As a peacemaker, I have a basic question for you to consider about criminal
justice. Why are we, as taxpayers paying so much for prisons, criminal
courts, district attorneys, and public defenders? Are we really receiving
any benefit from this huge expenditure of tax dollars? Can we justify
imprisoning people at a cost per year that equals the cost of paying for
a freshman year at Harvard College?
Personally, I think not. We are spending more on criminal justice
than we are on education, including primary, middle school, high school,
college, and graduate school. Does this make economic sense?
As a taxpayer and business person, I have to say “No!”
What is most amazing is that an alternative exists to the current, failing
system. The possibility is exciting in terms of cost effectiveness
and public safety. So what might be this be?
In California, as with other states, victim-offender reconciliation
or mediation has proven to be more effective that incarceration.
In this process, the criminal offender and the victim are invited into
a safe, secure process to do three things: exchange their perspectives
on the offense and how they experienced it; discuss how to make things
right between them; and talk about future intentions—what assurances can
be given that the offender will not re-offend?
This process has been used successfully in both juvenile and adult criminal
cases. The California Judicial Council, the agency that governs the
California court system, commissioned an independent study of victim-offender
mediation programs in six California counties. The Judicial Council
compared the efficacy of victim-offender programs to traditional retributive
justice processes. The study therefore contrasted juvenile cases referred
to victim-offender programs to juvenile cases going through the traditional
process. The results were startling. In every measurable category
of performance, victim offender programs out-performed traditional retributive
justice cases.
The conclusions of the Judicial Council were:
• Victim-offender reconciliation programs (VORP) met
or exceeded the benchmark standards of performance established by the California
legislature.
• Victims participating in VORP collected between
158 percent and 1000 percent more in restitution than non-VORP comparison
victims.
• Offender recidivism in VORP cases ranged from 21
percent to 105 percent lower than non-VORP comparison offenders.
• Of VORP cases mediated, agreements were reached
in almost all cases.
• Complete performance of agreements by offenders
ranged from 70 percent to 93 percent.
• Satisfaction of victims and offenders uniformly
ran above 90 percent.
• Parents, mediators, probation officers, and judges
gave VORP high marks.
• Considerably more VORP offenders performed community
service than non-VORP comparison offenders.
By any reasonable measure of performance, victim-offender programs exceeded
the traditional retributive justice system.
Victim-offender mediation is also cost effective. The average
juvenile case in the traditional system averages around $2,300, while the
average victim offender case is less than $800 per case. Taking into
account the reduced re-offending, the satisfaction of the parties, and the
likelihood of performing agreements, victim-offender programs are far more
effective economically than cases processes through the retributive justice
system.
So why isn’t this program more widespread? The political dynamics
are complex. First, politicians find easy fodder in being “tough
on crime.” My argument is “If being tough on crime is so great, how
come we are building so many new prisons?” If being tough means locking
people up, then one would think that crime diminish as prisons are built.
It seems the opposite is true.
Second, there is the problem of the prison-politico-industrial complex.
Unions, private prison corporations, construction companies, and pork barrels
for legislative districts all combine to perpetuate the failure of the status
quo.
Third, there is fear. Local district attorneys do not want victims
to be re-victimized nor do they wish to appear soft on crime. They
fear public backlash at mediations that fail.
Finally, loss of power is an issue. Law enforcement, the prosecutor,
and the politicians disdain victim offender mediation because it places
power back into the community. My view is that the community should
reassert this power because of the failure of traditional criminal justice
institutions. Nevertheless, relinquishing power is a difficult proposition
for the government.
In summary, we as taxpayers must face the question of how long we will
finance a failing criminal justice system. Those of us who are business
and political leaders should question the status quo, especially when cost-effective
alternatives exist. If enough people agitate for cost-effective, beneficial
programs that replace the traditional system, systemic change might be
possible.
Douglas E. Noll, Esq. is a lawyer specializing in peacemaking and mediation
of difficult and intractable conflicts throughout California. His firm,
Douglas E. Noll and Associates is based in Central California. He may
be reached through his website
and email at doug@nollassociates.com