegration, and participation. Each of these critical elements of restorative justice are integral to the effectiveness of the different models used in the criminal justice system. There are five main responses to crime in the restorative justice model: invitation to the community for consensus-building and full participation; healing “what has been broken;” seeking “full and direct accountability;” reunite “what has been divided;” and strengthening the community “to prevent further harms,” (Insight Prison Project, 2017). Because the Mahoney (2011) article focuses on nonviolent youth crime like shoplifting, it is important to focus on which of these five restorative justice methods or programs might work best.
Ultimately, the restorative justice program should focus on the needs of the community. The National Institute of Justice (2007) states, “a restorative response to crime is a community-building response,” (p. 1). How restorative justice programs might work depends on the structure of the community, its cultural composition, its cohesion, and the type of crime. Other considerations include the perpetrator’s background, the victim’s background, and also the relationship between the victim and perpetrator. Examples of successful restorative justice programs targeted specifically toward youth include the Oakland Unified School District’s program, the Ypsilanti High School program, and the Glenview Elementary School (Davis, 2015). What each of these programs share in common, besides their focus on youth violations, is the creation of a group process. The group processes can be small or large groups in which all persons are welcome to share their opinions, thoughts, and feelings. All three of the programs refer to the image of a community “circle,” indicating that all members of the community have equal status when participating in the process of restorative justice. A circle is inclusive, and it is also flexible, allowing for large or small groups to collaborate about possible solutions and deliberate over how to address the root causes of crime in their community. The conversation ideally provides evidence related to the sociological problems like poverty, anomie, or racism that might be linked to crime proliferation.
Furthermore, restorative justice programs using a circle model are helpful for instilling favorable values in young people. If restorative justice programs include circle conversations, they can refute what Mahoney (2011) assumes about young people lacking values. It is not the young people that are the problem; it is the adults that promote anomie and a lack of trust in the community. Restorative justice is crucial for youth, as its goal is “to bring students together in peer-mediated small groups to talk, ask questions, and air their grievances,” (Davis, 2013). The results of restorative justice programs like healing circles include building new social networks and empowering all members of the community. Law enforcement is always involved, learning from the community circles about their roles and responsibilities. As Mahoney (2011) point out, the current criminal justice model conceives of unduly harsh penalties for teen shoplifting. Because shoplifting is a relatively common crime costing the community money, “retailers are countering the trend with more prosecutions—regardless of how old the thief is or how much he's stolen,” (Mahoney, 2011). In fact, the popular belief is that “prosecution, along with educational programs, is the number one deterrent to future thefts,” (Mahoney, 2011). Recent research is showing this is not the case.
The Mahoney article is based on an inherent logical fallacy and misguided information, which restorative justice seeks to amend. What Mahoney (2011) suggests is that “ adolescents' values are already slipping,” thereby shifting the focus on the problem and presuming that teenagers have poor values leading them to cause crimes (p. 1). Similarly, Mahoney (2011) assumes that the punishment model is the one that works best, both as prevention and solution to the crime. Research is increasingly being used to show how restorative justice is in fact a more effective response to criminal behavior. Restorative justice might even be most effective when addressing both violent crime and nonviolent youth crime like shoplifting. As the Restorative Justice for Oakland Youth (n.d.) project points out, systematic meta-analyses and original research both point to the efficacy of restorative justice for adolescent offenders.
In addition to restorative justice circles of community conversation, the restorative justice programs geared toward youth may include conflict resolution protocols and procedures that empower all members of the community, including victims of crime that later go on to perpetrate crimes themselves. The interventions need to be given at multiple levels in the community and not just from parents and teachers. For example, using the Mahoney (2011) article as a case study, the restorative justice could entail introducing the young offenders to the owners of the stores they violated. Often meeting the victims face to face eliminates the dehumanizing element of a crime, and encourages empathy. That empathy will help the young offender develop more effective coping mechanisms. The Insight Prison Project (2017) offers several additional options for restorative justice programs that can be particularly effective in their communities. One is victim/offender mediation, which would mean that the victims meet directly with the offenders and engage in mutually beneficial dialogue.
Conferencing, peace circles, community service, victim involvement and victim assistance, and real restitution are also important restorative justice programs (Insight Prison Project, 2017). Of the various types of restorative justice programming that would be most effective in the case of teenage shoplifting, it definitely depends on the community, the perpetrators, and the victims. The victims do need to be given a voice in how restorative justice should work, and should never be forced to participate even if they are encouraged to do so. Community service would be less effective than victim involvement and mediation in the case with shoplifting for several reasons. One reason is that the offender often does dehumanize the retail merchant. The retail merchant is perceived of as a distant corporate entity, and restorative justice helps to show that the shoplifting has harmed real people and real community members. In fact, the owners of the stores, or their managers, might be the fathers and mothers, sisters and brothers, cousins and friends of the perpetrator. Meeting victims face to face helps to instill humanistic values and reduces the possibility of future offence.
Real restitution is often not possible in situations involving teenage shoplifting. The main reason why real restitution may not be available as an option is simple finance. Unless the adolescent shoplifting was occurring on a massive scale whereby the goods were being sold in bulk systematically online, then there would be no potential to extract the real value of the goods that had been stolen. Far more feasible would be to offer the perpetrator a job at the victim’s store, or some other creative sentencing model. Restorative justice often does rely on creative sentencing strategies. Ultimately, restorative justice is victim centric and victim focused, meaning that the victims have a major say in how they would like reparations to be made.
Finally, the most important part of restorative justice may be to improve the trust-building operations between law enforcement and the community. Restorative justice is by definition not punitive, meaning law enforcement is seen as a partner in the community and not as an antagonist. The at-risk youth that are the target population for restorative justice programs will learn to respect the members of the community who they have harmed, and also respect the police. Victims feel increasingly honored, respected, and listened to not just by law enforcement but also by their neighbors. Therefore, the shoplifting problem Mahoney (2011) describes is best dealt with using mediation and community circles for healing, repair, and community cohesion.







References

Crawford, A. & Newburn, T. (2011). Youth Offending and Restorative Justice. New York: Routledge.
Davis, M. (2013). Restorative justice: resources for schools. Retrieved online: https://www.edutopia.org/blog/restorative-justice-resources-matt-davis
Insight Prison Project (2017). What is restorative justice? Retrieved online: http://www.insightprisonproject.org/a-restorative-justice-agency.html
Mahoney, S. (2011). Teen shoplifting. Family Circle. Retrieved online: http://www.familycircle.com/teen/parenting/discipline/teen-shoplifting/?page=2
National Institute of Justice (2007). How to build community support for restorative justice. Retrieved online: https://www.nij.gov/topics/courts/restorative-justice/perspectives/pages/how-to-build.aspx
Restorative Justice for Oakland Youth (n.d.). Restorative justice. Retrieved online: http://rjoyoakland.org/restorative-justice/