The Geographical and Relational Macro Community

The community concept therefore, can take on a number of personas and potentially fulfil a number of differing roles within a restorative process. As part of this definitional process, there is little doubt that many theorists have struggled to agree on a precise description of the concept. Indeed, many of the classification attempts have appeared to stretch the concept beyond realistic boundaries in order to legitimately merge the concept within the criminal justice lexicon.27 _{However, when attempting to succinctly}

24 _{John Braithwaite, Crime Shame and Reintegration (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989) 57.} 25 _{Ibid, 55-64 for a more thorough outline of the theory. Also see National Commission on Restorative}

Justice, Final Report (Dublin: National Commission on Restorative Justice, 2009) 6.46. Meredith Rossner, while agreeing with Braithwaite’s evidence that such shaming is more effective at controlling crime and reintegrating offenders than more traditional stigmatic shame policies, has also questioned that the theory fails to explain why or how such shaming techniques can actually lead to successful reintegration. See Meredith Rossner, ‘Restorative Justice and Micro-Sociology’ in Susanne Karstedt, Ian Loader and Heather Strang (eds.), Emotions, Crime and Justice (Oxford and Portland: Hart Publishing, 2011) 171. For a further critique of Braithwaite’s theory, see Bas van Stokkom, ‘Moral Emotions in Restorative Justice Conferences: Managing Shame, Designing Empathy’ (2002) 3 Theoretical Criminology 339.

26 _{Although, within one particular panel case a participant did state that he felt ‘ashamed’ after the}

specifics of the crime, a fraud offence, were discussed. Panel members have the potential to ‘shame’ in the non-stigmatic way that Braithwaite argues, however for his theory to be fully realised the shaming will be ideally carried out by ‘close’ family members and friends.

27 _{Mark S. Umbreit, Robert B. Coates and Betty Vos, ‘Restorative Justice versus Community Justice:}

151

define the community concept, theorists have usually concluded that any definition will include either a geographical element, a relational element or a combination of both. In this regard, the concept has been defined as an illustration of the geographical area or place from where the restorative justice models are operating and from where the models draw their client base such as victims, offenders and family and friends as well as participating state professionals and volunteers.

In relation to this definitional dilemma Ashworth argues that, while some restorative justice practitioners and supporters will often claim that they have an ‘open and inclusive approach to ‘community’, within the reality of restorative practice the concept will usually be made up of only two elements; first, it will be defined by the geographical area in which the model is situated and from where it draws its representatives, and second by those actors most closely affected by the actual crime being managed such as victims, offenders, friends and supporters.28 _{Moreover, Shapland has noted that the}

community concept will tend to represent a neighbourhood, a territorial space or a geographical area in certain situations.29

Similar geographical elements were evidenced within Irish reparation panel practices. Both models used localised rehabilitative and re-integrative services when managing certain offender dependencies and needs. Services catered for anger management, debt management, alcohol and drug dependency issues as well as employment guidance and advice on educational courses. These services were based in and around the locality in which the offender lived and in which the offending behaviour took place. Thus, for the

RJS city based model these services were based within Dublin city centre and the

surrounding areas, while the town based RJC model worked with service suppliers from

28 _{Andrew. Ashworth ‘Responsibilities, Rights and Restorative Justice’ (2002) 42 British Journal of}

Criminology 578, 582.

29 _{Joanna Shapland, Justice, Community and Civil Society: A Contested Terrain (Cullompton: Willan}

Publishing, 2008) 19. Here the author argues that where community courts and community policing is a factor, as it is in some jurisdictions such as England and Wales, the ‘community’ can be said to represent a particular neighbourhood, whether or not bonds and relationships exist between the residents living there.

152

within the particular county in which the crime has occurred.30 _{As part of reparation}

agreements within the town based model, for example, offenders have completed community service collecting litter as part of the Nenagh ‘Tidy Towns’ initiative.31 _They

have also agreed to explore the possibility of training local sports teams, and have helped to refurbish locally based, community owned halls and other venues. Other contract agreements within the town based programme have included voluntary work in local charity shops and sponsored events, wherein money has been raised for locally based, voluntary organisations.

These geographically based elements of the community concept, both within the Irish panels themselves and as part of more widespread restorative practice, have represented a macro-community dynamic to restorative practice.32 _{For McCold, a}

macro-community can be made up of geographical influences outside the more personal, relational sphere of an ‘individual community of care’.33 _{This particular}

community can include state institutions, church and neighbourhood groups, and clubs and associations. It can also include citizen lay members of a restorative scheme, much like the citizen volunteers, programme caseworkers and facilitators active within the Irish reparation model. These ‘secondary justice stakeholders’ have been said to lack the emotional connectivity of its more personal, relational counterpart, and are judged to be more concerned with ‘aggregate’ rather than specific harm, their primary aims being the results of the restorative process and the ‘specific actions taken to repair the harm’

30 _{Examples of those local services utilised within panel contract terms included Addiction Response}

Crumlin, the Ballymun Youth Action Project, Tallaght Community Drug Team and Chrysalis Community Drug Project within County Dublin, and North Tipperary Drug and Alcohol Service within County Tipperary.

31 _{The Nenagh Tidy Towns Committee is one of a number of similar initiatives within County Tipperary. It}

has been labelled as a community sustainability initiative which allows for volunteers (and participating offenders) to come together and help to clean up certain sites within the local area.

32 _{Paul McCold, ‘What is the Role of Community in Restorative Justice Theory and Practice?’ In Harry Zehr}

and Barry Toews (eds.), Critical Issues in Restorative Justice (Monsey, New York: Criminal Justice Press, 2004) 158.

33 _{This ‘community of care’, introduced by McCold, can represent the primary stakeholders within a crime}

such as close familial and friendship support systems. This is outlined further within the ‘micro- community’ analysis in the next section.

153

rather than the actual process itself.34 _{However, as this chapter will go on to}

demonstrate, the panellists within the reparation programmes, the ‘secondary justice stakeholders’ as McCold has identified them, were observed within discourses outlining specific harms around a wide range of victims. They were also seen to emotionally connect with the participating offender in much the same way as a close family member might have done. Indeed, this emotional bonding represented a surrogate support system around the participant, and was specific to each panel case discussion. Such surrogate relational bonds formed the bedrock for the reparation based meso- community identified as part of this research thesis. This meso-community was identified through secondary justice stakeholders (macro-community members) demonstrating the relational support bonds usually only identified as part of a primary stakeholder (micro-community) support base. Thus, the surrogate bonds revealed connections falling in between both micro and macro community levels.35

Alongside the geographical, macro-community element, the community concept has been further defined within certain relational bonds and connections. These can include personal, familial, micro bonds, as well as secondary macro connections with friends and other groupings such as work colleagues and recreational groups. Such relationships and the bonds within can vary in strength of connection and have been seen to include the relational dynamic of a restorative justice mediation, conference or panel meeting.36

Etzioni has fused both geographical and relational definitions of the community concept and defined it as ‘a place in which people know and care for one another’, an interconnecting web of both local and national areas and groups wherein moral claims are laid down through the reinforcing of common values.37 _{Similarly, both Karp and}

34 _{Paul McCold, ‘What is the Role of Community in Restorative Justice Theory and Practice?’ In Harry Zehr}

and Barry Toews (eds.), Critical Issues in Restorative Justice (Monsey, New York: Criminal Justice Press, 2004) 158.

35_{. This meso-community element is outlined in more detail within the next section.}

36 _{For example, see Tony Marshall, Restorative Justice: An Overview. (Home Office: Research Development}

and Statistics Directorate, London, 1999), 29 in which he argues that ‘the circle of relatives, supporters and significant others that each party (within a restorative meeting) has is sufficient as a basis for involvement and intervention…each person has their own community centred on themselves’.

37 _{Amitai Etzioni, The Spirit of Community: The Reinvention of American Society (New York: Simon and}

154

Selznick have further reiterated both relational and geographical ingredients when attempting to define the concept. For Selznick, the spirit and idea of community can represent a group which ‘embraces a wide range of activities and interests and insofar as bonds of commitment and culture are shared’.38 _{Furthermore, it is a place where}

people are not ‘abstract or detached individuals’. A communitarian ethos, according to Selznick, is one which sees ‘the experience of community [being] nurtured by and anchored in person-centred relationships’.39 _{Similarly, Karp argues that community can}

be best defined as both a ‘place’ and a series of ‘natural networks of personal relationships’. Thus, community can be thought of as

‘the place from which we hail and the safe haven to which we owe our self- knowledge. In this sense, community is an entity—a geographic area or a group—to which we belong. But we also think of community as a quality of social existence: an indication of solidarity, shared practices and traditions, and emotional connectedness. This kind of community cannot be located on any map…For each of us, community is the complex interlocking of human relationships upon which we rely to live daily life’.40

This relational themed community definition has been further outlined by Putnam. Putnam offers up the notion of ‘social capital’ in the search for a communitarian ethos; in this regard, social ties are said to have an important and valuable role to play, in that they can ‘affect the productivity of individuals and groups… social capital refers to connections amongst individuals - social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them’.41 _{On initial inspection therefore, the community}

concept has been seen to include a myriad of various participants, roles and functions. Predominantly it has tended to be represented by restorative theorists in either a

38 _{Philip Selznick, ‘Thinking about Community: Ten Theses’ (1995) 32 Society, 33.} 39 _{Philip Selznick, ‘Thinking about Community: Ten Theses’ (1995) 32 Society, 34.}

40 _{David R. Karp, ‘Birds of a Feather: A Response to the McCold Critique of Community Justice’ (2004) 7}

Contemporary Justice Review 59, 62.

41 _{Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon}

and Schuster, 2000) 19. See also generally by the same author, Democracy in Flux: The Evolution of Social

155

geographical or a relational context, or as a combination of both elements. These particular elements have been evidenced within the Irish reparation panel case observations within this thesis. As this section has outlined, within the relational community dynamic, a macro-community can generally form around the less personal bonds of friends, community organisations and work colleagues. These bonds can also develop within a restorative mediation, conference or a reparation panel format with temporary relationships forming between direct stakeholders, practitioners, volunteers, justice professionals and community based service operators as all parties strive to manage issues of criminal offending, accountability, victims’ harm and restoration within a restorative framework. Within the next section, this relational community concept is explored further by way of an analysis of the micro-community theory and the means by which this aspect of community has related to reparation panel procedures.