by Leela Ramdeen, Chair, CCSJ and Director, CREDI
CCSJ continues its serialisation of our March 19 response, on behalf of the Archdiocese, to the Ministry of Justice’s (MOJ) Discussion Paper on Restorative Justice in TT. This is Part 3
Prison Fellowship International is involved in Ministry in TT. As is stated on its website: “Prisons are not a natural place for restorative processes because relationships are often highly coercive. There is a clear authority structure between prison staff and the prisoners, and in a less formal way, between powerful prisoners and the others. Furthermore, the prison sub-culture, which tends to respect only the exercise of power, is not conducive to values of respect, humility and constructive dialogue.
“Nonetheless, restorative processes and concepts are being adopted within prisons in a number of countries. These tend to focus on four areas: victim awareness, victim-offender dialogue, restorative justice in prison administration, and restorative justice approaches to preparing for release.”
No document on RJ should ignore the recommendations made in the five reports referred to in Section ‘C’ of the MOJ Discussion Paper. Reducing recidivism is a secondary goal of RJ. What after-care/support systems exist for high risk former prisoners/deportees e.g. drug offenders, sexual offenders? Our offending youths in particular, need support if they are to be saved from a life of crime.
Rehabilitation and integration of ex-offenders can be achieved through mentoring, counselling, mediation, apprenticeship and job placement, skills training and literacy development. There should also be opportunities for spiritual, social and intellectual transformation of offenders.
Such opportunities should be made available in:
a. pre-sentence facilities e.g. using some of the Catholic Church’s ‘halfway ministries’ as a model for pre-sentence options rather than sending certain individuals to prison – see St Jude’s and Marion House. You may wish to access via: www.restorativejustice.org/court-house/06restorative-justice-and-sentencing , some of the articles that describe programmes, issues and research relating to Restorative programmes which are “sometimes used after a determination or plea of guilt but before sentencing. The resulting agreements are then used by the judge in determining the sentence. The result is typically a reparative sentence, with or without diversion from detention or prison facilities.”
b. rehabilitation programmes within prisons: We urge the Ministry to consider using the Catholic Church’s Walk Tall Programme (for inmates) and
Archbishop Harris visited the Anthony Pantin Reintegration Centre on Dec 9, 2011.
c. programmes for former inmates – post-release: The Anthony Pantin Reintegration Centre (post-release facility) in San Raphael, and the Walk Tall Programme should be used as models that can be replicated in various prisons and in various parts of TT.
See Appendices I-IX for further information about these programmes. These Appendices are taken from CCSJ’s AGM Reports from 2003 – 2012 and show the development of the programmes.
Mediation is another useful tool to facilitate the implementation of an RJ system. See the work of
– Justice Kokaram and his Mediation team in the Judiciary;
– the team involved in the recently launched Community Peacemakers Project (Our Lady of Perpetual Help Parish Office, Harris Promenade, San Fernando. Tel: 299-1587. E-mail: mediate1@hotmail.com – led by Catherine Ali).
Also, the experience of those involved in the Bail Boys Project, initiated by President Carmona when he was a sitting Judge, should be drawn on as this Project has much to offer an RJ approach to the criminal justice system.
The European Forum for Restorative Justice contains useful information about a Project that focuses on Mediation and RJ in prison settings. See:
Given the nature of some of the crimes in our country, it is clear that we need custodial sentences. However, there are practices in other countries on which we can draw.
For example, in England, an extensive range of community penalties exists ranging from absolute discharge, admonition and caution at the lower end of the scale through a fine to those which entail active intervention with the offender. If we are to adopt a RJ approach, we should examine sentencing structures/powers e.g. of Magistrates, and options that we may wish to adopt.
For 3 years (2004-2007) CCSJ’s Chair was a member of a Cabinet appointed Committee – the Parole Introduction Committee to determine, inter alia, the kind of model and infrastructure that will be required if TT is to introduce Parole. A report was produced but no action was taken on the recommendations. The MOJ may wish to consider Parole as an RJ strategy.
The US Bishops rightly say that we can take action now in our communities e.g. by offering pastoral care to victims, offenders, and the families of both. If we are to shift the mindset of all parties and encourage everyone to consider other ways of administering justice, we must embark on a programme to educate citizens about RJ – in parishes, schools etc. It is essential that the Ministry of Justice seek to recruit the support of all citizens in this important initiative, particularly as RJ is a useful system for everyone.
