Make restorative justice an election issue

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 05/08/2023 (803 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

As we approach the 2023 Manitoba provincial election, crime will once again be a key issue. We’ve already seen efforts by some politicians to position themselves as “tough on crime” proponents to garner votes.

However, restorative justice (RJ), an effective approach to justice for which Manitoba has been a leader, deserves more discussion among candidates.

RJ refers to justice practices that seek to resolve the harm caused by crime through involvement of victims, offenders, and community. RJ might be used to prepare a pre-sentence report for a trial, determine a sentence, or reconcile parties after a decision has been delivered or even a sentenced served. It has been practised within and alongside the Canadian criminal justice system since the 1970s, though Indigenous legal orders have since time immemorial used healing forms of justice that align with, and have influenced, RJ.

Manitoba’s status as a leader in RJ emerged out of innovative programs that originated here, such as the Hollow Water Community Holistic Circle Healing Program and Restorative Resolutions in Winnipeg, which was cancelled by the Tories in 2017. In the 1990s and 2000s, these programs received international attention for their demonstrated success in preventing recidivism when compared to more retributive measures.

Today, Manitoba is unique among Canadian provinces for being the first to develop supplemental legislation, the 2014 Restorative Justice Act, which was introduced by the NDP to develop and expand opportunities for RJ in Manitoba. This act responded to the 1998 Manitoba Victims Bill of Rights, which proclaimed a victim’s right to information about and participation in alternative measures such as RJ. Through the Restorative Justice Act, funding and support for existing and new RJ programs increased.

Under the Tories, austerity measures inspired the 2018 Criminal Justice Modernization Strategy, which centralized the delivery of RJ through the creation of the Restorative Justice Centre, which has hubs in Winnipeg and Thompson and acts as a clearing house for regional referrals, while also delivering some RJ programming. The focus of the Centre to date appears to be on siphoning off less serious cases from courts and corrections, rather than grappling with serious offences, not to mention the social conditions (e.g., poverty and homelessness) that produce them.

Despite growing political acceptance of RJ, it only receives a fraction of the support given to retributive measures. In 2022/23, Manitoba spent $194,594,000 on custody corrections and only $30,548,000 on community corrections with only a fraction of the latter going toward RJ programming — in 2020-21, $2.8 million was spent on RJ.

Meanwhile, the crime severity index continues to rise in Manitoba. And Indigenous people continue to be subject to mass imprisonment, making up approximately 75 per cent of those who are incarcerated.

Debates persist about how to tackle crime, including between competing forms of advocacy that propose to either increase or abolish policing and punishment, but more conversation is needed about the transformative potential of RJ.

This is not to suggest that RJ is without criticism, both from the left and right of the political spectrum. For those on the right, RJ efforts to offer offenders an opportunity to redress the harm they caused may feel contrary to principles of just desserts. On the left, RJ is sometimes derided as simply a component of an oppressive criminal justice system that is used to extend its reach, addressing only minor offences without re-directing funding to confront fundamental social problems. In interviews I conducted with practitioners, it is clear they are aware of these criticisms, but argue their programs are not “soft on crime” and further provide those affected by crime a rare opportunity to address the hardship that both produces and results from criminal offences.

Both the NDP and the Tories have in the past shown cautious support for RJ. Yet, questions remain regarding how the next provincial government will advance RJ, if at all. For some RJ proponents, the Tory move toward a more centralized RJ has hampered community control over conflict resolution. The Restorative Justice Centre has secured its oversight role over referrals and funding, but community-based programs that have based their operations on RJ principles have found themselves with less autonomy, including less input into case selection. As well, there are broader concerns that government austerity measures designed to cut costs will eclipse other community-based objectives, such as healing, local ownership of conflict, and building trust among neighbours.

Given RJ’s potential to address the root causes of crime and promote community safety, one might expect it to garner more attention in the current election. To that end, citizens are encouraged to ask candidates about their position on RJ. It is time to move beyond “tough-on-crime” stances and assess the political will to address the social problems that cause criminal harm. That means supporting community-driven solutions to crime such as RJ.

Andrew Woolford is department head of the Department of Sociology and Criminology at the University of Manitoba.