Power, Race, Class and Restoration: What is Justice Amongst Clashing Paradigms? Abstract Restorative Justice theorists have proposed that Restorative Justice practices result in better outcomes for communities and disempowered minority groups in particular. In New Zealand, “Maori leaders pointed out in their cultural tradition, judges did not mete out punishment. The whole community was involved in the process, and the intended outcome was repair” (Zehr & MacRae, 2004). In 1999 Bowen and Consedine published a collection of cases from Community Group Conferences held in New Zealand. This presentation will explore two of the cases presented, “Frank – Sexual Violation” and Veronica, “Theft as a Servant.” In the former case, three men, sons of the offender seemingly pressure the mother of the victim to accept a suspended sentence for the victim, a child not included in the restorative conference. In the latter case, cultural values are blamed for the criminal activity of the offender. “The defendant explained how family expectations, mainly those of her father, pressured her into stealing…. She admitted that she had succumbed to her father’s (cultural) requirements that she, being the eldest daughter, provide for the whole family.” The author will propose that in these cases male demands overrule female needs, and that white/western values supersede minority or native norms and traditions. He will also propose regulatory standards, based on best practices applied in New Zealand and those recommended by the United Nations, to minimize the risk that conferences inadvertently result in further subjugation. Introduction Restorative Justices exists in a cultural interzone, somewhere between religion, criminology, cultural studies, law and fantasy. It is both a set of processes and a belief system. It is integrative rather than exclusionary. It is intentional rather than procedural. It advocates for ambiguity rather than clarity. It is in this cultivated ambiguity that Restorative Justice has both its risk and its opportunity. The cases included in this analysis will hopefully illuminate some of the blind spots created by faith in restoration. In contrast, the author will propose procedural protections to govern and analyze cases in process, and liabilities that can be applied to “restorative” workers when their intentions result in harm. The framework for evaluating these cases comes out of the psychological studies of Gregory Bateson conducted in the 1950’s on what he and his research group came to call “the double bind.” double bind n. 1. A psychological impasse created when a person perceives that someone in a position of power is making contradictory demands, so that no response is appropriate. 2. A situation in which a person must choose between equally unsatisfactory alternatives. American Heritage Dictionary (2011) A double bind exists when two or more people, where one or more are authority figures, participate in repeated experience, as in a family or community, and when the power person or people exert impossible expectations over one or more of the others in the group. There are two components that solidify a double bind experience, a primary injunction and a secondary, abstracted or implied expectation. In a work environment a primary injunction could be as simple as “if you care about your data entry you will be exact.” A punishment may be the powerlessness of the manager. “I can’t help you care.” It can also be an expression of emotion tied to the behavior or act; “I am very disappointed in the error on your spreadsheet.” The secondary injunction can be stated, similar, “only you can choose to care about your work.” This second injunction can be implied in the manager’s behavior. As a worker’s responsibility increases in an organization such injunctions can become more complex: “your reports must be exact, detailed and timely, and you must maintain a public presence by continually circulating amongst the staff, and you must maintain an open door policy and you cannot delegate your work. A failure in any of these areas will reflect negatively on your character. Excuses are unacceptable.” In a religious environment such double binds can include, “God is a God of love. To be close to Him you must be of love. As your minister I am powerless to help you other than to pray for you and to hope that God bestows his grace upon you and that you can demonstrate this grace through your actions.” By stepping aside, there is no framework for the disciple to measure their acts, thoughts and beliefs and the person is perpetually caught wondering if their acts are sufficient and worthy. A parent can create a double bind to a child through contradictory statements and behaviors. Stating, “I will always stand by you,” while turning away or actively undermining their child creates a double bind, because the child wants to believe both. They want the parent’s statement to be true, but they also want to believe themselves and their observation and interpretation of the parent’s unsupportive behavior. If there is an implied injunction against questioning the parent’s benevolent intent, a double bind is formed in the mind of the child. In restorative justice such binds are created through a narrative that others procedural justice. “You created harm because you have a flaw you can overcome, and we want to love and include you, however you are the only one who can resolve this. If you don’t accept responsibility and apologize we will have to return you to a punitive system we believe is evil.” This can be stated overtly, or it can be implied through a community response within the restorative circle. Similar double binds can be presented to the survivor of an offense. “You can heal from this harm if you are prepared properly and have a successful meeting with your offender. Punitive responses are wrong, and survivors who choose to participate in punitive processes are often dissatisfied and don’t properly heal. If you participate in the criminal justice system you support oppression. People who properly demonstrate healing will be celebrated.” An added secondary injunction is created through a broad based discourse on forgiveness. Training manuals on Restorative Practice solidify this secondary injunction, “You can’t talk about forgiveness,” or “you don’t have to forgive.” But forgiveness is implied in the behavior of facilitators and the name, “restorative.” Not all double binds are coercive and imposed. Bateson and his team identified two types of double bind: chosen and enforced. In many religious traditions, choosing an impossible conundrum on which to meditate is an opportunity to actively engage such challenges. In a Zen koan, a meditator accepts an unresolvable statement as something to wrestle with for self-improvement. It is this author’s contention that some double binds have the potential to be chosen by some and imposed on others, creating a situation where those who choose have a positive experience and those who have the double bind imposed have a horrific experience. The Mennonite religion has twelve Tenets of Anabaptism, many of which include double binds. Number 8, separation from the world is summarized on the International Community of Mennonite Brethren website with the statement, “ The community of the transformed belongs to the kingdom of God. It functions in the world but is radically separate from the world. The faithful pilgrim church sees the sinful world as an alien environment with thoroughly different ethics and goals. ” (ICOMB, 2010). Such a statement is a double bind because what it means to be “in the world” but “separate from the world” is not concrete and up to the believer/community to define on an ongoing basis. Imagining a convert, such a person could choose to take on the belief, however, a person growing up under such an ideology may easily feel continually policed as to whether or not they are a part of or falling into the sinful, alien world. The Double Bind and Mental Illness Double Bind research began with a theory that the psychological disorder Schizophrenia had a social origin. “In the mid-1950’s, Bateson and his colleagues put forward a theory that schizophrenia was caused and/or promoted by irresolvable communicational conundrums in families. It went on to say that other later studies were more specific in identifying ‘high e.e.’, that is ‘expressed emotion’, as a key communicational element in families with a schizophrenic member.” (Gibney, 2006) While no causal relationship has been proven, it is clear that unresolvable conundrums increase confusion, ambiguity and crisis for people caught in such loops, and that becoming caught in such a conundrum could trigger or exacerbate states from relatively minor mood and stress disorders to dissociation and potentially psychotic disorders. This becomes an issue because, as we will see in the cases, restorative processes assume many characteristics of personhood and community. The individual is expected to know the harms they have experienced, do experience or may experience in the future, the political context in which they exist and the context of power, privilege and race, of family bias or community bias, and to have the capacity to articulate those and the harms or exacerbating factors. The community is assumed to be caring and to have the communal best interests for individuals and the group at heart. The world is expressed as a benevolent whole that simply needs to be realized through a communitarian process. By suggesting as such, the restorative worldview begins with a double bind. Communitarianism starts with valuing the community over the individual, but the RJ practitioner claims to the survivor that s(he) has the survivor’s interest at heart. So, is the RJ facilitator claiming deification, the ability to be all knowing and to be able to hold all interests and conflicts in balance? In the conclusion I will address questions a survivor may ask to clarify what the facilitator means by such terms as “victim oriented” restorative justice among other common terms. Case 1 In the first case, an employee was accused of theft (current US value 2015) of $3,450.67 USD in one month from her employer, the manager/owner of Forfar Supermarket, Mt. Roskill NZ. The case was initially evaluated for diversion, which at the time referred to pre-trial intervention. The offender was a first time arrestee, which went in her favor, however the dollar amount was significant, and the case was sent to the court. The restorative justice pilot, of which this case was a part, established the RJ circle as an alternative to court instead of diversion. The distinction is important because the outcomes of the conference become the court’s outcomes. The judge reviews and validates or rejects the outcomes of the conference. In this instance the conference included the defendant (employee who confessed to theft described as the “offender” throughout the following assessment), complainant (store owner/manager), probation officer and RJ facilitator. The offender described mitigating factors that influenced her behavior, thus distancing the offending behavior from her core character. “When asked why she had committed the offence, the defendant explained how family expectations, mainly those of her father, had pressured her into stealing. She explained that her father and mother were receiving a benefit, and that they could not afford expenditures associated with cultural and religious obligations. Polynesian marriages, funerals etc., and the obligation to fund the church and its activities, took all of the money received by her parents. These obligations also caused her father to borrow money at high interest rates. Thus, the defendant was left to pay all the bills for the home, including power, phone, rent and groceries, and to pay off the finance company.” (Bowen and Consedine, 1999, p. 101) The challenge we are presented with in this explanation is to what degree this explanation should be accepted or affirmed in the conference. The description relies on several essentializing notions of race that might reaffirm a biased person of European decent in their assumptions about Polynesian people and culture. The phrase “receiving a benefit” in the United States could be translated as “on welfare.” The cultural norms valuing community over financial assessment and security are described as undermining her ability to meet the modern intercultural norms established by the westernized culture in New Zealand. The parent’s decisions thus described not only put themselves in a bad situation, but also imposed unreasonable cultural norms on her and her earnings. “She admitted that she had succumbed to her father’s requirements that she, being the eldest daughter, provide for the whole family.” (Bowen and Consedine, 1999, p. 101) The framing of this discussion, the idea that an offender would admit to participating in cultural norms as a part of the offending behavior and that the RJ facilitator accepts it on face value, seems counter to the objectives and values of restorative justice. The literature often claims that RJ is derived of premodern values and norms that draw from native cultural traditions. Resolving Conflict from the Maori Perspective Howard Zehr and Allan McRae write that in New Zealand, “Maori leaders point out in their cultural tradition, judges did not mete out punishment. The whole community was involved in the process, and the intended outcome was repair” (2004). In addition, the same text that provides this case for examination includes an article by Matt Hakiaha clarifying the key aspects of native Maori cultural justice. These key components include: • Inter- and Intra-family relationships  • Consultation through a gathering of community • Non-confidentiality • Touch • Singing • Conflict resolution • Hakiaha in Bowen and Consedine, (1999), p 90-94 We can see from the case notes that very few of these elements are included in the Conference convene between the store owner and the employee who stole. The store owner does express concern for the perpetrator, though it is expressed through white cultural norms. We don’t hear from the Polynesian community to understand how the expectations of the offender’s father are traditionally conceived. It is possible that the father is using native ideals in a non-traditional way to trap his daughter into doing things that are unreasonable. It is possible that the daughter is not telling the full story regarding the circumstance of the family or the culture. Without a cultural representative versed in intercultural dialogue and without the parents or other cultural representatives it is impossible to say. The case is held in the western format, as confidential. The parole officer and facilitator indicate that if the outcomes of the agreement aren’t met that the offense will have to be disclosed to the parents and that they will have to be included in another conference. This reader believes that the RJ process is creating a double bind for the offender stating, “you have woven a tale, and we have accepted it, so you must abide by the outcomes or we will seek more information which may result in compromising your story.” While this approach creates pressure on the offender to meet the payment schedule, it doesn’t fulfill the expectations of justice from the Polynesian tradition. This reader’s belief is that contingent acceptance of a story always generates a double bind and cannot be identified as either restorative or justice form the claims made in RJ literature. By following the traditional philosophy of no confidentiality, double bind pressure would be reduced, but the complexity of the case would be increased, because the parents and community could also weigh in. The case in question clearly did not include singing or touch, elements that may personalize the offender, victim and community to one another and which may be a part of reinforcing community bonds and support for one another amongst people who live together but who have experienced a conflict or criminal offense. In New Zealand today, the Department of Justice posts training standards, including exam and pre-test materials for individuals seeking to be certified as RJ facilitators. This training includes a strong focus on identification of minimizing behaviors, as well as an emphasis on racial and ethnic difference. http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy/criminal-justice/restorative-justice/restorative- justice-information-for-providers/restorative-justice-facilitator-induction-training-and- accreditation Intercultural Double Binds Reinforced The complainant also agreed that the defendant’s father was a powerful influence on her. He said that from his point of view the father never understood that the defendant was a young lady with her own needs, like other girls, to treat themselves to a new piece of clothing or other treats. He said the defendant was always loyal to her family and to her religion, and her family did not appreciate the pressure they were putting on her. (Bowen and Consedine, 1999, p. 101-102) The complainant’s statement is loaded with value propositions that further trap the offender within a double bind. He proposes western (white) consumer based gender roles as something the offender not only deserves, but should participate in as part of norming her behavior away from criminality, and away from the cultural values of her parents which value religion, community and tradition over debt. In fact, the value of funding traditions and religion is described as an “obligation” rather than choice (Bowen and Consedine, 1999, p. 101). The complainant recognizes the pressure of the parents, but solidifies the double bind in the western cultural pull – cultural pressures are unreasonable, reject those and choose western (non cultural, acultural, normative) values. In fact, the financial picture presented by the offender suggests that the family has already acquired high interest debt to fund its activities, and that the repayment of that debt is already creating a significant draw on the offender’s income (Bowen and Consedine, 1999, p. 101). To suggest that the parents should not have a cultural funeral in order for the offender to buy new things is wildly out of proportion to reality. By allowing such comments without critique, the so-called Restorative Justice facilitator supports and reinforces this biased position. Of course, we know from numerous cultural studies that western values are cultural. They only present themselves as acultural (without culture), requiring a double effort to counter – cultural studies first has to argue these values are cultural, to create an equal footing to do a comparison/contrast between it and the cultures and values that it has othered, only then can a cultural analysis begin to argue merits for traditions and values that did not initiate in the west. The offender is offered an imperfect and false choice – maintain silence about the offense, not disclosing to her parents, choosing the western path to individuation and ostracizing her culture. This is the double bind at its core. Values Promoted by the Conference  • Individuation is promoted over collectivism or community - • Cultural values of Polynesians are undermined • Unrealistic notion of girl buying herself nice things given the financial reality of the family • While the double bind from the parents to the daughter is recognized, nothing is done to address the situation. The double bind is multiplied held over offender’s head. The case at the time of the circle was not disclosed to parents and disclosure to her parents was held as a threat if she did not comply with the conference. The idea that bending to cultural norms could be the cause of offending counters this foundational framework, unless there are other objectives that are of greater importance to the movement, even if they go unstated. Cultural Issues with the Case • Family and community were not involved. If they were would “culture made me do it” become a driving force? • Complainant indicated offender “at least 50%”responsible. What of the other 50% and accountability? • Complainant employed offender through a friend to repay theft. Concerns about indenturing offenders. • Ability to pay was cited as additional clause, yet repayment is swift, although the offense was kept from parents. By what means is the repayment being made? An alternative path Instead of creating a double bind with a false choice between Polynesian traditions and western individuation the case could have taken a number of other directions. One would focus on the Polynesian value on community and identifying the offender and complainant within the same community. This, however would have potentially become westernized, not recognizing the value in authoring cultural opposition by Polynesian communities to protect against the usurping ubiquity of colonialism. Another approach would be to argue that the offender was justified in theft, given the economic disparity that colonialism has created. Another approach would be to require state paid cultural representatives/specialists to participate in reviewing case notes prior to meetings and in conferences to address and evaluate value conflicts that could increase cultural disparities or cause further break indigenous communities. Another approach would be to use a courtroom agreement and suspended sentence with requirement of repayment of the goods stolen without holding a coercive meeting to manipulate the emotions and values of the parties involved, leaving the minds of the individuals to themselves. In the least, we can clearly see that the execution of this case is anything but restorative. Case 2 Frank: Sexual Violation The second case to be examined is a case of intrafamilial child sexual abuse. A grandfather sexually offended against his granddaughter, confessed to the offense, the case was sent to court, and was handled through the same Restorative Justice pilot as the previous case discussed. As discussed previously, Restorative Justice is not used in this matter as diversion, which is in the jurisdiction where this RJ Pilot took place, is a pre charge intervention. In this case a Restorative Justice conference is an alternate court proceeding, and the outcome is approved or rejected by a judge. The conference in this case included: Meghan, the mother, of the victim and daughter-in-law to the offender; Jason, father of the victim; Tony and Paul, Jason’s brother; Frank, the offender; Joan, his wife; Detective Sargent Graham; and the facilitator, Pauline. Of note, the survivor of the abuse is not present due to her young age. Just by assessing the makeup of the conference attendees, the environment is rich in opportunities for people to be put into double-binds. Five of the members are men and from the same family. One of those is the offender and one is a police officer. Of the three women in attendance, Meghan, the victim’s mother, is married into the family through Jason, one of the offender’s sons. The second woman in the room is the offender’s wife, Joan, who turns her focus to protecting the family name and her position within the community, rather than concern for her granddaughter. The third woman in the case is the facilitator, who is mostly mute during the conference, possibly perceiving her role more as witness than engaged guide. As we will see in the assessment of the case, such issues as eldest child authority, gender power, and coercive ideas such as family coherence are used to put pressure on Marie to minimize the harm and to reintegrate the victim with the offender without meaningful protections in place. It is important to note that this case is unusual. Other early RJ pilots in New Zealand did not include sexual violence, which includes Child Sexual Abuse (CSA). (Julich, 2010). Studies of opinion leaders (from victims services, New Zealand government, Pakeha [Western] Maori and Tongan backgrounds) have found that there is limited and highly contingent support for the use of RJ in sexual violence, and only decreased when cases involved CSA. Of the 31 viewpoints registered; just under half (15) said that was RJ appropriate in many gendered violence cases, while nine saw RJ as suitable in some cases. Over a quarter of views (nine) said that RJ was either  inappropriate or appropriate in a few cases. While the degree of support decreased for CSA, five Supporters38 who considered CSA cases when child victims were present, saw potential for RJ. However, they discussed the vulnerability of children as being problematic, and thus cited the need for increased victim support. (Gitana Proietti-Scifoni, 2008 p. 38 -39) Certainly, this level of concern would not be new in 2008, and were RJ put to a democratic process rather than snuck through the back door as is so often the case, it is unlikely examples of CSA would have been included in the pilot. In many ways it is surprising that this case was allowed to move forward by the court, and this author believes, the case indicative of the wild culture of risk and belief in inherent goodness of the movement during its development. At the outset of the Family Group Conference the environment is weighted towards males and towards the offender’s blood family. Meghan, the victim’s mother says: “She [Marie] has had a lot of good love from Frank. At some stages the relationship has been confusing. Frank was not abusive in a violent way. Marie said that what happened felt nice on her body but yukky inside. She felt it was wrong.” (Bowen and Consedine ) Researchers point out that “the most common types of child sexual abuse, fondling and oral sex, rarely cause physical injury, so corroborating medial evidence of sexual abuse is unusual (Faller, 1993).” (Levinson and Morin, 2006) Meghan continues: “Before she told me this, she was very angry, violent, screaming. Now that she has been reassured that nothing like that will happen again, she is great. She has no resentment against her grandmother for continuing her relationship with her grandfather.” Meghan, without access to the literature about CSA, and without any legitimate, authoritative victim’s support is trying to parse the behavior of her daughter with what actions she as a mother should take. This is a natural reaction for the mother, but it is a gross mistake on the part of the facilitator to allow this interpretative function to minimize the harm to the victim, thus minimize the injunction on the offender by the state. According to researchers, “Sexual abuse occurs and thrives in secrecy, and children molested by family members or caretakers (usually male) may be unlikely to disclose the abuse because of fear, loyalty to the abuser or a belief that they contributed to the abuse (Summit, 1983). Children often recant allegations when they see that the disclosure has created a crisis for the family (Summit, 1983).” (Levinson and Morin, 2006) Both the rages that the daughter exhibits and the sudden calm are standard reactions, however, the calm state must be interpreted by the state and facilitators as an “on guard” position rather than “at peace.” Jill Levinson and John Morin describe the unique environment sexual abuse cases exist within as compared to physical abuse or neglect. (2006). “Risk factors have been found to fall into several broad categories, including child characteristics, parental characteristics, environmental factors, and parent–child interactions. The variables identified as most predictive include the age and vulnerability of the child and the perpetrator’s access to the child.” (Levenson and Morin, 2006. P. 60) The case at hand, according to this model, should indicate high risk of re-offense due to the age of the child and the family dynamics. This would suggest either not moving forward through RJ or at minimum utilizing a team of specialists to review the case and to evaluate attitudes and beliefs that may increase risk throughout the conference and through follow on evaluation to assure agreements were met. As we review the case, Marie, the victim does not have a victim’s advocate or any real voice in the conference. In her book, Helen Bowen strongly advocates a position that a victim can have a surrogate speak for them in the conference, and multiple cases in the collection include such instances. Consedine and Bowen write, “It is important to guard against people being doubly victimized. Because of the power an offender has held over a victim, in some instances it may not be appropriate in the short term for primary victims to be present at a conference. This may apply, for example, in cases involving violence towards or sexual crimes against women or children. Such cases could allow secondary victims to speak on behalf of primary victims.” (p.12) What Bowen and Consedine fail to recognize is that a survivor can be repeatedly victimized while NOT in attendance at the conference as well. Such a conference naturally takes into account the attitudes, beliefs and perspectives of ancillary parties and what they THINK would benefit or be right for the circumstance. Megan says, “Jason and I know how the others feel. Our kids have been cheated of a grandfather.” The pressure is on Megan to forgive, or the break in the family is their fault. None of the children of any of the brothers Jason, Tony and Paul have been around the offender (grandfather) because of the unresolved offense. The family and family relations are the double bind that apply invisible pressure in the environment. Frank says, “I love my wife, my sons, my daughters. I am a lucky man to have them around me. I have been proud of them all. Now I see my life shattered after all these years. I am so sorry it happened to that little girl.” Third person. In today’s certification process for accredited RJ conference providers in New Zealand, facilitators are required to pass a test identifying examples of minimizing behavior on the part of offenders. To become accredited, facilitators must agree to a “victim centered” vision of restorative justice. Examples of a facilitator failing to be victim centered include making a statement such as “(the offender) has had a hard life, it’s understandable that he has turned out like he has,” or even as simple as deferring to the offender’s choice of meeting place rather than the survivor’s. (New Zealand Ministry of Justice website http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy/criminal- justice/restorative-justice/restorative-justice-information-for- providers/documents/module-2.pdf page 22) Whether or not facilitators practice this level of survivor focus or even agree with the Ministry of Justice’s position is at issue. Conferences and publications on Restorative Justice continually focus on reducing prison populations, generating ambiguity in what offenses really are and holding up survivors that have accepted a cult view of the world, have forgiven their offender, or that facilitate minimizing the reality of harm to survivors. The offender in the case at hand has molested his granddaughter. The statement “that little girl” goes uncontested, and the offender continually claims his son as his family. He never claims his daughter in-law as his family, and he actively distances the victim of his offense from him. As in the previous case, eldest child expectations rule the day. Tony, the oldest brother, indicates that his marriage has been strained due to the pressures, that his father was a good male role model, and that the family is close because of his father (the offender). (Bowen & Consedine) This is presented as pressure on the victim’s parents to not cause the offender to suffer by continuing the rift in the family. The double bind in this case is articulated as the family unit versus individuation, and individuation is terrifying. The double bind is used both against Marie (the survivor’s mother) and against Frank (the offender). The message to Marie is that protecting her daughter is the same thing as holding anger toward and harming Frank. The same family double bind is used in the conference to entrap Frank, the offender, into being managed by the family. But will this double bind to hold lasting power over the offender? It is unlikely, given the patriarchal structure and heavily weighted bias demonstrated in the conference. The Issue of Power Paul Takagi and Gregory Shank highlight the second case of Frank: Sexual Violation, described above, in their 2004 “Critique of Restorative Justice” highlight a number of deficiencies in the so called “Restorative” approach in New Zealand that are in addition to the concerns described herein. They point out that Maori peoples are already disadvantaged, citing “high unemployment rates, lower levels of education, poor health status, higher poverty levels, high suicide rates, and shorter life expectancy.” They also cite Catherine Love, indicating that “Maori receive lower median incomes than non-Maori in similar occupations, and also have lower median incomes than non-Maori with similar levels of education” (Love, 2002: 8). They also cite Rob White and Kenneth Polk, Australian criminologists that “raise concerns with the ‘shame and reintegration’ model and its practitioners for failing to consider the basic structures of Australian/New Zealand societies.” (Rob White, 1994, and Kenneth Polk, 1994) These concerns can be seen in both cases. In the first case there is clearly a dismissal of cultural norms. There is no discussion of how intersectionality impacted the relationship between the offender and business owner prior to their employment relationship. There is no discussion of how cultural values, employability, revenue generation and business ownership might play out differently to create a circumstance where theft wouldn’t enter the equation or where these intersectional pressures might be relieved, balanced or accepted. Instead, shame and reintegration utilize the double bind to put the offender back in her place within an already disproportionate system. In this regard, the traditional court system is more honest, less coercive and less harmful. The parties are left to their value systems, hierarchies and beliefs without the coercion of so called “restoration.” Takagi and Shank go on to critique one of the Australian founders of RJ, John Braithwaite, the recipient of an honorary doctorate degree from KU Leuven. “Braithwaite does not discuss the issue of power, who holds it, how it is exercised, or how it is channeled into certain dominant structures, especially in class/race/ gender relations of domination and subordination (White, 1994: 183). Society is viewed in terms of ‘individuals,’ rather than as social formations, social forces, and social structures. As such, the shaming/integration theory is ahistorical and fails to capture the deterioration of the condition of the working class, and their progressive marginalization in production, consumption, and community life.” The focus of RJ in both cases is to find the individuals that can be leveraged to create a result that meets the facilitator’s ideological outcome. In this regard, RJ seems to face an ideological conundrum – it claims to be a social solution but it operates by means of individual coercion through the lens of spiritual redemption. Some RJ researchers are looking at circumstances of mind control and power dynamics in criminal acts. Dr. Shirley Julich, New Zealand RJ researcher and self- reported incest survivor discusses the Stockholm syndrome in her thesis paper “Breaking the Silence” in relation to cases of child sexual abuse to describe why sex offense victims won’t report. She points out that in hostage situation victims will turn against police to support and protect their captors and will create justifications for their offender. Dr. Julich notes that victims of sex abuse follow a similar pattern. Through her research, Dr. Julich correlated reactions indicative of Stockholm Syndrome with the responses of victims of CSA. (In this section of the paper I will use the term victim instead of survivor in an effort not to minimize the harm or to create a false sense of strength in simply continuing to exist in spite of harm). Some of the attitudes that victims have toward offenders in a Stockholm Syndrome event: (1) include feeling gratitude to offender for permitting them to live (giving them their lives back), (2) finding it difficult to feel anger towards captives, (4) seeing an open door but not perceiving it as an open door, (9) remaining loyal to captors following release, (10) not feeling safe enough to be disloyal without expecting retribution and not feeling safe following release due to fear captors will come back to hold them captive again. (Julich thesis page 173) The contrast between the 1st and 2nd point and the 9 th and 10th point and the ambivalence of the fourth point indicate to this author the possibility that it is the use of psychological double binds that lead the victims of hostage situations and of child sexual abuse to feel entrapped and subjugated well beyond the conclusion of the offending. It may also be the root cause of “forgiveness” for offenders by victims. As they feel stuck between a gratitude for and lack of anger toward offenders at the same time they feel fear and trepidation about falling into the same abusive trap, the only solution is to push off the experience as though it never happened, accepting a kind of amnesia as a false resolution to the tension constructed by the offending double bind. As identified previously, it is common for child victims caught in the family dynamics that utilize the double bind to facilitate child sexual abuse to recant or to suddenly act like the perfect child. The child often relies on the offender for food, shelter, love and affirmation. The offender exploits and twists these to manipulate the victim further and to trap the victim in emotional double binds that support secrecy. Once a victim becomes willing to disclose the harm publically the full power of the double bind becomes present and the victim becomes incapable of functioning due to the increased pressure of the crisis between caring and fear. The conflict can manifest as anxiety, fear, anger, PTSD, or other neurotic mood disorders. “Restorative” Justice, instead of identifying and attacking the double bind, keeps the bind in place and exploits the release the victim seeks, misidentifying it as forgiveness and holding up victims who have accepted life in the double bind. They exploit the “perfect child” act to reinforce and to publically praise the “forgiving” behavior so as to lock in the survivor’s behavior as a “good victim” as they continue their war on the recognition and criminalization of legitimate harm and legitimate boundaries. Assessment of Cases The outcomes in these cases highlight the fact that victims and offenders are rarely aware of the power dynamics surrounding the offending. Victims and offenders come to cases with varying levels of education, emotional intelligence and capacity for critical analysis. If facilitators treat circumstances and fail to account for patterns of behavior, cultural norms, lack of or unusual access to power and decision-making authority, they run the risk of exacerbating inequality in their attempts to “restore” situations. In addition, double binds are the primary tool used between offenders and victims and by the facilitator/courts, inhibiting justice. In lieu of self-control and intrinsic motivation to change, RJ resorts to creating an external locus of control through the use of double binds. Emotions such as love, togetherness, fellow feeling, rather than arising authentically due to actual togetherness are labeled as good and sacred, while anger, fear, frustration are labeled as bad and things to “overcome” within a “healing” journey facilitated through a narrative of harm and redemption. “Restoration” becomes a spiritual materialist ideal displayed through the goodness of RJ facilitators. The worse the offense, the more perfect the facilitator who got a non-punitive result. The people sacrificed in this sick spiritual game are children, the weak, the uneducated and the ill-prepared. Facilitators are at risk of misperceiving bias and offender justifications due to their ideological views toward Restoration. Because there is an established frame within which this restoration is supposed to occur i.e. emotional togetherness trumps analysis and detail, the alternative outcome trumps consistency, and the least punitive trumps any outcome perceived as even nominally more punitive, the apology of the offender is used to leverage the humanity of the victim, and so forth, the facilitator is looking less for accuracy, reality and detail than they are for the triggers they can pull to move a conference through a predetermined narrative arc leading to, but certainly not tipping the hat to, forgiveness. The powers that walk into the conference are the most likely to walk out of the conference. Because facilitators are less interested in justice than in fulfilling the narrative of restoration, as has been demonstrated by the cases discussed in this paper, facilitators can be easily manipulated by filling the narrative of restoration with emotional triggers that support subjugation and a restatement of existing hierarchies, whether those are based in racialized notions, cultural norms, gendered hierarchies or restorative fantasy. Channels to evaluate and assess the role of power must be established to keep RJ from perpetrating further injustice. Recommendations 1. Establish a standard of public access to all RJ conference records. As is demonstrated through this paper, detailed notetaking and public access are necessary, just as they are in court, to assess the types of norms and standards that are created through practice. The objective of many RJ facilitators to make cases private, notes and recordings of conferences inaccessible, and to demand secrecy from conference participants supports the construction of an ideological frame where RJ can claim success based on “pillars” and “principles,” while simultaneously veiling cases in secrecy. 2. Maintain evaluation and review of cases to determine if cases are resulting in Justice or subjugation under the Cult of Restoration. Establishing an open process of case review, analysis and critique is necessary if this movement is to move out of cult status and into something manageable within a system that is civic, non-religious and open to differences of opinion and belief. 3. Establish penalties for RJ facilitators that cause harm. RJ facilitators expect those they define as offenders to apologize and pay restitution when they cause harm. To date, no RJ facilitator that has caused harm has been willing to acknowledge harm, apologize and participate in reasonable restitution. The standard in RJ is that people who are unwilling to apologize must enter a punitive system where upon a guilty verdict, they are stripped of their rights and freedoms. Such a system of punishments must be put in place to treat facilitators that cause harm and who are unwilling to participate in being restored. RJ has changed in New Zealand significantly since these cases were heard At the time of the cases discussed in this paper, there was no national accreditation for RJ in New Zealand, but today, organizations that wish to provide RJ services through the Department of Justice in New Zealand must have certified facilitators. Though this professionalization trend is in direct opposition to the ideals of the founders of Restorative Justice who believed that caring and sharing is a natural outgrowth of premodern societies and that it leads to organic healing, this author supports the following recommendations toward more professionalization and industry standards. 4. Establish US Department of Justice facilitator certification requirements along NZ guidelines In New Zealand accreditation process, facilitators are trained that the process must be Victim driven and that any healing or restoration for the offender is of secondary concern. Victim/survivors are not to be exploited to impact recidivism, heal or transform offenders, or to promote the agenda of Restorative Justice. Furthermore, the safety and protection of the victim/survivor is paramount. Facilitators must undergo and pass certifications to identify minimizing and justification on the part of offenders. These cases highlight that unregulated Restorative Justice is wildly inconsistent in terms of the values and positions it holds as a return to a restored state. In addition, New Zealand today allows very limited access to so-called Restorative processes for sex offenses, hopefully to the extent that the case indicated in this paper would never make it beyond the courtroom into the hands of so-called restorers. 5. Naming conventions – nothing is “restorative” unless you are a subjugator. During my research for this paper I came across the work of Dr. Julie Julich founder of “Project Restore,” the one of two New Zealand Department of Justice accredited providers of RJ processes to survivors of sexual offenses. The organization has named itself aspirationally – the project is to restore. This contrasts most of the so- called restorative movement because even the name “Restorative Justice” is fixed. Processes, attitudes and values that fall under the name “Restorative” are such by definition, regardless of the actual outcome. RJ is preemptive good, meaning that it defines itself by its intended outcome long before the outcome can be located. Thus a restorative government can result in restorative subjugation as it presses its citizens with restorative tyranny. Check the box, the people have been restored. How do we know? The process was restorative. This naming convention attracts and draws people who want to be righteous and people who want to be right. Exactly the wrong type of person to be doing this type of work. Naming conventions matter, and the preemptive, dictatorial language of Restorative Justice must change to its aspirational cousin. Just as love isn’t something that can be pressed on a person, restoration is emergent and not fixed. It can only be identified in retrospect. It is a result, not a process. It is not a cure, but rather indicative that a particular cure in a particular instance was successful to a certain degree. 6. Establish professional requirements for facilitation of various kinds of crime including sex offenses as well as professionals that can address cases that require cultural sensitivity. The Project Restore process requires a facilitator, victim specialist studied in victim issues, offender specialist studied in offenders, and licensed caseworker to review all notes and processes along the way. An additional cultural specialist is employed for cases similar to those reviewed in this paper. By utilizing this level of review and cross check the Project Restore process reduces the risks of facilitator myopia and its resultant bias. Organizations must focus on hiring skilled workers with a diversity of opinion, knowledge and experience. They need to recognize and value divergent thinking rather than adherence to a monolithic ideal, yet the work must function within an industry established norms: who is served, how are they served, and what is the process for public, democratic review and evaluation of this state-funded work? The primary reason for Department of Justice standards, international norms, and public review and comment is that Restorative Justice is recognized as a form of social engineering. (Julich, 2010) It’s purpose is to shape and change the minds of citizens toward a process of acceptance of harm and reintegration of offenders and survivors into the same community every time. Because of this underlying fundamental goal, Restorative Justice has to utilize coercive means to generate compliance with people who think, respond or behave outside the RJ established norm. 7. Develop funding for research into the double bind in Restorative Justice. Because of the Social Engineering inherent in Restorative Justice research emphasis needs to be placed on the ways RJ utilizes double binds and coercive pressure to exact its outcomes. Philosophical examinations must answer to what extent we want to control the minds and perceptions of victims and offenders. At what point does this “restoration” become dystopic, and what harms may be generated by using a collective coercive force to control the population? Opportunities for further study The United States provides the best opportunity to evaluate unregulated Restorative Justice. Deep bias can be seen in the “restorative” response to the murder of Anne Grosmire. Patterns of Domestic Violence were ignored and white privilege, religious bias and justice department nepotism were exploited for the purpose of reducing a white murderer’s sentence far below what any similar offender in the state of Florida. Research into RJ exploitation of gender bias, racial bias, and the Criminal Justice diversion pipeline are encouraged. An additional opportunity exists to examine RJ legislation and the construction of unrealistic outcomes. As Colorado State legislator Pete Lee indicated at the 5 th National Conference on Restorative Justice, “We said ‘We are going to start out with offenders we know will be successful.’” Legislation and practice may be generating false outcomes by assessing existing programs, identifying traits of offenders that are already not reoffending based on existing programs, and diverting them into “restorative” practice to declare higher than average success rates. End Note In her research Dr. Julich highlights the co-emergence of neoliberalism and restorative Justice. Restorative Justice movements rode on the coattails of Reganomics and other forms of fiscal rationalism that pushed women into supervisory unpaid/low paid roles over offenders. The harm caused by this strategy is that community justice practitioners are ill prepared to handle risks, re-offense and community outcry when things go wrong. There is little or no accountability for these individual’s actions in relation to offender supervision or to pressures they put on people to meet predetermined targets and outcomes. Pressure to create ‘proof of concept’ may conflict with responsibility to report and to coordinate with existing Criminal Justice systems such as parole and the judiciary. There is no such thing as a justice process that can create better outcomes than the culture within which we live. No restorative model can overcome the need for procedure, documentation, tracking and reporting. Power, gender, race and class must be actively considered in any process that hopes to approach justice. Reference List Double Bind. (n.d.) American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. (2011). Retrieved July 11 2015 from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/double+bind Gibney, Paul. (2006) PSYCHOTHERAPY IN AUSTRALIA • VOL 12 NO 3 • MAY 2006 Hakiaha in Bowen and Consedine, (1999, p 90-94) ICOMB. (2010). Anababtism, The Basic Beliefs. Retrieved July 11, 2015 from http://www.icomb.org/broch_anabaptist_beliefs. Julich, Julie (2001) Breaking the Silence. A thesis presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Pilosophy in Social Policy at Massey University, Albany, New Zealand. Dr. Julich, Julie, Dr.Buttle, J., Cummins, C., and Freeborn, E.V. (2010) Project Restore: An Exploratory Study of Restorative Justice and Sexual Violence. AUT University. Levinson, Jill S., Morin, John W. “Risk Assessment in Child Sexual Abuse Cases.” Child Welfare; Jan/Feb 2006; 85, 1. Love, Catherine (2002) “Partnerships for Children and Families Project.” Social Work (June, Wilfrid Lane University). MacRae, Allan and Zehr, Howard (2004). The little book of family group conferences: New Zealand style. Intercourse, PA: Good Books. New Zealand Ministry of Justice; Restorative Justice Facilitator Induction Training Self-paced Trainee Module 2 Retrieved 8/16/2013 from: http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy/criminal-justice/restorative-justice/restorative- justice-information-for-providers/documents/module-2.pdf Polk, Kenneth (1994) “Family Conferencing: Theoretical and Evaluative Concerns.” Christine Alder and Joy Wundersitz (eds.), Family Conferencing and Juvenile Justice: The Way Forward or Misplaced Optimism. Australia Institute of Criminology. Canberra, Australia. Tagaki, Paul and Gregory Shank. “Critique of Restorative Justice” (2004). Vol. 31, No. 3 retrieved from www.socialjusticejournal.org/pdf_free/97Takagi.pdf White, Rob (1994) “Shame and Reintegration Strategies: Individuals, State Power and Social Interests.” Christine Alder and Joy Wundersitz (eds.), Family Conferencing and Juvenile Justice: The Way Forward or Misplaced Optimism? Australian Institute of Criminology. Canberra, Australia.