|
(Continued from page 5)
mediation). Parties need clear explanation of the nature and aims of the process, so that they enter in the right state of mind and with awareness of what they might gain from it. But careful consideration must also be given to who should be invited to participate in the first place. Who are the significant figures in an offender's life in addition to family members? Who within the family, apart from the parents, should be there? In cases of a relationship breakdown between the offender and his or her parents, another relative may be much more influential. Who has not only the motivation but also the resources to help the offender?
Fourth, the participation of victims must be a major aim of the Family Group Conference. In the original legislation in New Zealand the victim's participation was mentioned but not elaborated (the word "victim" not appearing in the title of the Act). Because youth justice workers were charged with implementing the program, having no experience of working with victims and primarily oriented towards offenders and their families, it was not surprising that early evaluations (Maxwell & Morris, 1993) found that FGCs often went ahead without victims' involvement, and even without offering them a chance to participate. When victims were present, they were often critical of the fact that their participation seemed to be peripheral and their voices failed to be heard. The program was seen by the majority of its operators, in other words, as a means of working with offenders and not as a means of serving victims' needs. Practice has since been amended in response to the criticisms. Similar problems were presented by some of the early victim-offender mediation projects in Britain (Marshall & Merry, 1990). If FGCs are to contribute to restorative justice, then reparation to the victim and consideration of the victim's needs have to play a full part in them, which can only be achieved completely if the victim is present and playing a full and equal part in the proceedings. Indeed, victims' involvement will only be obtained if the meetings are clearly seen to be dedicated as much to their interests as to any other party's. Therefore: the aims of the family Group Conference must give as much weight to settling reparation as to the resolution of the offender's problems; victims must be happy with what is proposed for it to be regarded as an acceptable plan; victims should be allowed, or indeed encouraged, to be accompanied by family, friends or other supporters (e.g., a Victim Support volunteer), in order to correct the daunting imbalance which occurs if a single victim is faced with the whole of the offender's extended family; the role of the "private meeting" in the New Zealand FGCs needs to be re-examined. In that country the family and the offender withdraw in their own at a certain stage in order to come up with suggestions for a plan of action to take back to the full conference. This has been interpreted as disempowering the victim and against the spirit of open collaboration. The Australian FGCs do not use such a private session, but involve all parties in the planning. I think that a private meeting could serve a valuable function, although it might be better to see it as a possible option, (such as the similar "caucus" in mediation practice) rather than as a necessary step in the process, and the role of the facilitator in relation to such meetings needs to be explored.
Fifth, it is equally important to consider the offenders' rights and safeguard against them being abused by the process. This particularly applies to juvenile offenders. While the victim may fear that they will be relatively powerless with the whole family ranged against them, just as likely is the possibility that the family will deal with the implied shame of a delinquent member by taking the victim's side and scape-goating the offender, coming down harder than any criminal justice agency, or even victim, might do, and using shaming processes that have little that is "reintegrative" about them. This is another reason why the skill of facilitation and the impartiality of the facilitator are so very important.
Lastly, one of the greatest innovations of the FGC is its involvement of the family in sharing the offender's predicament and supporting an individual who alone is powerless to resist those social pressures that lead to misbehavior. But not all families are able to be such a reliable resource. Many are burdened by their own problems, material and relational. Families may sign up to more than they can deliver. The FGC needs to have regard for this fact, which is why it is important to look for resources outside the family as well. Support for the family may be even more important than support for the offender. It is likely, as a result, that FGCs will bring more clients to, and therefore put more pressure on, community agencies and facilities. One must consider whether the community infrastructure can bear the responsibility being put upon it. If communities are to be involved in the resolution of crime, they will need the necessary resources, or the FGC experiment will collapse in a mess of unmet expectations.
The Family Group Conference (or Community Group Conference as some prefer to call it, to signify the presence of the victim and other community members) is a big idea. It is full of practical potential and also at the leading edge of a new conception of justice. But like all big ideas, it will take sensitive handling if it is not to become a Frankenstein monster. With new plans being mooted for FGCs every day, it is time that thought was given nationally to the safeguards needed to ensure that new projects do not destroy a good idea by giving it a bad name.
|
|
