UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER (CU-BOULDER)

M: How is a restorative justice conference usually initiated?

L: We get referrals from CU’s Student Conduct and Conflict Resolution, Boulder courts, and students’ self report online. These are our main referral sources and from there we'll take an intake with students and talk to them about what happened to see if they feel  responsible. And we’ll work with them to organize a conference that will fit the needs that they have.

M: Do you guys reach out to conflict cases where you see the potential that restorative justice can be the most effective means?

L: That’s a good distinction. No, we don't really, which I think is why it's important to educate people on what it (restorative justice) is and get the word out because we have to get the referral. I think that that goes to it being a voluntary process and we don't want people to get coerced into the process.  

M: How often is restorative justice being used in your daily practices of conflict resolution?

L: We get around 700 referrals a year, and those range in severity—anywhere between low to mid, sometimes high-impact cases. So some of them we use group conferences where there are multiple people there for similar offense. Group conferences are more kind of educational, more of a restorative practice as opposed to restorative justice. We do that for fake ID cases. And then, I can range anywhere from something like group conferences to a victim offender dialogue where someone is taking responsibility.

Takeaway:

The most widely used approaches in restorative justice are victim-offender mediation, family group conferencing, circles, and victim-offender dialogue. 

M: So from a perspective of restorative justice practitioner, what benefits have you noticed so far coming out of restorative practices compared with traditional approaches?

L: I think worldwidely we are seeing that restorative justice helps lower recidivism rate. You know, people don't tend to do the same offense after they've gone through this sort of justice process. I think community members are excited. We have so many volunteers who are passionate about the process, and they feel passionate about being involved in their community more, helping people work through the situations. They have a voice in what happens. I think it brings greater awareness—how we are all in and connected. And then of course there's much more participation available to the victims. So they are able to really have a say in what happened, get to tell their stories, and be in the circle, making sure that they are listened to and heard. These are things that are not happening all that well in other justice systems.

M: Any criteria that your department use to measure when to use restorative justice?

L: Two main questions. One is, is there an impact on community? For instance if it was a Minor in Possession where an underage drinking issue is involved, it could be hard to identify the impact on community. So we don't take those cases. But a fake ID crime can cause businesses to lose their licenses, and people can experience identity theft. There are a lot of other harms to the community that we can focus on, which is why we do take fake ID cases. That is an example of harm to the community or impact on community. The second question we ask is, is this person taking responsibility and are they open to having a conversation about what happened? We get an informed consent from whoever is going to be participating in our process, but that does not mean that they have to have a face-to-face dialogue every time. We are sometimes doing processes where victims are not a part of it because they don't want to be. In that case, we will move forward to an accountability circle where the offender and the community talk through harms and impacts even if the victim doesn't want to be a part of it.

M: Are cases like these happening really often, like where victims are not willing to take part in the process because I know it has a potential to cause a secondary harm to them when they are asked to recall all the harm-related details.

L: I think that that is the case for high impact. That is a potential there, so you have to be really careful with those cases. But even for those of low level or mid level, sometimes people who are impacted are like ‘I don't want to waste my time on this’. You know, they will be kind of like ‘I'd rather not deal with this anymore than I have to'. They are not interested in it for a variety of reasons and wanting to move on with their life. It is true that you need the voice of the victim because it is a victim-centered process. So if we reach out to them and give them options but don't hear from them or if they don't want to be a part of it, we respect that. And that is the voice in a way, right? Choosing not to participate is their exercising choice. So I see it more as a practice that is bound together by values as opposed to criteria (that qualify the meetings as restorative justice circles). I think that that can be helpful with thinking of things. It is important to have a really high regard for values. Are we handling each case with quality respect? Are we making sure everyone is taking responsibility as much as they can? I think that that is far more important for labeling something restorative justice or not as opposed to setting the criteria of who is actually physically in the circle. This is kind of a larger debate that I feel like the field is always talking about.

M: Are there any specific types of circumstances you usually deal with restorative justice?

L: We do the fake ID group circles. It is not really restorative justice but sort of  restorative practice that hopefully will bring more awareness to their impact on community. We have done noise nuisance circles and brought together neighbors who had been disrespected and had bad encounters living next to college students. We have had victim-offender conferences where a student harmed another student or stole something from them and things like that.