What can the process of 'restorative justice' offer?

Do you know what "restorative justice" is?

The link I've given you will give you a definition from the Law School of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

I've been aware of the term for quite some time and thought I had a decent sense of what it is about, but my knowledge and understanding were increased recently when I watched this Zoom presentation on the subject offered by the Equal Justice U.S.A.'s Evangelical Network, which, among other things, works for the elimination of the abhorrent death penalty across the U.S.

What I found particularly interesting in the hour-long presentation was the idea that the principles of restorative justice -- recreating order and fairness as opposed to simply punishing wrongdoers -- also can be applied in arenas outside the criminal justice system. Even in families. And in countless ways, the principles behind healthy religious traditions are in harmony with the idea of restoring right and healthy relationships versus merely administering retribution for crimes or sins.

It's what the whole theology of salvation in Christianity, for instance, is all about.

In the Zoom presentation, EJUSA's Evangelical Network manager Sam Heath spoke with Lindsey Pointer, a restorative justice author, educator and researcher. Heath noted that the criminal justice system often is unable to repair relations and make sure that everyone involved in a crime -- from the criminal to victims to witnesses -- has a chance to be made whole again.

Pointer said that using restorative justice principles outside the legal system -- in traumatic family situations, for instance -- "can be a more challenging area of application " than using it for its original purpose. Despite that, she said, people increasingly are seeing the use of restorative justice techniques "as a way of life and bringing it into all areas -- bringing it into families, bringing it into workplaces, bringing it into spiritual communities."

The restorative justice approach to conflict resolution, Pointer suggested, requires participants to ask open-ended questions to try to understand how the original act of injustice happened and why.

The phrase that emerged in the Zoom conversation was that participants need to be "curious, not furious." Which, of course, requires those victimized to hold their fire at least for a bit while they seek to understand what led the person who committed the unjust act to imagine that it was necessary or justified.

In all such cases, Pointer emphasized, the use of restorative justice techniques is voluntary. If both sides (or more if there are more than two sides) don't agree to try this way to resolve and restore things, one side cannot do it alone.

Again, I was struck by the many ways that restorative justice parallels the best techniques promoted by healthy religion -- forgiveness where it is appropriate and healing and deep conversation about how the injustice happened in the first place.

Lindsey Pointer's website, to which I linked you above, offers additional resources about restorative justice that you may find helpful.

(And speaking of restorative justice, it can't happen to someone to whom the state has applied the death penalty. That's one more reason I oppose capital punishment. In that view, I differ from my boyhood friend from India, Markandey Katju, former justice on India's Supreme Court. He has written this column to tell his readers why I'm wrong. See if you think he makes sense.)

* * *

WHY DOES THE STORY OF JESUS' ON EARTH MATTER? 

The Jesuit magazine America has just reprinted this 1971 article about the historical Jesus of Nazareth and his relationship to current Christianity. The piece remains amazingly relevant as it explores the thorny question of how much of Jesus' life on Earth his current followers need to know to be able to follow him as savior and a member of the Holy Trinity. The author, an Australian Jesuit priest who died recently, wrote this in the piece: "First, Jesus must not be turned into a contemporary. He is rightly viewed within the historical framework of the first century. To describe Him as a revolutionary leader, a truly secular man or the first hippie may be emotionally satisfying, but for the most part these stereotypes are intellectually worthless." In fact, if Jesus is not first understood in his original Jewish context, he cannot be understood at all, I would say.

* * *

P.S.: If you missed my latest Flatland column -- about clergy who come from families full of clergy -- it is still available for free here.