Dr McEvoy's backgroundas a criminal justice

practitioner and long-timeExecutive Committee

member of CAJ (NorthernIreland's primary human

rights NGO, which hechaired between 1997

and 1999), gives anuncommonly practical

perspective to his research.

Community Restorative Justice InNorthern Ireland: Lessons from AmericaDr Kieran McEvoy, Reader ill Crilllillology at The QlleCll~ Ulliversity Belfast, reports 011 a British AcadelllYsupported research trip to the USA ill the sUII/mer of 2001 alld how it relates to ollgoillg affempts at filldillg peaajulaltematives to paramilitary pllllishmellts ill Northem Irelalld.

R:storativejustice is the new 'black' in thecriminological world - it is the 'in' topic. In

essence, it views crime as a breakdownin relationships which require healing rather thana breach of the criminal code which requiresretribution. In the UK, Canada, Australia, NewZealand and many other countries restorativejustice techniques such as victim-offendermediation, family group conferencing (whereoften the families of victims and offenders areinvolved in agreeing a settlement in responseto crime), reparation and other strategies havebeen increasingly employed over the past decadeas alternatives to or in parallel with morepunishment-focused responses. This heightenedinterest in restorative responses to crime reflect awidespread disillusionment with the tried andfailed n1.ethods of the past which have seen theprisons fill up with little discernible impact oncrime rates, or indeed meeting the complex needsand requirements of victims, con1.munities andoffenders.

Background to the Northern IrelandContext

In the Northern Ireland context, there is anadditional twist to the restorative justice story.Interest in the subject here is due in large part tothe political context in which community-basedrestorative projects have emerged. Following theIRA and Loyalist 'military ceasefires' of 1994 (andagain 1997 in the case of the IRA) both sets ofparamilitary groups continued what they refer toas 'policing' activities. In essence, these are thepunishment shooting, beating and banishment ofalleged antisocial offenders and petty criminals.While no-one disputes the brutality of theseactivities, it is a more complex phenomenon thansimply naked repression being visited by thepara militaries on their local communities.Punishment beatings and shootings are popular inthe communities in which they happen. In theabsence of an acceptable policing serVice,particularly in Republican areas, a complexrelationship developed during the NorthernIreland conflict wherein local communities

expected the paramilitaries to 'do something' inresponse to crime and the paramilitaries saw it astheir 'responsibility' to respond.

In order to break this cycle, in 1996 a number ofhuman rights and peace activists (including theauthor) began a dialogue with the RepublicanMovement on finding alternatives to such violence.A similar initiative also began with one of theLoyalist factions. Follow a lengthy series of trainingsessions and discussion with activists, a documentwas produced which outlined the potential forcreating a lawful and non-violent conU1.1.L1nity-basedsystem of justice which could replace punishmentviolence. The idea was that a community-led andcOI11l11.unity-managed system, based upon theprinciples of restorative justice, could supplant theparamilitary system and allow them to (in theirterms) 'disengage responsibly.' Funding wasachieved, 12 projects have been established, overt\vo hundred conU1.1.L1nityactivists have been trainedand well over 1,000 cases processed.

The driving dynamic to the process has been toensure good practice. The usage of restorativejustice (with its emphasis on non-violence,lawfulness, the protection of human rights and soforth) as an educative and capacity-building toolfor local communities requires that the practice ofsuch projects be legitimate. As someone who hasbeen involved as an activist, as well as writing uponthis process, I considered that a comparativeelement to my research should be included. Whatwas required was to examine a jurisdiction wheresuch programmes were long established, andwhere the tradition of a strong state, expansivecriminal justice system and emphasis on civilliberties could offer insights into the ways inwhich legitimate community restorative justicecould be ensured.

Legitimating Community RestorativeJustice: The United States Connection

Despite its deserved reputation for a primarilyretributive criminal justice response to crime andanti-social activity, the USA also has a less wellknown parallel history of grass roots community

activism in neighbourhood dispute resolution andrestorative justice. Faced with problems such as alack of confidence in the criminal justice systemand the police (particularly in poor inner cityblack and Hispanic neighbourhoods), high crime,drug usage and organised gang activities - manycommunities have become increasingly involvedin trying to tackle these problems. Sometimes localcommunities have gone it alone. More often theyhave sought to approach these issues throughdeveloping partnerships with the local and federalauthorities, albeit partnerships where often (as inNorthern Ireland) the particular configurations ofpower relations between the state and localcommunities were required to reflect politicallyorganized and astute local activists.

This research project involved a senes ofinterviews conducted in three sites in the USA(N ew York, Washington and Boston) with a rangeof actors involved in the area of community-basedrestorative justice, complimented by library basedresearch. Those interviewed were predominantlyrestorative justice practitioners. Howeverinterviews were also conducted with a number ofacademics, lawyers, one judge, a victims' rightsadvocate, a number of police officers, a prison andprobation employee (who had overseen restorativejustice programmes in prison and 'half-way house'release programmes) and a range of otherinterested parties.

A number of key themes emerged in conductingthe US research which were of direct relevance tothe Northern Ireland context. First, thedevelopment of legitimate restorative justicepractice reqUlres sensitive and nuanceddevelopment which emanates from and resonateswith the particular community needs where it isbased. It must flow from a pre-existing and largelycompatible cultural and value base. For example,models of practice in inner city ethnically diverseareas must by definition be different from those inpredominantly white middle class suburbs

Second, restorative justice requires a mandate fromlocal communities. It requires an audit of needsand resources. In places where such audits werenot carried out, or where consultation withexisting civil society grouping were minimal (suchas in one New York based programme where thelocal community were largely unaware of a 'half-way house' restorative justice programme forrecently released offenders until it was 'exposed' bythe local media), this can cause serious damage toa programme's credibility.

Third, restorative justice requires moral authorityand credibility in the local community. Theinvolvement of people with such authority orcredibility was continuously defined as crucial forprogramme legitimacy. Credible programmeparticipants included respected local communityand civil society activists, trade unionists, womens'movement activists, church personnel, localcommunity police officers in some instances, socialworkers and teachers, and indeed in a numberprojects in Washington and Boston, formerprisoners who were perceived as having 'gonestraight'. The key balancing act here is to ensurethat the moral authority of such individualsemanates from a genuine and diverse participationof all segments of local communities.

Fourth, restorative justice reqUlres thedevelopment and demonstration of competence.In this context competence may be defined asinvolving the purposive and long termdevelopment of appropriate skill sets amongindividuals and organizations. Generally, com-petence involves programme performance at alevel sufficient to satisfY key programme objectives- addressing needs of victims and offenders,community safety, crime prevention, and the like.Projects need to develop and publicise goodpractice standards, demonstrate transparency in theoperation and management of the project anddemonstrate accountability not just to hmders butto the local community as well.

Finally, effective restorative justice reqUlrespartnership within and outside the community.The concept of partnership was continuouslyreferred to as crucial in developing legitimatecommunity restorative justice practice. A numberof interviewees suggested that partnership at localcommunity level between different projects, wasdifficult because of the perception that all wereengaged in competition for scarce resources andthat restorative justice projects were in a somewhatprivileged negotiating position with funders giventheir perceived 'trendiness' in recent years. Forothers, partnerships with the state agencies (such asthe police, district attorneys office or probation)were the most difficult because of a widespreadperception that such agencies were keener on theassertion of power, control and ownership ratherthan genuine partnership with local communityconfigurations. That said, with effective andengaged leadership at community and statutorylevel, and a commitment that all were engaged'for the long haul', some excellent partnershipswere observed.

The failure of state policing during the NorthernIreland conflict contributed significantly to theevolution of a violent and brutal system ofparan'lilitary punishments. As well as the complexinteraction of notions of paramilitary responsibilityand community dependence, such violence wassymptomatic of fractured relationships betweenthe state criminal justice system and working classcommunities. The restorative justice projectsdescribed above represent attempts at praxisdesigned ultimately to end paramilitarypunishment violence In local communities.Legitimate community restorative justice IS

possible with careful planning, monitoring,management and the harnessing of grass rootsenthusiasm. However, local communities cannotdo it alone. In the final analysis, the process can

only succeed if the new policing service and areformed criminal justice system prove capableof much more nuanced engagement with theneeds of local communities, demonstrating localdemocratic accountability and a reconfiguredset of state/community power relations. Thedevelopment in US community-led restorativejustice demonstrates that such programmes canoperate in a legitimate and lawful fashion andframe ettective working partnerships with thestate. Where there is a political will, particularlyamongst the leadership of state agencies, there isa way.

Dr McEvoy was awarded a British Academy SmallResearch Grant to carry out his research in the USAA publication, K. McEvoy and Harry Mika RestorativeJustice.' Theory, Practice and Critique (London: Sage)is forthcoming in 2002