There has been an increased utilization
of the Restorative Justice process in cases of sexual assault/abuse and
domestic violence. Many who work with
sexual assault and domestic violence victims believe that sexual assault crimes
are incompatible with the restorative justice model in its current form. Because
95% of domestic violence is perpetrated by men against women, the term 'she'
will identify survivors of male violence and the term 'he' will identify
perpetrators/offenders throughout this document. Restorative justice refers to
victims; in this presentation, women who have encountered male violence will be
identified by the term 'survivor'.
The usual goals for a restorative
justice model to "repair the harm caused by the offense, and achieve a
sense of healing for the victim and the community." But for sexual assault
crimes, however, restorative justice is at cross purposes with its end. In its
current form, this program has the potential to seriously harm survivors who
participate in the process.
We are NOT in the business of
forgiving sexual assault/abuse or domestic violence. We are in the business of
STOPPING it. Seeking an apology for this type of violence is NOT an appropriate
societal goal. Adopting zero tolerance for sexual assault/abuse domestic
violence is. Furthermore, forgiveness is NOT essential in a survivor's healing
process and, if a survivor is pressured or guilted into forgiving a perpetrator
prematurely, it can sabotage her healing process.
Restorative justice claims to be
victim-centered. Yet, to our knowledge, input from survivors of sexual or
domestic violence was not solicited and considered in the design of these new
measures. Under these new measures, if a survivor does not want her case to go
to restorative justice, this may happen anyway. The survivor does not have a
veto as to whether her case will proceed to a restorative justice program. In
our view, the lack of consultation and current policy displaces the survivor to
a position peripheral, not central, to the process of defining harm and how it
might be repaired. In our view, restorative justice appears to focus on the
perpetrator, not the victim. He repents for his crime and justice is restored.
How can justice be restored for a survivor of sexual assault who has chosen not
to participate in the restorative process?
Sexual
assault survivors need to talk about their feelings, need to reclaim their
power, and need to have their pain and suffering validated. The terror,
humiliation and stigma that result from sexual assault, make this a long,
difficult and painful process. Usually, this type of healing only occurs within
the context of a safe, trusting relationship. It is unrealistic to think that a
survivor will discuss what justice has casually identified as "concerns
and feelings" with a perpetrator of sexual assault. It is unrealistic and
dangerous to think healing will take place as a result of a such a meeting between
a perpetrator and the survivor. Survivor/perpetrator interactions that have
successful therapeutic outcomes usually result only when there has been
intensive, long-term preparation and a bastion of support for the survivor.
Given the limited resources of our communities and the department of justice,
this preparation and support is not likely to be available.
If a sexual assault survivor becomes
emotionally and psychologically tied to a perpetrator's recognition of the pain
and suffering they caused or, an apology or repentance for the act, her
capacity to heal becomes incumbent on the perpetrators decision to apologize or
repent, and the quality of this apology. This emotional entanglement gives
power back to the perpetrator, not the survivor. Therapists work with sexual
assault survivors to free them from any need for offender repentance or apology
so they may reclaim their sense of empowerment independent of anything the
perpetrator says or does. If, however, a survivor agrees to listen to an
offender's account of his understanding of the harm inflicted on her, what
happens if she is not satisfied with the account? Who evaluates this? What
happens then?
Reintegration of the offender into the community
a) In our experience with women who have experienced crimes of sexual
violence, the reintegration of sexual assault offenders into the
community creates fear of re-victimization, not healing, for the
survivor. A survivor's sense of safety is so deeply compromised after
sexual assault they often feel too fearful to go outside, take buses, or
walk alone during the day, or at night, even when the perpetrator has
been incarcerated. Knowledge that the perpetrator is at large is usually
a frightening, re-victimizing experience.
b) To involve a sexual assault survivor in a process intent on
preserving the offender's integrity, and reintegrating him into the
community, places responsibility on the survivor to support the
perpetrator's healing. Allocating even minimal responsibility to the
survivor for offender healing can all too easily become fodder for the
current myth that women survivors of violence are somehow responsible
for the crimes committed against them.
c) Finally, given recidivism rates for youth and adult crime, it seems
clear that community reintegration is usually successful only if there
is sustained support and intervention for offenders. We have not seen an allocation of resources to this end. How much money will be made available, and to whom?
Recommendations:
1) Recognize the incompatibility of sexual assault/abuse domestic
violence crimes with restorative justice in its current form and
eliminate access to this forum by offenders of same.
2) Slow the implementation of restorative justice until stakeholders are able to thoroughly review this process.
3) Conduct the necessary research (consult with survivors and
community based agencies whose mandates address women and
sexual/domestic violence issues) to determine if survivors of sexual and
domestic violence will be satisfied with this process in its current
form.
4) Place a hold on restorative justice for sexual assault/abuse
domestic violence cases until research has been completed that supports
your statements that victim satisfaction will increase as a result of
this process.
5) Create clear, specific guidelines and an infrastructure to
monitor the expanded discretionary powers of the police, crown, and
corrections. Commit financially to this sustained monitoring.
6) Recognize the need for and commit to the education and
training of all parties (police, crown, corrections, community agencies)
around sexual assault/abuse domestic violence issues. Commit
financially to this education and training.
7) Create access to due process for victim, community agency, offender complaints.
