Community Justice Panels Vermont Reparative Boards use community - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Community Justice Panels October 28, 2011 Presenters: Brett Taylor, Center for Court Innovation Lenore Anderson, San Francisco District Attorneys Office Community Justice Panels Vermont Reparative Boards use community members trained in
October 28, 2011 Presenters: Brett Taylor, Center for Court Innovation Lenore Anderson, San Francisco District Attorney’s Office
Vermont Reparative Boards use
community members trained in restorative justice techniques to hear low-level cases
For respondents/defendants to take
advantage of this forum they must admit their offending behavior before appearing before the board
Vermont has many different ways that
a person can end up before a Reparative Board:
Police diversion Prosecutor referral Judge’s sentence Probation condition
Respondents/Defendants who appear
before a Reparative Board must:
Demonstrate an understanding of the harm
(e.g. reflective essay, Victim Impact Panel)
Make amends to the victim (e.g. letter of
apology, or if no direct damages, perform community service to a site that the victim agrees with)
Repair the harm caused to the community Learn ways to avoid reoffense (e.g. attend AA
meetings)
Community Justice Panels should not
be confused with community conferencing or sentencing circles
Community conferencing and
sentencing circles use people directly affected by the criminal behavior, sometimes including a victim
Quality of life crimes: a major issue for residents and merchants (petty theft, vandalism, graffiti, loitering, panhandling, prostitution, disorderly conduct, etc)
Impact of low level crime on communities does not always translate in the traditional courtroom
Many case dismissals, drawn out process, judges and juries often reluctant to punish offenders
Strong community sentiment that “nothing is ever done” about low level crime
Fiscal crisis means shrinking resources for criminal justice system agencies, especially courts
Average cost to prosecute just one misdemeanor: $1,500
Started in 1999
Purpose: to create an alternative venue for responding to low level crime, the goal is to use community-led restorative justice processes instead of criminal court
Structure: Volunteers “hear” cases in community setting and issue “directives”
Over the years, 12 courts created in different neighborhoods throughout the city
In May 2011, SF DA George Gascón revamped the initiative to expand its use, increase accountability, and align it with best practices
Neighborhood Prosecutor in District Police Station
Same day/next day review of all non- traffic infractions and nonviolent misdemeanors
Resident Panels meet weekly
Database tracks all cases, DA files on failures
Expanded volunteer training
Goal: funnel as many non-traffic infraction and nonviolent misdemeanor cases as possible through this venue
Benefits: involve community, save resources, address drivers of low level crime
Distinction Between Neighborhood Courts and the “Community Court“ Model
Not a courtroom, not a charged case
Participants enter Neighborhood Court in lieu of the DA’s Office charging the case
Not a case management or treatment model
Goal is to keep appropriate cases out of the traditional justice system entirely and quickly resolve matters with practical solutions that hold offender accountable and restore victim
Community Court model is a collaborative court model that uses formal court proceedings to supervise offenders, often offenders are chronic and in need of case management and treatment. The cases are charged, the court engagement is a central component and supervision takes place in a formal court setting.
Police send citation to NP NP quickly reviews case, assess eligibility Neighborhood Court hears case Participant restores victim/community Referred for traditional prosecution
Step 1: Police send citations to neighborhood prosecutor (NP) at police station Step 2: NP immediately makes charging decision, meets with
neighborhood court, person must appear within one week Stage 3: Participant appears at neighborhood court, resident panel hears case, deliberates, decides Stage 4: Participant begins restorative justice directive within
Goal is to “repair the harm” caused by crime and give communities most impacted by crime actively involved in doing justice
Comparison with traditional court: Adversarial Justice Approach State vs. Offender What law has been broken and who broke it? How much punishment should law breaker get? Process is guided by evidentiary rules and statutory mandates Restorative Justice Approach Wrong vs. Community How has the victim and community been harmed? How can we involve the offender in repairing the harm? Process is guided by dialogue among all parties to understand harm, uncover drivers, and make parties whole
Give “orange cards” with citation and give citations to neighborhood prosecutor
District stations can send representatives to the hearings to support/observe but they do not play a role in decision-making
Neighborhood rhood Courts ts May Work for You
QUICK RESOLUTION, NO CONVICTION
You may be eligible to resolve this case without going to Criminal or Traffic Court. If you are eligible and you participate, your case will be discharged.
YOU MUST ST GO TO THE DISTRIC STRICT T STATIO TION N WITH THIN 3 DAYS (Mon n – Fri) ri) to determ rmine ne your eli ligi gibil bility.
The Mission District Police Station is at: 630 Valencia St.
YOU MUST APPEAR BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 9 AM – 12 PM ONLY.
Ask for the Neighborhood Prosecutor when you arrive.
You MUST appear at the court date on your citation if you do NOT participate in neighborhood court. For more information, call: 415-551-9565
Review citations to determine eligibility (no other pending cases, not on probation or parole, no violent cases)
Meet with interested offenders to explain program and enlist in the program if applicable (this is a voluntary program, offenders are given information on their legal rights, NP does not inquire about case details or guilt or innocence)
Track cases in shared database to ensure compliance and file on failures (either FTA or failure to complete)
Meet with residents and merchants to track and address neighborhood problems
Form partnerships with other city agencies to proactively address neighborhood blight problems (liquor store problems, prostitution, etc)
Police give orange cards to all nonviolent misdemeanors citations and non-traffic infractions
District Attorney reviews and makes final eligibility determination
Typical cases include:
– Petty theft – Vandalism/graffiti – Trespassing – Prostitution – Disorderly conduct/Loitering – Some drug possession or paraphernalia – Fighting (no major injuries), noise disturbances – Drinking or urinating in public – Receipt of stolen property
The voice of the community
Trained in restorative justice (25 hours)
Dialogues with participant and victim to understand incident and discusses case with other panelists to decide case outcome
Issues “directives” to the participant. Directives include: – Community service – Victim restitution or community restitution – Letter of apology – Mediation, treatment, therapy, anything creative that repairs the harm
Volunteer panel can also dismiss the case if they feels that is the best solution
Non-profit partner agencies are in the community room with the volunteer panelists to administer the procedures
Held in a community room (places of worship or nonprofit service centers)
3 to 5 panelists
Non-profit partners, California Community Dispute Services and Pre- Trial Diversion, administer the hearings
Case examples
District Attorney: review and refer cases, recruit volunteers CA Community Dispute Services (CCDS): facilitate neighborhood courts, train volunteers Pre-trial Diversion: Community service, referrals/tracking of participants
The number of offenders who take advantage of the “orange cards” is low. Many do not understand what it means and others do not show up at all.
The panelists’ skill level is inconsistent. Some people volunteer because they want to have their “own” court and they do not practice restorative justice.
The panelists are not as diverse as the community. Panels happen during the day so many retired people make up the volunteer pool.
While we have a comparatively resource rich community, there are not enough treatment beds or case management programs to address the full scope of need.
We launched a big operation quickly and there are a variety of administrative hiccups along the way.
Quick resolution: 12 days from citation to completion
Fewer low level crimes in courts: reduction in filings
75% completion rate for interested participants
Satisfied victims and even
Community service improving neighborhoods: targeted clean ups in blighted areas
Volunteer satisfaction: community more connected to justice system and more trusting of justice system
Expansion of neighborhood prosecutor role: utilizing patterns of citations coming into stations and panelists experiences in the neighborhood to develop action plans to proactively reduce blight issues and street crime issues
Community education: to expand offender interest in program, conducting outreach to raise awareness
Prostitution-focused neighborhood court: working to build out one of the neighborhood courts as the main court for prostitution cases with a goal of having a team of volunteers specially trained to engage with these offenders
Law school support for administration of courts: reaching out to law schools in SF to recruit law student volunteers to administer the courts with a goal of being able to start more courts in more neighborhoods
Adding night court to expand and diversify volunteer pool
This project was supported by Grant No. 2009-DG-BX-K101 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the SMART Office, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not represent the official position or policies of the United States Department of Justice.