It is so fascinating to know that knowledge runs in circles. What you consider new might just be new to you or your generation but might have been used elsewhere. The book of Ecclesiastes in the Bible says: “What has happened will happen again and what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. If they say to you, ’See it is new! Know that it has already existed centuries earlier. There is no remembrance of ancient people, and those who are yet to come will not be remembered by those who follow them’’ (Ecclesiastes 1:9-11)
A fortnight ago, this column presented restorative justice as “the new kid on the block”. We gave that description despite the fact that there are copious examples of restorative justice principles not only in the holy scripts of the various religions but also in some traditional practices. Truly, there is nothing new under the sun.
In contemporary times, it would be wrong to ascribe restorative justice only to the repair of harm done under the criminal justice systems. Restorative justice is also invaluable in schools, workplaces and other social settings. Although primarily set as an alternative approach to the criminal justice system, its underlying philosophies and values sit well under other circumstances.
Indeed, some human resources departments are beginning to appreciate the fact that given a second chance, an erring worker may emerge a star. In one such example, the story is told about a quintessential Nigerian driver who was deployed to work with a British chief financial officer (CFO). In less than three months after, the CFO wanted the driver sacked for always failing to obey instructions. The human resources director, who recognised the driver as the best in the organization, was shocked at the demand and merely redeployed the driver to the organization’s transport pool.
Subsequent investigation would reveal that the driver was usually unable to decipher his boss’s instructions because of his British accent. After weeks of reorientation and an explanation of where the trouble lay, the driver was sent back to his boss. The interesting part of this story is that when a month thereafter the driver was again redeployed, the British boss threatened to resign his appointment if that action was not reversed.
When a worker breaches organizational rules or causes harm to colleagues, such as in fighting and causing bodily injury, the standard procedure is to send such staff to face a disciplinary panel, and if found guilty, is sanctioned by suspension, loss of emolument or outright sack.
In cases of fraud, such erring staff may be handed over to the police for prosecution and consequential jail term if found guilty. The concerns of restorative justice in the above scenarios is that the hurt of the victims of the offending staff have not been considered in whatever way. Secondly, the offender has also not been granted the opportunity to be accountable for the harm he has caused.
In the examples above, both the company and respective individuals have suffered harm caused by the offending staff. How does his suspension or a sack repair the harm? How does the gravity of the offence he has committed impact on him when he has not been confronted with the narratives of how his offence has harmed the company and or his colleagues and what he must do personally to repair the harm? No solution or effective deterrent is achieved when the worker is simply kicked out of job and stigmatised as a thief, a bully or a compulsive liar.
In school settings, young persons who are barely able to appreciate the essence of life are routinely handed suspensions and expulsions for their misdemeanours or juvenile rascality. These extreme sanctions on first-time offenders often rewrite their entire life trajectory. Those who are unable to receive an enlightened parental care and reorientation become societal dropouts with lifelong stigmatization.
So bad are some of the cases that in later years society grapples with the consequential violence and animalistic behaviours these dropouts acquire and visit on innocent victims. Yet all that would have been required to stem this at school would have been a restorative justice circle of teachers and concerned parents where these children would have been made to verbalise why they did what they did, and to get to know and hear what pains others have suffered as victims of their offence.
At such restorative meetings, alternative deterrents such as community service and or making up for the losses others incurred by their actions could well have been devised to enable the offender to appreciate the seriousness of their misbehaviours. The loving impact of their retention or reintegration into the school community despite the unpleasant outcomes of their offences far outweigh the name and shame that expulsion ultimately entails. In my humble understanding, restorative justice would appear to be the ‘“god of a second chance.”