survivor-victim wants.”
- (Interviewee C, pc, December 2017) This section will justify the underlying assumption of this capstone that post- secondary institutions are currently underutilizing restorative justice. RJ would provide one option that SVs who suffer sexual violence on campus could proceed with their case. The traditional goals of the campus adjudication process can be “incompatible with the needs of survivors” (Karp et al., 2016, p. 8) which means policies need to adapt if they are to be truly victim-centred and survivor-centric. As the Change Project
articulates,
“There is no question that contemplating a restorative response to direct victimization within the existing legal and cultural environment requires creativity and commitment, and an institutional willingness to consider critical paradigm shifts. Nonetheless, the research documenting positive survivor, offender and community outcomes is sufficiently compelling to invite national and institutional investment in exploring this frontier” (Karp et al., 2016, p. 27).
The high prevalence of sexual assaults occurring between people who know each other, especially on university campuses, can complicate the decisions that are made by the SV to move forward with charges or go through a formal court process. A recent Globe and Mail article quoted Emily Hill, a legal advocacy director, about the role of RJ:
“Many victims have an ongoing relationship with the offender because of family or community connection. This relationship will continue. The harm that can be done by the criminal justice system can sometimes deepen the wounds caused by the sexual assault rather than help heal them” (Siu, 2017).
It is likely that a number of SVs would like the opportunity to speak to the RP in a safe setting (Karp et al., 2016). It has been suggested that nearly one-quarter of sexual assault survivors would be interested in restorative justice (Wemmers, 2017). This number demands specific attention, especially as this interest is within the context of RJ being an uncommon process currently, with many SV’s likely unfamiliar with the benefits of the process.
One of the most effective ways of empowering SVs is to allow them some
decision-making (Wemmers, 2017). Following an incidence of sexual violence, there are two major categories of needs that SV’s have: survival needs and justice needs (Koss, 2010). These justice needs are motivated by “righting” the wrong that has occurred. But, as Brenda Morrison (pc, November 23, 2017) explains,
“A restorative process is hard work for everyone involved. it is not an easy way out. The court is offender-centric, [it is] not designed to support victims, [it may even] re-traumatize them, [and they] may not get the result they want because [the SV] will opt out.”
So, she asks,
“How can we find better mechanisms to support these allegations at an institutional level so we can learn and grow together?”
This is where we look to alternative dispute resolution. RESTORE found that SVs can satisfy their justice needs when they are able to meaningfully contribute to input into decisions, receive timely responses, tell their story without interruption, receive
validation, and shape a resolution (Koss, 2010). Non-adversarial processes can give SV’s a voice and help them feel supported, rather than alienated, by their university (Karp et al., 2016).
The New Zealand Law Commission recommended that there was a need for alternative responses to sexual violence to increase reporting rates (Wemmers, 2017). As human beings, we have a desire to connect with others, and in RJ emotions act as the “engine to reconciliation” – which is something that the requirements of the traditional justice system, such as third-party decision making does not enable (Brenda Morrison, pc, November 23, 2017). SVs have stated that they want a justice process that,
“validates their status as legitimate victims, focuses on offender behaviour and not on theirs, provides a forum to voice the harm done to them, accords them influence over decisions about their case, and incorporates their input into the consequences imposed” (Koss, 2014, p. 1627).
There are also strong arguments to consider for implementing RJ into the
broader community. Brenda Morrison said, “that is hard to find safe, deliberate spaces to engage about serious social problems” (pc, November 23, 2017). Creating these spaces could ideally help change the culture on campus, and eventually shift to the wider
In the United States, Campus PRISM, a restorative justice initiative at Skidmore College, uses a:
“wide range of restorative options including policy development; circle practices to provide meaningful prevention education; restorative conferences that respond to specific incidents of misconduct; and circle practices to provide support and accountability for offenders who are returning to campus after a period of separation” (Karp et al., 2016, p. 7). While this report is tailored to the unique structures of the US educational system, it demonstrates an example of what we should work towards achieving in Canada. Brenda Morrison is hopeful that we will have a Canadian version of PRISM in the future as a resource (pc, November 23, 2017).
It is important to reiterate that restorative justice is recommended as being one option, among several, that SVs could chose to pursue. The RP would also need to be willing to accept the terms of an RJ process for it to move forward. This means that RJ will not be the right process for every case to follow. Even when every party is willing to participate, there are additional factors to consider. Mental health of the participants needs to be accounted for, as well as the resources available to facilitate a safe process for everyone. However, if these conditions can be met, there is no reason not to offer RJ as an alternative response for those who wish to pursue it.