CIVILIZING CRIMINAL JUSTICECIVILIZING CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Professor John BladProfessor John Blad

&&

Dr. David CornwellDr. David Cornwell

CENTRAL PREMISECENTRAL PREMISEthat:that:

The ‘Traditional Retributive’ and The ‘Traditional Retributive’ and ‘Restorative Justice’ ‘Restorative Justice’ paradigms paradigms of of

criminal justice are criminal justice are NOTNOT irreconcilable irreconcilable

PRIMARY PURPOSE OF CRIMINAL PRIMARY PURPOSE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICEJUSTICE

To repair the social harm caused by To repair the social harm caused by offending, or to inflict retributive offending, or to inflict retributive

punishment on offenders? punishment on offenders?

Does RJ need to clarify its own principal Does RJ need to clarify its own principal aims?aims?

Is it an Is it an alternativealternative to ‘traditional to ‘traditional justice?justice?

Is it a ‘diversionary’ agenda for CJ Is it a ‘diversionary’ agenda for CJ reform?reform?

Should it be an integral element of Should it be an integral element of effective sentencing structures?effective sentencing structures?

Is it potentially only an ‘add-on’ Is it potentially only an ‘add-on’ element of sentencing processes?element of sentencing processes?

RJ ‘Fault-Lines’RJ ‘Fault-Lines’James Dignan (2002)James Dignan (2002)

Conceptualisation and definition of Conceptualisation and definition of RJ?RJ?

Identity and status of legitimate Identity and status of legitimate stakeholders?stakeholders?

What is the ‘ultimate’ or ‘optimum’ What is the ‘ultimate’ or ‘optimum’ RJ : ‘traditional’ justice relationship?RJ : ‘traditional’ justice relationship?

FAULT-LINE 1FAULT-LINE 1

The need to clarify whether restorative The need to clarify whether restorative justice is a justice is a processprocess for doing justice for doing justice differently, or more a means of differently, or more a means of ‘managing’ criminal justice ‘managing’ criminal justice outcomes. RJ proponents appear to outcomes. RJ proponents appear to its critics to fall on either side of this its critics to fall on either side of this fault-line.fault-line.

FAULT-LINE 2FAULT-LINE 2

Does crime itself need re-defining to Does crime itself need re-defining to provide a more obvious distinction provide a more obvious distinction between criminal offences and other between criminal offences and other acts or misdemeanours that might acts or misdemeanours that might better be dealt with as civil wrongs?better be dealt with as civil wrongs?

Do all acts presently defined as Do all acts presently defined as ‘criminal’ necessarily require State ‘criminal’ necessarily require State intervention? intervention?

FAULT-LINE3FAULT-LINE3

(Described by Dignan as ‘Realpolitikal’ (Described by Dignan as ‘Realpolitikal’ issues):issues):

Should RJ be viewed as a ‘stand alone’ Should RJ be viewed as a ‘stand alone’ or replacement agenda for CJ reform, oror replacement agenda for CJ reform, or

As an alternative strategy for crime As an alternative strategy for crime reduction where and when it can be reduction where and when it can be implemented as a preferable option for implemented as a preferable option for dealing with offences? dealing with offences?

CCJ OVERVIEW – THE THEMESCCJ OVERVIEW – THE THEMES

1.1. Means towards the reduction of Means towards the reduction of excessive custodial penal populations;excessive custodial penal populations;

2.2. Revision of CJ codes and court Revision of CJ codes and court practices;practices;

3.3. Expansion of community sanctions and Expansion of community sanctions and wider involvement of communities in RJ wider involvement of communities in RJ practices.practices.

Theme 1 – Reducing Use of CustodyTheme 1 – Reducing Use of Custody

Applying proportionality to Applying proportionality to sentencing.sentencing.

‘‘Just deserts’ not ignored.Just deserts’ not ignored. Limiting indeterminacy.Limiting indeterminacy. Bifurcation of custodial regimes.Bifurcation of custodial regimes. Bridging the custody: community Bridging the custody: community

gap.gap.

Theme 2 – Revision of CJ Codes and Court Theme 2 – Revision of CJ Codes and Court PracticesPractices

Criminal offences v. ‘civil wrongs’.Criminal offences v. ‘civil wrongs’. Reducing resort to criminal court trials.Reducing resort to criminal court trials. Increasing powers and discretion of Increasing powers and discretion of

prosecutors.prosecutors. Presumption in favour of RJ resolutions Presumption in favour of RJ resolutions

wherever practicable’wherever practicable’ Decreased use of custodial remand. Decreased use of custodial remand.

Theme 3 – Expanding Community Sanctions Theme 3 – Expanding Community Sanctions and Restorative Practicesand Restorative Practices

Expansion of community sanctions.Expansion of community sanctions. Issues of ‘penal bite’ and credibility.Issues of ‘penal bite’ and credibility. Enhanced victim recognition and Enhanced victim recognition and

involvement.involvement. Reducing recidivism and increasing ‘life Reducing recidivism and increasing ‘life

skills’.skills’. Wider application of restorative and Wider application of restorative and

reparative practices involving citizen reparative practices involving citizen participation.participation.

Contributing AuthorsContributing Authors

Judge FWM (Fred) McElrea – New ZealandJudge FWM (Fred) McElrea – New Zealand Sir Louis Blom-Cooper QC – UKSir Louis Blom-Cooper QC – UK Tapio Lappi-Seppälä – FinlandTapio Lappi-Seppälä – Finland Susan Easton and Christine Piper – UKSusan Easton and Christine Piper – UK Paul de Hert and Serge Gutwirth – BelgiumPaul de Hert and Serge Gutwirth – Belgium Borbala Fellegi – HungaryBorbala Fellegi – Hungary Jacques Faget – FranceJacques Faget – France Thomas Trenczek - GermanyThomas Trenczek - Germany

Contributing Authors - continuedContributing Authors - continued

Bas van Stokkom – The NetherlandsBas van Stokkom – The Netherlands Lode Walgrave – BelgiumLode Walgrave – Belgium Ann Skelton – Republic of South AfricaAnn Skelton – Republic of South Africa Claire Spivakovsky – AustraliaClaire Spivakovsky – Australia Frederico Reggio – ItalyFrederico Reggio – Italy Russ Immarigeon – USARuss Immarigeon – USA Per Andersen - NorwayPer Andersen - Norway

And the EditorsAnd the Editors

Theme 1 – David J CornwellTheme 1 – David J Cornwell

Theme 2 – John R. BladTheme 2 – John R. Blad

Theme 3 – Martin WrightTheme 3 – Martin Wright

Thank you for listening to our presentation!Thank you for listening to our presentation!

We shall now very much welcome any We shall now very much welcome any questions you may wish to ask, or questions you may wish to ask, or observations that you may like to observations that you may like to

make on the project we have make on the project we have described, and the concept upon described, and the concept upon

which it has been designed.which it has been designed.