CRIMINAL LAW MULTITASKING Introduction

CRIMINAL LAW MULTITASKING by H adar Dancig-Rosenberg & Tali C a t Criminal laiu pursues multiple goals: retribution, deterrence, expressive justice, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconciliation. Scholars tend to analyze these goals and their implementation in separation from each other, without accounting fo r their interplay and coordination. A theory o f criminal law multitasking is overdue. This Article sets up a conceptual framework fo r such a theory. We develop a taxonomy that captures the interplay between various procedures and substantive goals promoted by criminal law. Based on this taxonomy, we discuss five mechanisms o f criminal law. We propose that policy makers and law enforcers select one or more of these mechanisms to implement the chosen mix o f retribution, deterrence, expressive justice, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconciliation. We provide reasons guiding this selection, among them constructive community involvement, offenders’ responsiveness, and integration of victims ’ rights. We illustrate the operation o f our multitasking approach in real-world cases and illustrate its ability to facilitate the implementation of the deferred prosecution and adjudication mechanisms promulgated by the current draft o f the Model Penal Code. I n t r o d u c t i o n .................................................................................................894 I. H e t e r o g e n e o u s C r im in a l J u s t i c e ............................................... 898

A. B. C.

Mainstream Criminal Process......................................................... 901 Problem-Solving Courts.................................................................... 901 Restorative Justice ............................................................................. 903

* Hadar Dancig-Rosenberg is Assistant Professor at Bar-Ilan University Law School, Israel. Tali Gal is Assistant Professor at the School of Criminology, University of Haifa, Israel. We are deeply indebted to Alex Stein for his continued assistance and critical insights. We are also grateful to Michal Alberstein, Doug Beloof, Ariel Bendor, Greg Berman, Stephanos Bibas, Allan Borowski, John Braithwaite, Jeffrey Coker, Caroline Cooper, Antony Duff, Zvi Eisikovits, Shachar Eldar, Oren Gazal, Peggy Flora, Michael King, Shahar Lifshitz, Erin Mackay, Daily Markel, Eric Miller, Michael Perlin, Carrie Petrucci, Orna Rabinovitch, David Wexler, and Lucia Zedner for many insightful comments on earlier drafts. We would also like to extend our gratitude to the participants of the Faculty of Law Seminar at the Lfniversity of Haifa, participants of the Criminal Law Seminar at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and participants of the Restorative Justice, Responsive Regulation & Complex Problems Conference, University of Vermont, July 15 to 18, 2014. Last but not least, we thank Matthew Longobardi for helpful editing and Noga Rozmarin for excellent research assistance. 893

894

LEWIS & CLARK LAW REVIEW D. E.

[Vol. 18:4

Therapeutic Settlement Conferences..................................................... 904 Restorative Sentencing Juries............................................................... 906

II.

P a r a m e t e r s ......................................................................................................908 Process-Related Parameters................................................................... 908 Stakeholder-Related Parameters............................................................909 Substance-Related Parameters.............................................................. 910 Outcome-Related Parameters................................................................ 912 III. T a x o n o m y o f C r im in a l J u s t ic e M e c h a n is m s ................................913 A. Mainstream Criminal Process.............................................................. 913 B. Problem-Solving Courts.........................................................................915 C. Restorative Justice.................................................................................. 919 D. Therapeutic Settlement Conferences..................................................... 921 E. Restorative Sentencing Juries............................................................... 923 F. Integration.............................................................................................. 925 IV. I m p l e m e n t a t io n ............................................................................................929 C o n c l u s io n ................................................................................................................ 931

A. B. C. D.

IN T R O D U C TIO N In th e last several decades, the m ainstream crim inal process has lost its m on o p o ly o n re g u la tin g crim inal behavior d u e to d isap p o in tm e n t a n d fru stratio n with th e crim inal ju stic e system. C riticism has b een leveled at th e failure o f th e system to effectively d e te r a n d p rev en t crim e,12 its dis crim in atio n a n d racial bias,' its inability to m e e t the needs o f crim e vic tims a n d u p h o ld th e ir rights,3 a n d m o re generally, at its un ju st out1 See M ic h a e l 14. T o n r y , M a l ig n N e g l e c t : Ra c e , C r im e , a n d P u n is h m e n t in A m erica 149 (1995) (criticizing retributive justice as being ineffective and unjust); L u c ia Z e d n e r , C r im in a l J u s t ic e 94 (2004) (arguing that the high rate of violence in prisons and the high recidivism rates among ex-convicts demonstrate the low effectiveness of the punitive approach); Andrew Ashworth & Lucia Zedner, Defending the Criminal Law: Reflections on the Changing Character of Crime, Procedure, and Sanctions,

2 C r im . L. & P h i l . 21, 23 (2008) (discussing how adjudicating offenders may not have any preventive outcomes); John Braithwaite, A Future Where Punishment Is Marginalized: Realistic or Utopian?, 46 UCLA L. Rev . 1727, 1737 (1999) (arguing that punishment plays a limited role in preventing crime); Erik Luna, Punishment Theory, Holism, and the Procedural Conception of Restorative Justice, 2003 U t a h L. Rev . 205, 212-13 (questioning the effectiveness of retribution in deterring crime, among some groups of offenders and certain types of offenses). T o n r y , supra note 1, at 49-50 (arguing that the American criminal justice system is racially biased); Erik Luna, Transparent Policing, 85 I owa L. Re v . 1107, 1156 (2000) (noting that African Americans and Caucasians use drugs at comparable levels, but law enforcement against African American people in dmg offenses is stricter). L e sl ie Se b b a , T h ir d P a r t ie s : V ic t im s an d t h e C r im in a l Ju s t ic e System 5 5 56 (1996) (discussing how the criminal justice process fails to meet the needs of

crime victims); Paul G. Cassell, Recognizing Victims in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: Proposed Amendments in Light of the Crime Victims’Rights Act, 2005 BYU L. R ev . 835, 837 (criticizing the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for ignoring crime victims almost entirely); Heather Strang & Lawrence W. Sherman, Repairing the Harm: Victims and Restorative Justice, 2003 U t a h L. Re v . 15, 20 (stating that the primary

2014 ]

CRIMINAL LAW MULTITASKING

895

co m es .4 In lig h t o f these criticisms, an alternative discourse has em erged. V arious “civilized” ju stice m echanism s have b ee n developed as altern a tives to fo rm al crim inal ju stic e processes in o rd e r to im prove, reform , a n d e n h a n c e th e effectiveness a n d fairness o f substantive crim inal law. Such m ech an ism s seek to provide b e tte r processes a n d to e x p a n d the goals o f substantive crim inal law beyond d eterren c e, incapacitation, re h ab ilitatio n , a n d just deserts. O th e r objectives o f crim inal law, such as re sto rin g relationships," re p airin g h arm ,' e n h a n c in g individuals’ well being,' a n d stre n g th e n in g com m unities are also co n sid ered im p o rta n t a n d legitim ate. Such m ultiplicity o f goals a n d values is at the basis o f the effo rt to refo rm the M odel P enal C ode to provide for d e fe rre d prosecu tion a n d ad ju d ication in o rd e r to p ro m o te the reh ab ilitatio n a n d restora tion o f offenders, victims, a n d com m unities."' T h e variety o f alternative ju stic e m ech an ism s th a t have p ro liferated in the last decades reflects not only a plurality o f p ro ced u res, b u t also a substantive pluralism ro o ted in m u ltip le p h ilo so phies a n d values." F ocusing on p ro c ed u ra l analysis, this source of frustration and dissatisfaction with the criminal justice process among crime victims is not knowing the developments in “their” case). ' C harles K. B. Ba r t o n , R e s t o r a t iv e J u s t ic e : T h e E m po w er m en t M od el 1 5 16 (2003) (arguing that the criminal justice process disempowers both offenders and

victims); John Braithwaite, Restorative Justice: Assessing Optimistic and Pessimistic Accounts, 25 C r im e & J u s t . Re v . Re s . 1, 6 8 -6 9 (1999) (discussing how the criminal justice process humiliates offenders and stigmatizes them). C iv il is in g C r im in a l J u s t ic e : A n I n t er n a tio n a l R est o r a tiv e A gend a for P enal Re fo r m 49-50 (David Cornwell et al. eds., 2013). The term “criminal justice

process” refers to the formal procedure, whereas the term “substantive criminal law” refers to the goals and principles of criminal law. The term “criminal law” refers to both procedures and substance. H o w a rd Z f.h r , C h a n g in g L en ses : A N ew F ocus fo r C rim e and J u s t ic e 181— 83 (1990). H e a t h e r St r a n g , Re p a ir o r Re v en g e : V ic t im s a n d R est o r a tiv e J u stic e

192-93 (2002). D av id B. W ex ler & B r u c e J. W in in c k , E ssays in T iie r a p e u t ic J u r ispr u d en c e 7 -8 (1991). L od e W algra ve , Re st o r a t iv e J u s t ic e , Self -In t e r e s t and Re sp o n s ib l e C i t iz e n s h i p 76 (2008). 10 See M o d e l P en al C o d e : S en t e n c in g § 6.02A(2) (Council Draft No. 4, 2013)

(“The purpose of deferred prosecution is to facilitate offenders’ rehabilitation and reintegration into the law-abiding community and restore victims and communities affected by crime. Deferred prosecution should be offered to hold the individual accountable for criminal conduct when justice and public safety do not require that the individual be subjected to the stigma and collateral consequences associated with formal charge and conviction.”). Similar goals are offered for deferred adjudication. See id. § 6.02B. 11 See Michael T. Cahill, Punishment Pluralism, in Re t r ib u t iv is m : E ssays on T h e o r y and P o l ic y 25, 25 (Mark D. White ed., 2011) (“[Pjerhaps the ascendant view of punishment is more openly pluralistic about its purposes and its proper constraints”); Hadar Dancig-Rosenberg & Tali Gal, Restorative Criminal Justice, 34 C a r d o zo L. Re v . 2313, 2324—39 (2013) (demonstrating how non-punitive mechanisms, such as restorative justice, can attain criminal-law objectives, leading to a pluralistic understanding of criminal law); Lucia Zedner, Reparation and Retribution:

896

LEWIS & CLARK I A W REVIEW

[Vol. 18:4

A rticle pro p oses an in stru m e n t to h e lp m anage the m ultiple processes, a n d to en ab le crim in al law m ultitasking. We develop a taxonom y o f several crim inal ju stic e m ech an ism s*1' th at provide state-based responses to crim e w ithout involving evidentiary h e a r ings. W e focus o n five such m echanism s: m ainstream crim inal p rocess,” problem -solving courts, restorative ju stice, th era p eu tic settlem en t co n fer ences, a n d restorative sen ten c in g ju ries. We pro p o se a list o f param eters th a t identify various characteristics o f these m echanism s a n d th e position o f each m echanism in relatio n to o th ers along various con tin u u m s. To m ake o u r taxonom y less clu ttered , we divide the param eters in to fo u r clusters: process-, stakeholder-, substance-, a n d outcom e-related." M ost lite ra tu re describing innovative ap p ro ach es to ju stic e typically focuses o n a single m echanism a n d on its advantages a n d weaknesses rel ative to th e m ainstream crim inal p rocess.1’ By contrast, we provide an in tegrative analysis o f five ju stic e m echanism s that differ from each o th e r in th e ir u n d erly in g ideologies a n d practical im plem entations. N otw ithstand ing o u r subjective selection o f the specific m echanism s a n d com parative p aram eters, o u r analysis proposes an objective com parative in stru m e n t th a t does n o t p ro m o te o n e m echanism as b ein g a priori b e tte r th a n the o th ers."’

Are They Reconcilable, 5 7 M o d . L . R e v . 228, 2 2 8 - 2 9 (1994) (discussing reparative com ponents in crim inal justice an d explaining thal they present a norm ative shift from retributivism, beyond their procedural contribution). Alongside the views calling for reform , many still uphold a conservative view that does n ot support procedural plurality in crim inal law. See Paul H. Robinson & Michael T. Cahill, The Accelerating Degradation of American Criminal Codes, 5 6 H a s t i n g s L.J. 633, 6 4 5 - 4 9 (2005) (discussing that stakeholders such as judges, prosecutors, an d even defense lawyers oppose reform s to the crim inal justice system, particularly the m odernization of crim inal codes, due to these stakeholders’ entren ch m en t in the cu rren t system). ' By “m echanism s” we refer to processes, schemes, program s, practical approaches, and practices that aim to resolve conflicts arising from crim inal offenses. 1 To enable equal basis for com parison, we limit o u r discussion on the m ainstream crim inal process to only such processes where, owing to the d efen d an t’s adm ission, there is no evidentiary hearing. 14 See infra Table 1. L’ See generally Erik Luna, Introduction, The Utah Restorative Justice Conference, 2 0 0 3 U t a h L. R e v . 1 (introducing special issue o f the U tah Law Review, which contains articles that present argum ents for and against the use of restorative justice). See Eric J. Miller, Drugs, Courts, and the New Penology, 2 0 S t a n . L. & P o l ’y R e v . 417, 4 2 0 - 2 3 (2009) for a discussion o f how drug courts transform co u rt practices to divert offenders from prison to treatm ent and reject the traditional model o f courtroom practice that forces the ju d g e into a passive role, shifting the ju d g e ’s prim ary role from the determ ination o f guilt to the provision o f therapeutic aid. Taxonom ies have been used as m ethodological instrum ents in the legal field but, to o u r knowledge, have alm ost not been developed and applied in the crim inal context. But see Issachar Rosen-Zvi & Talia Fisher, Beyond the Civil and the Criminal: Towards a New Procedural Taxonomy, 3 8 H e b r e w U . L. R e v . 4 8 9 (2008) [Ileb.] (proposing a taxonom y o f crim inal and civil procedures in Israeli Law, which questions the traditional divide between the two fields and offers new param eters for categorizing civil and crim inal procedures). For taxonom ical analyses o f processes in

2014 ]


897

A stru ctu re d , com prehensive categorization helps co m p are ju stice m echanism s by identifying th e ir values, goals, a n d un d erly in g philoso phies. It creates new a n d typically overlooked perspectives th ro u g h w hich to analyze these m echanism s a n d to u n d e rsta n d the crim inal sphere. M ore broadly, the taxonom y uncovers th e coexistence o f divergent ap p ro ach es w ithin crim inal law. O n the practical level, it suggests a p o te n tial for m ultitasking by su p p o rtin g a system o f c o n c u rre n t referrals o f dif fe ren t cases to d ifferen t m echanism s o r com binations thereof, im p le m e n tin g m ultiple values a n d objectives sim ultaneously. F or exam ple, som e o f th e m echanism s we discuss reflect retributivist approaches, w hereas o th ers te n d to be utilitarian in n atu re . T h ro u g h its prim arily p ro c ed u ra l analysis, o u r taxonom y highlights the retributivist an d u tilitar ian characteristics o f each m echanism . D e p en d in g o n o n e ’s norm ative p referen ces, th e taxonom y is h elpful in ch oosing the right m ixture o f processes th at strikes a balance betw een these two co m p etin g p ara digm s . ' 7 O u r taxonom y offers m o re th a n a relative positio n in g o f the various m echanism s alo n g th e different con tin u u m s. T o g eth er, the individual analyses o f th e m echanism s p ro d u c e a b ird ’s eye view o f the system as a whole, w hich helps identify th eo retical gaps o r u n clea r elem ents in the th eo ry o f specific ju stic e m odels. This m ethodology o f m ovem ent from specifics to th e g en eral a n d back to specifics can be used to analyze o th e r justice m echanism s th a t m ay develop w ithin a h etero g en eo u s crim inal law system. B eyond its analytical co n trib u tio n , o u r taxonom y may be in stru m en tal w hen legislators a n d policym akers co n sid er possible m echanism s th at are likely to p ro m o te desirable values, goals, o r approaches. T h e taxon om y may also serve as the basis for a diversified system th a t offers various op tio n s fo r d ifferen t cases, d e p e n d in g o n the severity o f the crim e, the

other legal fields see Carrie Menkel-Midow, From Legal Disputes to Conflict Resolution and Human Problem. Solving: Legal Dispute Resolution in a Multidisciplinary Context, 54 ). L eg al E d u c . 7, 7-19 (2004) (organizing the differences of alternative dispute resolution processes according to the modes of discourse, forms of process, leadership style, and the entities in conflict), Frank E. A. Sander & Lukasz Rozdeiczer, Matching Cases and Dispute Resolution Procedures: Detailed Analysis Leading to a Mediation-Centered Approach, 11 H arv . N e g o t . L. Re v . 1, 9-11 (2006) (considering characteristics of the case, the parties, and the process), Hila Shamir, Between Horne and Work: Assessing the Distributive Effects of Employment Law in Markets of Care, 30 B erkeley J. E m p . & L a b . L. 404 (2009) (analyzing various exceptions in U.S. Federal employment law treating familial care responsibilities), and Stephanie Smith & Janet Martinez, An Analytic Framework for Dispute Systems Design, 14 H arv . N e g o t . L. Re v . 123, 133 (2009) (proposing an evaluative framework that involves criteria regarding the goals, processes and structures, stakeholders, resources, success, and accountability of various dispute-resolution mechanisms). Cf. Richard A. Bierschbach & Alex Stein, Mediating Rules in Criminal Law, 93 Va. L. Rev. 1197, 1199-1202 (2007) (suggesting that evidentiary rules have a significant role in balancing retributivism and utilitarianism, promoting a coherent yet pluralistic legal system).

898

LEWIS & CLARK I A W REVIEW

[Vol. 18:4

characteristics o f th e o ffen d er o r the victim, a n d o th e r attributes. Such a m u ltifaceted system constructs m ultitasking into the re g u latio n o f crim i nal beh av io r because it involves the sim ultaneous dev elo p m en t a n d im p lem en tatio n o f diverse ju stic e m echanism s re p re se n tin g varying values a n d goals. At th e sam e tim e, in any given ju risd ictio n w here several m echanism s are already in place, th e taxonom y can assist lawen fo rc e m e n t professionals in selecting th e m ost ap p ro p ria te m echanism in specific circum stances. Professionals m ay also d ecide to co m b in e two m echanism s in the reso lu tio n o f a case in o rd e r to achieve a m o re com p reh en siv e set o f objectives." M ethodologically, th e taxonom y relies on th e prototypical re p re se n tations o f th e five ju stic e m echanism s it analyzes. B ut because som e o f these m echanism s were developed “b o tto m -u p ” o r evolved from existing practices, o u r analysis is no t b lin d to developm ents o n th e g ro u n d s th a t have sh ap ed specific m echanism s. T he d ifferent th eo retical a n d ideologi cal fo u n d a tio n s o f the various ju stic e m echanism s m ake the com parison betw een th em a com plex a n d challenging task. T h erefo re, o u r analysis is n o t definitive a n d does no t aim to m ake conclusive statem ents. T h e g re a te r th e differences betw een various im p lem en tatio n s o f each m odel, th e m o re tentative o u r statem ents becom e re la tin g to them . Each im ple m en tatio n o f the ju stic e m echanism s we discuss req u ires a separate analy sis across th e various param eters in o rd e r to draw conclusions. T h erefo re, th e c o n trib u tio n o f th e taxonom y is m ainly m ethodological. N everthe less, o u r analysis provides a sufficiently ro b u st categorization that sheds light on o u r u n d e rsta n d in g o f th e distinct characteristics o f each ju stic e m echanism a n d o f th eir p o ten tial ability to achieve certain goals. T h e Article p roceeds as follows. P art I presents th e five selected m echanism s. P art II sets ou t the list o f param eters, clustered in to fo u r groups. P art III considers th e relative position o f each ju stic e m echanism in co m p arison with the others, along the various co n tin u a. P art IV dis cusses th e practical uses o f the taxonom y a n d provides som e exam ples. T his A rticle concludes by o u tlin in g fu tu re applications o f o u r taxonom y in theory a n d practice. I. H ETER O G EN EO U S CRIMINAL JU STIC E D isap p o in tm en t with the crim inal ju stice system has p ro m p te d n u m ero u s efforts to im prove it. V arious additions a n d diversions, such as p aro le, p ro b a tio n , reh ab ilitatio n program s, cautioning, a n d victim em p o w erm en t schem es have p ro d u c e d som e im provem ents, b u t have n o t su cceed ed in allaying concerns th at the ju stic e process is n o t ju st, effec-

18 M a t 1201-02. " See, e.g., 1 G eo r g e P. F l e t c h e r , T h e G ram mar o r C r im in a l L a w : Am e r ic a n , C o m pa r a t iv e , and I n t er n a tio n a l 142 ( 2007) (a m o n g th o se w ho “take seriously th e reco n ciliatio n o f relig io n with m o d ern ity , th e c o n sta n t q u e st is fo r a th e o ry o f pluralism th at will a d m it sim u ltan eo u s strain s o f c o n flictin g views”).

2014]

CRIMINAL I A W MULTITASKING

899

tive, a n d respectful.20 In d e ed , at least am o n g reform ists, these “cosm etic” changes may have c o n trib u te d largely to th e claim th a t th e re is a n e e d for a com p lete paradigm sh ift.'' T h e re have b een several efforts to reform existing crim inal law. Som e o f th e new ap p ro ach es have so u g h t to suggest new a n d revolution ary goals to crim inal law by rep lacin g form al crim inal processes, while o th ers e n d o rsed the d ev elo p m en t o f su p p lem en ts in o rd e r to address the trad itio n al goals o f crim inal law as well as newly d efin e d objectives. T he restorative ju stic e m ovem ent, fo r exam ple, has p ro m o te d a co m p lete shift in th e p e rc e p tio n o f crim e, its outcom es, a n d desirable ways for reg u lat ing behavior.~ T h erap eu tic ju risp ru d e n c e , in contrast, has injected a th era p eu tic spirit in to th e crim inal c o u rtro o m , using relational styles in ju d g in g 2’ an d law yering.'1 A lth o u g h these efforts a n d o th ers have b e e n criticized as in co m p lete,2’ they have g e n e ra te d im p o rta n t insights reg ard ing th e n a tu re o f crim inal law. W e use th e u n d e rsta n d in g provided by this lite ra tu re to analyze the d iffe ren t m echanism s w ith o u t suggesting th at any single o n e can com pletely rep lace th e m ain stream crim inal ju s tice process, a n d w ithout p re fere n ce fo r any o f them . We focus on crim inal law m echanism s th a t apply w hen th ere is n o n e e d fo r h o ld in g an evidentiary phase. In 95% o f th e cases o r m ore, d e fen d an ts confess o r ad m it to th e crim e they are suspected o f com m it tin g ," a n d th e co n se q u en t process is aim ed at re ach in g a sen ten c e ra th e r th a n proving guilt.2’ W e do n o t discuss th e m inority o f c o u rt cases in See supra notes 1-4. 21 Z e h r , supra note 6, at 92 -9 4 . According to Zelir, although changes in the

retributive model have been m ade in o rd er to improve it, the sense o f dysfunction is widespread. Thus, perhaps the ground is being prepared for a shift in paradigm . 22 Id. at 180-81 (defining restorative justice as a “new lens” through which to look at crim e and reactions to it); Lode Walgrave, Restoration in Youth Justice, 31 C rim e Sc J u s t . (Yo u t h C rim e & Yo u t h J u s t . S pec ia l I ssu e ) 543, 543-44 (2004). Compare G ordon Bazemore, Restorative Justice and Earned Redemption: Communities, Victims, and Offender Reintegration, 41 Am . B eh a v . Sc i . 768, 768-72 (1998) (positioning restorative justice against the retributive-rehabilitative dichotom y), with Paul McCold, Toward a Holistic Vision of Restorative Juvenile Justice: A Reply to the Maximalist Model, 3 C o n t e m p . J u s t . Re v . 357, 357-58, 399-400, 407 (2000) (presenting a purist’s approach to restorative ju stice ). J Bruce J. Winick & David B. Wexler, Introduction, mJUDGiNG in a T h e r a p e u t ic Key : T h e r a p e u t ic J u r ispr u d en c e and t h e C o u rts 5 -6 (Brnce J. Winick & David B. W exler eds., 2003). 21 David B. Wexler, Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Rehabilitative Role o f the Criminal Defense Lawyer, 17 St . T h o m as L. Re v . 743, 744 (2005); see also David B. Wexler, Neru Wine in New Bottles: The Need to Sketch a Therapeutic Jurisprudence “Code” o f Proposed Criminal Processes and Practices, 7 A r iz . S u m m it I.. R ev . 463, 463-64 (2014) (suggesting that therapeutic “liquids” may be poured into m ainstream criminalprocess “bottles”). 25 St e p h a n o s B ib a s , T h e M a c h in e r y o f C r im in a l J u s t ic e 106 (2012). 26 Id. at 20. '' Stephen B. Bright, The Failure to Achieve Fairness: Race and Poverty Continue to Influence Who Dies, 11 U. P a .J. C o n s t . L. 23, 24 (2008).

900

LEWIS & CLARK LAW REVIEW

[Vol. 18:4

w hich, follow ing a plea o f “n o t guilty” the parties in tro d u c e witnesses a n d evidence. T o achieve “m axim um variation sam pling,” we chose five crim inal law in stru m en ts th a t rep resen t distinct ideologies a n d practices.28 T he ju stic e m echanism s we discuss differ no t only in th e ir u n d erly in g philos op h ies b u t in m any o th e r ways as well. Som e are co n stru c te d to b e im p le m e n te d in d ep en d e n tly o f m ain stream crim inal p ro ced u res, w hereas o th ers can be easily adjusted to co m p lem en t them . Som e have b ee n test ed an d p racticed widely; o th ers have only recently b een in tro d u ce d . Som e are im p le m e n ted in vastly different p ro g ram s a n d m odels; o th ers are m o re h o m o g en eo u s in th eir im p lem en tatio n . Som e have b e e n co n ceptually d eveloped a n d debated; o th ers are in an earlier stage o f devel o p m en t. O u r selection criterio n was th a t each o f these m echanism s p re sen t a viable o p tio n , at least theoretically, in specific crim inal cases. We use the mainstream criminal process, the p re d o m in a n t crim inal law in stru m en t, as a b en c h m a rk in o u r analysis o f o th e r m echanism s, all o f w hich a d d elem ents to b e tte r m e e t th e needs o f victims, offenders, an d co m m u n ities w ithin crim inal law. Problem-solving courts aim to address the ro o t causes o f crim inality th ro u g h a team w ork m odel h e a d e d by th e ra peutically o rie n te d ju d g es. Restorative justice provides space for victims, of fenders, a n d com m unity m em bers to design a re p a ra tio n plan th a t re flects a restorative p e rc e p tio n o f justice. Therapeutic settlement conferences en a b le victims, offenders, a n d pro secu to rs to reach settlem ents th a t are tailo red to th eir interests. Finally, restorative sentencing juries envision a co m b in atio n o f restorative values with com m unity-based notions o f ju s t deserts. F ocusing o n non-adversarial ju stic e m echanism s,2' we ig n o re in stru m en ts th a t are situated com pletely w ithin the fram ew ork o f th e ad versarial crim inal p rocess’"—w ith th e excep tio n , o f course, o f th e m ain stream crim inal process itself. O urs is n o t a com prehensive sam ple o f non-adversarial crim inal law m echanism s, b u t a selection th a t we fo u n d suitable a n d sufficiently h etero g en eo u s fo r o u r com parative goals. Som e o f the m echanism s, such as m ain stream crim inal process, problem -solving courts, a n d restorative ju stice, are p racticed regularly (if n o t frequently) in m any ju risd ictio n s. O th ers are know n only in specific localities (th erap eu tic settlem en t co n feren ces), o r are the vision o f bold refo rm ers (restorative sen ten c in g ju r ie s ) . A lth o u g h restorative sen ten c ing ju rie s have n o t yet becom e o p eratio n al, we d ec id e d to in clu d e them in o u r taxonom y because, beyond th e ir p ro c ed u ra l innovation, they re flect a u n iq u e m ixture o f seem ingly co n trad icto ry values such as re trib u tion a n d restoration.

M ic h a e l Q u in n P a t t o n , Q u a l it a t iv e Rese a r c h & E v a lu a tio n M eth o d s

243 (3d ed. 2002). 29 See M ic h a e l Kin g e t a l ., N on -Adversaria l Ju s t ic e 5-6 (2009). 111 Examples for such add-ons are restorative cautioning, procedural rights for victims, and restitutive orders.

2014] A.

CRIMINAL IA W MULTITASKING

901

Mainstream Criminal Process

T o level th e field for th e m echanism s we com pare, we co n sid ered only th o se m ain stream crim inal processes th a t d o n o t re q u ire evidentiary hearings. W e can justify this m ethodological decision by th e fact th at in ap proxim ately 95% o f crim inal cases in th e U.S. d efen d an ts p lead guilty, obviating th e n e e d to prove th eir guilt in court. W ith o u t the n ee d fo r fact finding, ju d g e s typically decide only on the p u n ish m en t, based on th e blam ew orthiness o f the d e fe n d a n t a n d m itigating o r aggravating cir cum stances. But even w ithout th e evidentiary stage, m o d e rn adversarial crim inal process is a com plex m ix o f crim e control an d d u e process re strictions co m b in ed with victim s’ rights, " rehabilitative, a n d restitutive elem en ts, u n like the system describ ed by H e rb e rt P acker in the 1960s. ’ B.

Problem-Solving Courts

In th e last two decades, m any courts have b ee n re sh ap in g th e ir modus operandi to p rovide m ore com prehensive responses to c r im e .1 O u t o f a grow ing u n d e rsta n d in g th at crim inal courts m ust go beyond resolving conflicts betw een individuals a n d the g o v ernm ent c o n c e rn in g law break in g , problem -solving courts have refocused th eir goals to address th e h u m a n p ro b lem s th a t cause p eo p le to engage in crim inal b eh a v io r.’’ Problem -solving courts specialize according to the u n d erly in g results o f crim e. T hey in clude different solution-focused b en ch es such as d ru g courts, ' ’ m en tal-h ealth courts, ' family-violence courts, 's veteran courts.

B ib a s , supra note 25, at 20 (“Today, about nineteen out of twenty adjudicated defendants in America plead guilty. Trials became the exception and plea bargains the rule.”). Although the victims’ rights reform has changed criminal processes worldwide, in most jurisdictions victims are still considered interested parties, rather than “third parties” with equal rights. See generally Seb ba , supra note 3; Douglas Evan Beloof, The Third Model of Criminal Process: The Victim Participation Model, 1999 U t a h L. R e v . 289; Erin C. Blondel, Note, Victims’Rights in an Adversary System, 58 D u k e L.J. 237 (2008). Herbert L. Packer, Two Models of Criminal Process, 113 U. P a . L. Re v . 1, 23-61 (1964). " Bruce J. Winick, Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Problem Solving Courts, 30 F o r d h a m U r b . L.J. 1055, 1055 (2003); see afeojudith S. Kaye, Policy Essay, Delivering Justice Today: A Problem-Solving Approach, 22 Yale L. & P o l ’y Re v . 125, 125-51 (2004) (presenting the problem-solving approach and current knowledge about their effectiveness and fairness). Kaye, supra note 34, at 127-28. There are more than 2,800 drug courts in the U.S. today, according to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs. U.S. Dep’t. of. Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Drug Courts, N a t ’l G r im . J u s t . R eferen ce Serv . (May 2014), http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffilesl/nij/238527.pdf. Evidence shows that recidivism is less likely among drug court participants. For a meta-analytic review see Ojmarrh Mitchell et. al., Assessing the Effectiveness of Dmg Courts on Recidivism: A Meta-Analytic Review of Traditional and Non-Traditional Dmg Courts, 40 J. Gr im . J u s t . 60 (2012). See also Nancy Rodriguez & Vincent J. Webb, Multiple Measures of Juvenile Dmg Court Effectiveness: Results of a Quasi-Experimen.tal Design, 50 C r im e & D e l in q . 292, 301 (2004) (showing a

902


[Vol. 18:4

a n d teen courts."' Problem -solving courts a b a n d o n die trad itio n al adver sarial m o d el in favor o f a collaborative, fu tu re-o rien ted process." Ju d g es in problem -solving courts act as team leaders a n d work with d efense attorneys, prosecutors, a n d social w orkers to b u ild rehabilitative p ro g ram s fo r th e ir “clients”— th e confessing d efen d an ts.42 Such treat m en t p rogram s o ften involve a b ro a d ran g e o f reparative, rehabilitative, a n d supervisory m easures such as re stitu tio n o r sym bolic re p ara tio n for victims, p articip atio n in a n g e r m an ag em en t, family counseling, a n d o th e r su p p o rt program s, an d re g u la r u rin e a n d blo o d tests." Problem -solving courts have b een heavily in flu en c ed by th e ir “close cousin,” th erap eu tic ju ris p ru d e n c e — a co n c ep tu al fram ew ork for identifying th era p eu tic an d an ti-th erap eu tic elem ents in laws, p ro ced u res, a n d legal actors." U sing th e ju d g e-c lie n t re latio n sh ip as a m otivational in stru m en t, p ro b lem solving ju d g e s m eet th eir “clients” regularly to m o n ito r th e ir p ro g ress.1’ reduction in recidivism rates for juvenile participants). Caitlin T. Harrington, Note, Breaking the Cycle and Stepping Out o f the “Revolving Door”: Why the Pre-Adjudication Model Is the Way Forward fo r Illinois M ental Health Courts, 2013 U. I I I . L. Re v . 319, 321. Approximately 250 mental-health courts now exist in 43 States in America. See E. Lea Johnston, Theorizing M ental Health Courts, 89 W a s h . U. L. Re v . 519, 520 (2012). For a discussion about the second generation of mental health courts and the dimensions distinguishing first- from second-generation courts, see Allison D. Redlich et al., The Second Generation o f M ental Health Courts, 11 P sy c h o l . P u b . P o l ’y & L. 527, 527, 532, 535 (2005). For a survey about the entire population of adult mental health courts in the U.S. and the characteristics of mental health courts, see Allison D. Redlich et ah, Patterns o f Practice in M ental Health Courts: A National Survey, 30 L aw & H u m . B e h a v . 347, 349-57 (2006). See Winick, supra note 34, at 1057-58. See generally Carrie J. Petrucci, Respect as a Component in the Judge-Defendant Interaction in a Specialized Domestic Violence Court that Utilizes Therapeutic Jurisprudence, 38 C r im . L. B u l l . 263, 263-65 (2002). Stacy Lee Burns, The Future o f Problem-Solving Courts: Inside the Courts and Beyond, 10 U. Mn. L.J. Ra c e , R e l ig io n , G en d er & C lass 73, 75 (2010). 10 Sec Winick, supra note 34, at 1058-59. " See Community Courts and Community Justice, 40 Am . C r im . L. Re v . 1501-1623

(2003) (providing a comprehensive overview on the development of problem-solving courts, their underlying ideology and practice, the various roles of the different players, and the characteristics of the different types of problem-solving courts). See also Ben Kempinen, Problem-Solving Courts and the Defense Function: The Wisconsin Experience, 62 H a stin g s L.J. 1349, 1351 (2011). 12 See, e.g., Eric J. Miller, Embracing Addiction: D rug Courts and the False Promise of Judicial Interventionism, 65 O h io St . L.J. 1479, 1481-82 (2004). " See id. at 1499; James L. Nolan, Jr., Commentary, Redefining Criminal Courts: Problem-Solving and the M eaning o f Justice, 40 Am . C r im . L. R e v . 1541, 1542, 1547 n.32, 1562 (2003). David B. Wexler & Michael S. King, Promoting Societal and. Juridical Receptivity to Rehabilitation: The Role o f Therapeutic Jurisprudence, in D r u g T r ea tm en t C o u r t s : A n I n t e r n a t io n a l Resp o n s e t o D r u g D e pe n d e n t O ffen d ers 21, 21 (Caroline S. Cooper et ah eds., 2013), available at http://www.cicad.oas.org/fortalecimiento_ institucional/dtca/publications/DTC_FINAL_PUBLICATION.pdf; see also Nolan, supra note 43, at 1548-50 (2003) (discussing the relationship between therapeutic

jurisprudence and drug courts). Nolan, supra note 43, at 1542-43.

2014]


903

T hey express praise a n d p rid e w hen th e ir clients are successful, a n d dis a p p o in tm e n t a n d an g e r w hen they fail, ab a n d o n in g th e im age o f blind ju stic e in favor o f a m o re h u m a n m odel o f ju d icial work. D espite th e ir p ro liferatio n in th e U.S. a n d elsew here, problem -solving courts have b ee n widely criticized for th e ir failure to address th e b ro a d e r social caus es o f crim e by focusing o n individual responsibility, fo r jeo p a rd iz in g d e fe n d a n ts’ due-process rights,4h a n d for in co rp o ratin g th e task o f p arole officers in to th e ro le o f ju d g es. C. Restorative Justice R estorative justice has b een d u b b ed as a “new len s” th ro u g h w hich to view crim e a n d the ap p ro p ria te responses to it." T h e m echanism was first used in th e 1970s, in th e victim -offender m ed iatio n program s practiced in th e U n ite d States a n d C anada. '1 Since th e 1990s, it has b ee n p a rt o f family g ro u p c o n fere n cin g in ju v en ile offending in New Z ealand a n d A ustralia.52 In N o rth A m erica, th e h ea lin g circles have b ecom e p a rt o f the form al sen ten c in g process for Native A m erican defendants. Restorative ju stice has b ecom e a cen tral m echanism w ithin crim inal legal systems across th e globe. ’1 Restorative jn stic e processes b rin g to g e th e r victims, of fenders, th e ir su p p o rters, a n d com m unity m em bers to openly discuss the crim e a n d its afterm ath , a n d to co n sid er ways to re p a ir the h arm caused 40 See id. at 1543. 47 See Miller, supra note 15, at 427 (“[A] strategy focused on individual responsibility and self-esteem cannot engage with the wider perspective of governmental and social failure that is the backdrop against which many drug addicts live their lives.”). 48 Morris B. Hoffman, Commentary, The Drug Court Scandal, 78 N.C. L. Rev. 1437, 1533 (2000). 49 Miller, supra note 15, at 424. M Z e h r , supra note 6, at 180-81. 51 Mark S. Umbreit. et al., Restorative Justice: An Empirically Grounded Movement Facing Many Opportunities and Pitfalls, 8 C a r d o zo J. C o n fl ic t Re s o l . 511, 519-23 (2007) (describing the first victim-offender mediation processes and their development). 52 Kathleen Daly, Mind the Gap: Restorative Justice in Theory and Practice, in Re st o r a t iv e J u s t ic e and C r im in a l J u s t ic e : C o m p e t in g o r Rec o n c il a b l e P a r a d ig m s ? 219, 220-27 (Andrew von Hirsch et al. eds., 2003) (describing the

introduction of restorative justice conferences in New Zealand and Australia); Gabrielle Maxwell & Allison Morris, Youth Justice in New Zealand: Restorative Justice in Practice?, 62 J. Soc. I ssues 239, 243, 248-49 (2006) (describing family group conferences in New Zealand, conducted pursuant to the 1989 Children, Young Offenders and their Families Act). 53 Raslimi Goel, Aboriginal Women and Political Pursuit in Canadian Sentencing Circles: At Cross Roads or Cross Purposes, in R e st o r a tiv e J u s t ic e and V io len c e A g a in st W om en 60, 60-62 (James Ptacek ed., 2010) (describing justice circles operated by Native American communities in Canada); R u p e r t R o ss , R e t u r n in g to t h e T e a c h in g s : E x p l o r in g A b o r ig in a l J u s t ic e 16-17 (1996).

54 See, e.g., Umbreit et ah, supra note 51, 519-28. Victim-offender mediation is also gaining support amongst the states in the U.S. Id.

904

LEWIS & Cl A R K LAW REVIEW

[Vol. 18:4

by it. ” T h e various m odels o f restorative ju stic e differ m ainly in the n u m b e r o f p articipants, th e level o f th e ir form ality, a n d in the stages at w hich they are used in th e crim inal process, '1b u t they share som e basic princi ples such as stak eh o ld e rs’ em pow erm ent, re p ara tio n o f h arm , respectful listening, a n d no n -d o m in atio n . ' Critics o f restorative ju stic e have raised questions ab o u t its ability to p ro d u c e equal a n d just-desert outcom es " a n d th e risk o f over-em pow ering dysfunctional c o m m u n itie s.’’ O th ers have h ig h lig h ted the gaps betw een the theory o f restorative ju stic e a n d its ap p licatio n in practice."" N otw ithstanding diese a n d o th e r critiques, th e re is sufficient evidence by now to d em o n strate that, in ap p ro p riate circum stances, restorative ju stic e can achieve th e goals o f crim inal law."1 Most notably, a restorative red efin itio n o f th e deontological goal includes restorative ju stic e as a crim inal law in stru m e n t th at can achieve a b ro a d en ed , positive, ju st-d esert outcome."" D.

Therapeutic Settlement Conferences

A recently developed in stru m e n t p racticed in A rizona— a n d reg u lat ed by its p ro secu to rial guidelines— is th e crim inal settlem en t conference,

See generally T ony F. M a r sh a ll , Rest o r a t iv e Ju s t ic e : An O verview (1999); W algra ve , supra note 9, at 76-77; Braithwaite, supra note 4. John Braithwaite, Setting Standards for Restorative Justice, 42 Br it . J. C r im in o l o g y 563, 563 (2002). Id. at 569. B ib a s , supra note 25, at 100; Andrew Von Hirsch & Andrew Ashworth, Review Article, Not Not Just Deserts: A Response to Braithwaite and Pettit, 12 O x fo rd J. L egal St u d . 83, 92-94 (1992) (discussing the risk of unequal treatment of offenders by custom-tailored restorative justice processes). Concern about community involvement is particularly salient in cases of gendered violence. See, e.g, Loretta Frederick & Kristine C. Lizdas, The Role of

Restorative Justice in the Battered Women’s Movement, in Rest o r a t iv e J u s t ic e and V io l e n c e A g a in st W om en 39, 50 (James Ptacek ed., 2010) (discussing concerns

about community members excusing violence against women as private or as deserved by the victim); Julie Stubbs, Domestic Violence and Women’s Safety: Feminist Challenges to Restorative Justice, in R est o r a t iv e J u s t ic e and F am ily V io len c e 42, 5455 (Fleather Strang & John Braithwaite eds., 2002) (considering “the community” as both the source of the problem and its solution). See generally T h e o G a v r ie l id e s , Rest o r a t iv e J u s t ic e T h eory and P r a c t ic e : A d d r e s sin g t h e D isc r epa n c y (2007). See, e.g., James Bonta et ah, Restorative Justice and Recidivism: Promises Made, Promises Kept?, in H a n d b o o k o f R est o r a t iv e J u s t ic e : A G lo bal P er spe c t iv e 108,

112-15 (Dennis Sullivan & Larry Tifft eds., 2006) (describing the effectiveness of restorative justice in reducing recidivism rates). See generally L aw rence W. Sh e r m a n & H e a t h e r St r a n g , R est o r a tiv e J u s t ic e : T h e E v id en c e (2007); Jeff Latimer et ah, The Effectiveness of RestorativeJustice Practices: A Meta-Analysis, 85 P r is o n J . 127 (2005). Dancig-Rosenberg & Gal, supra note 11, at 2335 (“The offender’s efforts to make amends and the promotion of the victim’s wellbeing are likely to restore the moral balance which was disrupted by the offense . . . thus becoming the offender’s secular penance, without imposing pain upon him. This is how justice in the restorative sense is achieved.” (citations omitted)).

2014]


905

w hich is an ex ten sio n o f the plea n egotiations hearing." M ediated by a ju d g e specifically assigned to this process, settlem en t conferences involve th e state, th e d efense, a n d the victim, w ho ideally sh o u ld be re p re se n t e d . ' 1 T h e goal o f th e co n feren ces is to reach an agreed-upon settlem ent th at addresses th e n ee d s a n d wishes o f th e victims, the d efen d an t, an d th e state. C rim inal settlem en t conferences overcom e several o f the vices o f plea agreem ents. F or exam ple, the victim s’ voices are largely m u ted in stan d ard plea b arg ain in g negotiations." T his is overcom e in crim inal set tlem en t conferences, " w hich are used in serious offences, in clu d in g sex ual offenses."' W hat we call th e ra p e u tic settlem en t conferences are crim inal settle m e n t co n feren ces using th e “last best offer” tech n iq u e, a re c e n t devel o p m e n t in sp ired by ideas from arb itra tio n , m ediation, negotiation, th e r ap eu tic ju ris p ru d e n c e , a n d restorative justice."’' A ccording to this tech n iq u e , th e co n fere n ce ju d g e , after initial discussion o f th e crim e an d o f th e p a rtic ip a n ts’ needs, asks each p a rtic ip a n t to pro p o se a sen ten c e.6’ T h e ju d g e stresses th a t if th e participants d o n o t reach ag reem en t, ra th e r th a n seeking a com prom ise o r a co m b in atio n o f th e various proposals, he o r she w ould ad o p t o n e o f th em in full, assum ing th at it is lawful, reason-

R obert L. Gottsfield & Mitch Michkowski, Settlement Conferences Help Resolve Criminal Cases, 90 J u d ic a t u r e 196, 197 (2007). Rule 17.4(a) o f A rizona’s Rules of Criminal Procedure provides “Plea N egotiations. T he parties may negotiate concerning, and reach an agreem ent on, any aspect of the case. At the request of either party, or sua sponte, the court may, in its sole discretion, participate in settlem ent discussions by directing counsel having the authority to settle to participate in a good faith discussion with the court regarding a non-trial o r non-jury trial resolution which conform s to the interests o f justice. Before such discussions take place, the prosecutor shall afford the victim an opportunity to confer with the prosecutor concerning a non-trial o r non-jury trial resolution, if they have n ot already conferred, and shall inform the court and counsel of any statem ent o f position by the victim. If the d efendant is to be present at any such settlem ent discussions, the victim shall also be afforded the opportunity to be present and to state his or h er position with respect to a non-trial o r non-jury trial settlem ent. T he trial ju d g e shall only participate in settlem ent discussions with the consent o f the parties. In all o th er cases, the discussions shall be before an o th er ju d g e o r a settlem ent division. If settlem ent discussions do not result in an agreem ent, the case shall be retu rn ed to the trial ju d g e . ”A r iz . R. Gr im . P. 17.4(a). See also Gottsfield & Michkowski, supra, at 197. David B. W exler & M ichael D. Jones, Employing the “Last Best Offer’’ Approach in Criminal Settlement Conferences: The Therapeutic Application o f an Arbitration Technique in Judicial Mediation, 6 P h o e n ix L. Re v . 843, 844-47 (2013). Simon N. V erdun Jo n e s & A dam ira A. Tijerino, Four Models of Victim Involvement During Plea Negotiations: Bridging the Gap Between Legal Reforms and Current Legal Practice, 46 C an ad ia n J. C r im in o l o g y & C r im . J u s t . 471, 477-78 (2004) (discussing how victims are excluded from plea-bargaining negotiations and th eir voices are heard only faintly, if at all). Nancy J. King, Judicial Oversight of Negotiated Sentences in a World of Bargained Punishment, 58 St a n . L. Re v . 293, 300 n.28 (2005). W exler & Jones, supra note 64, at 844. 68 Id, at 845-49. 69 Id, at 846.

906


[Vol. 18:4

able, a n d m eets governing sen ten cin g principles. ° A fter each p ro p o sal is p re sen ted , the ju d g e leads an o p e n discussion ab o u t the various p ro posals, tlieir ap p ro p riaten ess, a n d im plications fo r each o f the parties in volved.' T h e ju d g e ’s co m m itm e n t to fully ad o p t o n e o f the proposals provides a stro n g incentive fo r the participants n o t only to p ro p o se fair a n d reaso n able settlem ents, b u t also to reach an ag reem en t with th e o th ers in o rd e r to avoid an ex tern al ju d icial decision. T h e lawyers’ envi sio n ed ro le is to guide th eir clients in co n sid erin g th e needs a n d wishes o f th e ir co u n te rp a rts in ad d itio n to th e ir own, as well as public interests such as d e te rre n c e , re trib u tio n , a n d prevention. ' If, after th e final dis cussion, th e parties do n o t reach an ag reed-upon settlem ent, th e ju d g e can choose o n e o f th e th ree offers as an in d icated s e n te n c e .'’ At this stage, th e d e fe n d a n t can still veto the in d icated sen ten ce a n d o b tain a trial with a d iffe ren t ju d g e . If n o n e o f the offers m eet ex tern al re q u ire m ents, th e ju d g e can re fer the case back to the trial ju d g e o r ask th e p ar ties to revise a n d re su b m it th e ir offers.' We m ade a m ethodological decision to include th era p eu tic settle m e n t co n feren ces w hen p racticed with the last best offer a p p ro ach , d e spite th e fact th a t th e m echanism has n o t yet b ee n scrutinized o r devel o p ed . A m o re robust choice may have b een the practiced a n d re g u lated settlem en t conferences, as specified in Rule 17.4(a) in the A rizona Rules o f C rim inal P ro ced u re. N evertheless, we chose to focus o n the m o re in novative d ev elo p m en t o f the last best offer ap p ro ach because we believe th a t it advances the analytical discussion a n d highlights th e th era p eu tic p o ten tial o f this seem ingly technical innovation. D espite th e innovation in g ra n tin g victims a status in th e p re-settlem ent negotiations, settlem en t co n feren ces are an in h ere n tly m ainstream -crim inal-process elem e n t b e cause they do n o t re g ard p artic ip a n ts’ well-being a n d reconciliation as stated goals o f crim inal law. By contrast, th erap eu tic settlem en t co n fer ences in c o rp o ra te these considerations in to the legal e q u a tio n a n d can th ere fo re be re g ard e d as a truly separate ju stic e m echanism . E.

Restorative Sentencing Juries

In resp o n se to th e com m on b elief th at restorative ju stic e has m uch to offer b u t fails to deliver re trib u tio n , S tephanos Bibas suggests a new sen ten c in g m echanism , w hich h e calls “restorative sen ten c in g ju ries.”'1’ 70 Id. 71 Id. 7 Id. at 848; Wexler, supra note 24, at 755. Wexler &Jones, supra note 64, at 846. 74 Id. 75 Id. See Bibas , supra note 25, at 157 (“The idea would be to sever the useful procedures from the substantive anti-punishment philosophy. Restorative procedures could empower the parties to express themselves and heal in the course of having local lay juries gauge and impose deserved punishment. Restoration need not be at

2014 ]


907

T h e juries consist o f victims, th e ir family m em bers, a n d friends; offend ers, th eir families, a n d friends; neig h b o rs who are n o t directly re la ted to th e case; a n d a m e d ia to r." A im ing to co m b in e th e a u th e n tic voices o f the d irec t stak eh o ld ers w ith the public in te re st fo r fair a n d ju s t p u n ish m en t, restorative sen ten c in g ju rie s differ in size a n d m ajority re q u irem en ts ac c o rd in g to th e m ag n itu d e o f th e offenses. * Victim s a n d offenders are in vited to express th e ir wishes a n d feelings b efo re ju ry m em bers a n d can engage in a d irec t dialogue in w hich they w ould be “free to vent, discuss, apologize, a n d forgive, b u t could n o t be fo rced to do so.”' Ju ro rs th en re tire to discuss the ap p ro p ria te sen ten ce, g u id ed by w hat they have h e a rd a n d by v id eo tap ed statem ents o f the o th e r stakeholders. T h e bal ance o f pow er is m ain tain ed th ro u g h a co m p o sitio n in w hich h a lf the j u rors re p re s e n t com m unity m em bers a n d the o th e r h a lf is divided equally betw een family m em bers a n d friends o f tbe victims a n d the offenders. R espectful listening a n d candid d elib eratio n ab o u t possible ju s t respons es is m ain tain ed with th e su p p o rt o f th e neighbors, who pledge to keep th eir involvem ent fair a n d objective.8" Assisted by optional sen ten cin g guidelines, th e n eighbors provide a balance fo r excessively vengeful o r extrem ely forgiving victims, re p resen tin g th e public sentim ents o f ju s tice.8’ At th e sam e tim e, the n eighbors are aim ing to see b o th parties visi bly satisfied a n d possibly begin to reconcile, m aking possible less punitive decisions. In short, restorative sen ten cin g juries are envisioned to “re sto re checks a n d balances to o u r system, co u n terb alan c in g w hat h ad b e com e u n ilateral prosecutorial pow er to plea bargain. T hey w ould restore a m easu re o f sanity a n d com m on sense to offset overcrim inalization.”

odds with retribution, but could complement it.”). 77 Id. at 157-58. Id. at 158 (suggesting six jurors and a majority of votes to agree on a sentence for misdemeanors, twelve jurors for lesser felonies, and larger juries, with two-thirds or three-quarters requirements, for imposing punishment for more serious felonies). 75 Id. at 159. Id. at 158. Another possibility, not mentioned by Bibas, is providing offenders and victims with the opportunity to be present while the jury members deliberate. Making the jury deliberations open to victims and offenders brings this mechanism closer to restorative justice. 81 Id. Id. The jury system in general is debatable, and raises concerns about racial and gender-based biases, among other criticisms. See generally Paul Butler, Essay, Racially Based Jury Nullification: Black Power in the Criminal Justice System, 105 Yale L.J. 677(1995). See B ib a s , supra note 25, at 158-59 (emphasizing that the advisory guidelines and the jury deliberations would check insiders, particularly public prosecutors who often pursue extremely harsh punishments for defendants who go to trial). 84 Id. at 159. Btit see Nicola Lacey, Humanizing the Criminal Justice Machine: ReAnimated Justice or Frankenstein’s Monster?, 126 H a r v . L. Re v . 1299, 1322-24 (2013) (reviewing B iba s , supra note 25) (criticizing the suggested mechanism as being a “romanticized” vision of a “village ideal”).

908


[Vol. 18:4

II. PARAMETERS W e p ro p o se fo u r fam ilies o r clusters o f p aram eters to analyze th e ju s tice m echanism s discussed in th e previous Section: process-, stakeholder-, substance-, an d outcom e-related p aram eters. O u r choice o f th e follow ing p aram eters is based largely o n previous research. O f the p aram eters id en tified in relatio n to o n e o r two o f th e m echanism s, we chose the ones th at m ay be g en eralized a n d m ad e applicable to the o th e r m echanism s as well. T h e in novation in this taxonom y is in th e effo rt to b rin g to g e th e r m any p aram eters relating to m any m echanism s, creatin g a m atrix th at can h elp evaluate, com pare, a n d select d ifferent m echanism s in various circum stances. W ithin each family, each p a ra m e te r is co n stru c te d as a co n tin u u m with two o p p osing ends. W e do n o t aim to prioritize the p aram eters o r th e ir clusters, n o r d o we co n te n d th a t e ith e r e n d o f a scale is in h ere n tly su p e rio r to th e o th er. R ather, we p ro p o se a com prehensive m ix tu re o f th e evaluative elem en ts a n d leave it to policym akers to ju d g e the relative im p o rtan ce o f each p aram eter, based o n th e ir norm ative p references. A.

Process-Related Parameters

In this g ro u p o f param eters we include elem en ts th a t describe the n a tu re o f th e m echanism : its form at, stru ctu re, a n d characteristics. T he first p a ra m e te r refers to the existence o f co m m u n icatio n betw een th e vic tim a n d th e offender, creatin g a c o n tin u u m betw een m echanism s th at involve victim -offender dialogue a n d those th a t do no t, with in d ire c t dia log p o sitio n e d in the m id d le o f th e co n tin u u m .8' T h e existence o f dia logue betw een o ffen d er a n d victim is an im p o rta n t crite rio n d ifferen tiat ing betw een m ainstream crim inal processes a n d o th e r justice m echanism s, because in th e fo rm e r the victim is n o t c o n sid ered to be a party, a n d th ere fo re m essages c a n n o t pass betw een the victim a n d th e of fe n d er. Even victim im pact statem ents a n d o th e r particip ato ry vehicles th at en ab le victims to express th e ir views to the ju d g e o r p ro secu to rs do

“Indirect dialog” refers to processes that allow victims or offenders to deliver messages to each other through an intermediary, typically the prosecutor or the judge. See Barbara Raye & Ann Warner Roberts, Restorative Processes, in H a n d b o o k or Rest o r a t iv e Ju s t ic e 211, 218-19 (Gerrv Johnstone & Daniel W. Van Ness, eds. 2007). Some traditional criminal law scholars argue that a criminal act reflects a violation of abstract social norms that the state has chosen to protect through the criminal code. According to these scholars, the conflict is not between victims and offenders but rather between offenders and society, represented by state prosecution. See, e.g., D avid O r m e r o d , Sm it h and H o g a n ’s C r im in a l L aw 5-7 (13th ed. 2011); T h e O x fo rd H a n d b o o k o f S e n t e n c in g and C o r r e c t io n s 178 (Joan Petersilia & Kevin R. Reitz eds., 2012). The restorative justice literature, by contrast, highlights the interpersonal elements of crime, arguing for the centrality of direct victim-offender dialog as a necessary step in addressing crime. See, e.g., Z e h r , supra note 6, at 181-82.

2014]


9 09

n o t involve any direct o r in d ire c t co m m u n icatio n with the o ffe n d e r . 8 By contrast, crim inal ju stic e m echanism s th at facilitate co m m u n icatio n b e tween th e victim a n d the offender, even with th e assistance o f a th ird p ar ty, can be ch aracterized as en ab lin g dialog. In d e ed , som e m echanism s en c o u rag e o p en dialog betw een participants, fo r exam ple, betw een ju d g e a n d victim o r betw een judge a n d offender. T his a p p ro a c h has m o re to do with o u r n e x t p aram eter, th e flexibility-form ality co n tin u u m , because in form ality enables o p en discussions betw een particip an ts in the process. This p a ra m e te r addresses several questions ab o u t the characteristics o f th e process: is it custom -tailored o r a one-size-fits-all? Are th e parties b o u n d (and p ro tec ted ) by strict evidentiary a n d p ro c ed u ra l rules, o r are they free to act according to the circum stances a n d dynam ics o f th e situa tion? Is the process tightly stru ctu re d o r can it b e ch a n g ed acco rd in g to ch an g in g needs? Is the process highly form alized in its sym bolic re p re sen tatio n s such as language, attire, a n d physical arch itectu re? T h e th ird p aram eter, hierarchy, moves alo n g a c o n tin u u m betw een m echanism s that trea t th e participants as com plete equals in a flat hierarchy a n d those th at tre a t participants differently acco rd in g to th e ir title, profession, a n d role in th e process. T h e fo u rth p a ra m e te r describes th e re c ru itm e n t o f stak eh o ld ers to th e various ju stic e m echanism s, creatin g a c o n tin u u m be tween voluntary a n d coercive processes . 88 B.

Stakeholder-Related Parameters

T his family o f param eters relates to th e characteristics o f th e partici-

Some m odern scholars, such as Dan Kahan, consider the com municative role of punishm ent and therefore are likely to argue that the m ainstream crim inal process involves some indirect dialog between victims and offenders. See Dan M. Kahan, The Anatomy of Disgust in Criminal Laic, 96 M ic h . L. R ev . 1621, 1641-42 (1998) (reviewing W illia m Ian M il l e r , T h e Ana to m y o f D isg u st (1997)) (discussing p u nishm ent having the function o f reflecting the repugnance of the com m unity, i.e., the “em otions o f the com m unity”). Antony D uff s com m unicative theory refers largely to the role o f punishm ent in delivering a censuring message from society to the offender and a supportive message to the victim. But when Duff discusses the role of the victim in court, he notes that the com m unication between the victim an d the offender may foster an understanding of the harm caused by the crim e and stimulate a sense of rem orse and repentance in the offender. See generally R. A. D u f f , P u n is h m e n t , C o m m u n ic a t io n , and C o m m u n ity (2001); R. A. Duff & S. E. Marshall, Communicative Punishment and the Role of the Victim, C r im . J u s t . E t h ic s , S um m er/Fall 2004 at 39 (2004). D a n ie l W. V an N ess & Karen H eetderks S t r o n g , Re s t o r in g J u s t ic e : A n I n t r o d u c t io n t o Rest o r a tiv e J u s t ic e 75 (4th ed. 2010) (explaining that

encounter-based processes, such as restorative justice, are com m itted to voluntary participation, and the hopes of offenders to receive a m ore lenient sentence do not preclude the voluntary nature o f the process, as long as there is real alternative). Note that here, as in the o th e r param eters, the position on the continuum o f each m echanism reflects its relative ranking on the scale. No m echanism can guarantee absolute voluntariness on the p art of defendants because the th reat of being referred back to th e formal crim inal justice process is always present. V oluntariness, therefore, is a relative rath er than an absolute characteristic o f justice mechanisms.

910


[Vol. 18:4

pan ts a n d th e n a tu re o f th e ir involvem ent in th e various ju stic e m ech a nisms. T h e first p a ra m e te r d ifferentiates betw een m echanism s th a t em pow er th e private stakeholders involved in th e case, giving th em a central decision-m aking role (lay-centered) a n d those in w hich the professionals h o ld th e exclusive pow er o f decision m aking (professional-centered). T h e second a n d th ird p aram eters relate directly to the d eg ree to w hich th e various m echanism s are a ttu n e d to th e interests o f victims a n d of fenders. Justice m echanism s ch aracterized as victim -oriented are sensitive to th e victim s’ wishes, n ee d s,s’ rights, a n d sense o f ju stice, w hereas m ech anism s categorized as n o t victim -oriented d isreg ard victim -related co n siderations. Likewise, m echanism s th a t are o ffen d er-o rien ted are focused o n th e rights, needs, o r n o tio n s o f ju stic e o f th e o ffenders a n d are th e re fore e ith e r rehabilitative o r retributive, acco rd in g to th e blam ew orthiness o f th e offenders a n d th eir rehabilitative prospects. In contrast, m ech a nism s th a t prioritize considerations external to th e offender, such as g en eral d e te rre n c e , are located at th e n o t-o ffen d er-o rien ted e n d o f the th ird p aram eter. T h e fo u rth p a ra m e te r refers to th e d e g re e to which each ju stic e m echanism is accessible to in tere ste d parties a n d the larger com m unity, acknow ledging that the co nsequences o f crim e reach b e y o n d th e o ffen d er a n d the victim. Process inclusiveness is m easu red by b o th th e q u antity o f p articip an ts a n d the quality o f th e ir participation: som e m echanism s explicitly invite a large n u m b e r o f particip an ts w hereas o th ers lim it particip atio n to th e d irec t stakeholders only. Similarly im p o rtan t, som e m echanism s en a b le the e x ten d e d parties to affect th e o u t com es w hereas o th ers adm it in d ire c t stakeholders only as witnesses o r at best, as su p p o rters. This p a ra m e te r creates a c o n tin u u m betw een inclu sive a n d exclusive m echanism s. A fifth p a ram eter, com m unity- versus state-m anaged, describes th e identity o f those w ho m anage the ju stic e m echanism s: are they com m unity representatives, reflectin g a b elief th at crim e is a m a tte r th at sh o u ld be d ea lt with by civil society, o r are they form al state representatives, based on th e assum ption th a t th e state holds th e m onopoly on reg u latin g crim inal behavior? C. Substance-Related Parameters T his set o f p aram eters refers to the core values a n d com m odities th at are at th e h e a rt o f each m echanism . First, som e ju stic e m echanism s use p red o m in ately rights term inology, w hereas o th ers re so rt to a need-based

We consider needs as goals that are “instrum entally an d universally linked to the avoidance o f serious harm .” L en D oyal & Ian G o u g h , A T h e o r y o f H um an N eed 42 (1991). According to Doyal and Gough, the two basic hum an needs are physical survival and personal autonom y, because these are the conditions for any individual action. Id, at 56, 59. Autonom y includes three elem ents: the ability to make inform ed choices, m ental health, and opportunities (a certain level o f freedom s). Id. at 60. Physical survival m eans physical health. Id. at 56. People may face serious harm when their health is in such condition that il limits their active participation in social life. Id.

2014]


911

o r in te re st te r m in o lo g y .T h e latter focus o n the concrete needs o r in ter ests o f th eir participants even w hen achieving these goals may jeopardize th eir p ro c ed u ra l rights a n d form al entitlem ents; the fo rm er rely heavily on th e stakeholders’ entitlem ents, based on a unified set o f rules a n d legal rights, a n d even w hen such rights are violated o r lim ited, these interven tions are ju stified by the rights term inology itself. A sim ilar co n tin u u m dis tinguishes betw een m echanism s th at endorse em odonal discourse, an d those th at d o not. M echanism s positioned at th e em otional e n d o f the spectrum construct th e expression o f various em otions such as rep en tan ce, sham e, sorrow, regret, anger, fear, resentm ent, h o p e, trust, em pathy, an d com passion in to the discourse itself, reflecting a percep tio n o f em otions as im p o rtan t a n d relevant. By contrast, m echanism s positioned at the o th e r e n d o f th e co n tin u u m ignore subjective, em otive expressions an d even re gard th em as an in terferen ce with the essence o f the process. In the n ext param eter, m echanism s th at regard th eir p ro ced u ral characteristics as p ro m o tin g the achievem ent o f th eir goals are positioned opposite m echa nisms th a t reg ard p rocedural rules as lim iting th eir ability to achieve th eir goals. Thus, th e process-as-veliicle versus process-as-obstacle co n tin u u m re fers to th e fu n ction assigned to the p ro ced u ral rules typical o f each m odel. N on-adversarial m echanism s em phasize respectful, em pow ering, a n d th er apeutic proced u res, a n d regard them as p ro m o tin g the achievem ent o f die goals o f em pow erm ent, reparation, a n d problem -solving. T h e form al crim inal process regards p rocedural justice restrictions as lim itations in the p ro se cu tio n ’s endeavor to achieve re trib u tio n a n d o d ie r utilitarian goals. T h e insertio n o f victims’ rights into the crim inal justice process is an ex am ple o f how restrictions re q u irin g prosecutorial representatives to con sult, inform , a n d p ro tec t victims in the course o f die process are obstacles in the achievem ent o f the final goal. " Finally, the fo u rth p aram eter differ entiates betw een com m unitarian an d libertarian m echanism s. C om m uni tarian m echanism s, such as som e m odels o f com m unity-based restorative justice, stress th e im portance o f die com m unity a n d its role bo th as a regu latory ag en t an d a stakeholder (by virtue o f b ein g a victim) in a dispute.

90 For a discussion of the relationship between rights an d needs, see Jerem y W aldron, The Role of Rights in Practical Reasoning: “Rights” versus “Needs”, 4 }. E t h ic s 115 (2000). 91 Jonathan Doak, Victims’ Rights in Criminal Trials: Prospects for Participation, 32 J.L. & S o c ’y 294, 305-06 (2005). 92 See, e.g., W algra ve , supra note 9, at 77-79 (highlighting the differences between com m unitarians, who consider people’s connectedness as an essential part o f their identities, and liberals, who consider autonom y and self-interests to be key values, and noting that in both approaches taking the extrem e standpoints is risky); see also Joint Braithwaite, Survey Article, Repentance Rituals and Restorative Justice, 8 J. P o l . P h i l . 115, 122 (2000) (coining th e term “individual-centered co m m u n itarian ism ”). 93 Lode Walgrave, From Community to Dominion: In Search o f Social Values for Restorative Justice, in Rest o r a t iv e J u s t ic e : T h e o r e t ic a l F o u n d a tio n s 71, 73 (Elmar G. M. W eitekam p & Hans-Jiirgen K erner eds., 2002).

912


[Vol. 18:4

Com m unitarian mechanisms treat offenders and victims not as entirely separate, autonom ous individuals with mutually com peting interests, but rather as inseparable community m em bers whose interests are tied with those of their respective communities and, at times, with each o th er’s. " By contrast, libertarian mechanisms treat offenders and victims individually, emphasizing the conflict between the state and the individual and between different individuals, and ignoring the social context in which the crime has been com m itted.' D.

Outcome-Related Parameters

This cluster of parameters measures justice mechanisms based on the characteristics of dieir outcomes. First, justice mechanisms can he positioned along die continuum of future- versus past-oriented outcomes. Past-oriented mechanisms typically emphasize the blameworthiness of the offender and the severity of the offense as justifications for the process outcomes. " They also stress measurements for proportional pu n ish m en t' and reject any reference to “contingent future benefits that [their outcomes] might bring.”98 This is the theoretical and moral basis of retributivism.*11By contrast, future-oriented mechanisms seek to achieve utilitarian outcomes, such as rehabilitation, in capacitation, and deterrence. " They examine the possible consequences of available solutions and select the solutions that are considered to maximize wellness in society."" A more specific param eter relating to past-oriented out comes separates mechanisms that provide retributive requital"" from those that do not. Retributive requital refers to responses that are imposed as an act of vengeance, justified by their intrinsic moral value for being proportional to the severity of the offense and the blameworthiness of die offender." ' 9,1 Id. at. 81-82. Seejohn Hospers, The Libertarian Manifesto, in J u s t ic e : Al te r n a tiv e P o l it ic a l P e r spec tiv es 22, (James P. Sterba ed., 4th ed. 2003). According to libertarian philosophy, the only p ro p er role o f the state is to em body the “retaliatory use of force against those who have initiated its use.” Id. at 26 (emphasis om itted). Requiring people to help one an o th er is inappropriate u n d e r this theory. See Sarah H oltm an, Kant, Retributivism, and Civic Respect, in Re t r ib u t iv is m : E ssays o n T h e o r y a n d P o lic y 107, 108 (Mark D. W hite ed., 2011). 97 Id. at 118. R.A. Duff, Retrieving Retributivism, in R e t r ib u t iv is m : E ssays on T h e o ry and P o l ic y 3, 3 (Mark D. W hite ed., 2011). T he complexity o f the term retributivism deserves a separate discussion, which is beyond the scope o f this Article. See generally L eo Za ib e r t , P u n is h m e n t and Re t r ib u t io n (2006); Re t r ib u t iv is m : E ssays o n T h e o ry and P o licy (Mark D. W hite ed., 2011). 100 Cahill, supra note 11, at 32. 10’ Id. 11" Dancig-Rosenberg & Gal, supra note 11, at 2324 n.44 (explaining the broad m eaning o f requital, which includes the various interpretations of retribution); id. at 2333 n.89 (defining requital as prom oting “both the goal of achieving proportionality in punishm ent (‘j u s t deserts’), and the goal of ‘m aking offenders pay’ for their deeds (retrib u tio n )”). '°3 Id. at 2333.

2014]


913

N on-retributive req u ital refers to responses th at may im pose a sim ilar b u rd e n on th e w rongdoer, b u t o u t o f m otivation to “rig h t the w rong” by re p airin g th e h a rm caused to th e victim,"" A th ird p ara m e te r in this clus ter d ifferen tiates betw een m echanism s th at deliver outcom es th at are re habilitative in n a tu re a n d those th at typically incapacitate offenders. Finally, som e m echanism s p ro d u c e conflict-resolution outcom es, w hereas o th ers aspire to achieve a b ro a d e r co n c ep t o f justice. C onflict resolution refers to o u tcom es th a t provide short-term resolution o f cu rren t legal disputes. " At th e o th e r e n d o f the co n tin u u m , ju stic e refers to m o re h o listic ou tco m es th at p ro m o te universal norm s o f h u m a n rights a n d truthfinding, beyond th e reso lu tio n o f the dispute at h a n d ." C u rre n t dis course separates betw een conflict-resolution a n d problem -solving o u t com es, ' a n d we can place problem -solving outcom es in the m iddle o f this co n tin u u m . III. TAXONOM Y O F C RIM INALJU STICE MECHANISMS W e p ro p o se an in teg ra te d taxonom y, focusing o n the prototypes o f th e five selected crim inal law m echanism s described in Section I. We first p o sitio n each m echanism alo n g th e co n tin u a o f the various param eters. N ext, we ex am ine th e em erg in g p ictu re using a figurative chart, show ing th e relative position o f each m echanism along th e various c o n tin u a an d p o in tin g out th e considerations relevant for policy m akers w hen choos ing betw een various m echanism s. A.

M ain strea m C rim in a l Process

As n o te d above, to create a basis fo r com parison betw een m ain stream crim inal p ro c ed u re s a n d o th e r crim inal law m echanism s, we chose to lim it o u r analysis to non-evidentiary p ro c ed u re s involving e ith e r a p lea a g reem en t o r th e d e fe n d a n t’s adm ission o f guilt. It is relatively sim ple to categorize th e m ainstream crim inal process based o n o u r list o f p aram eters. M ainstream crim inal processes d o n o t facilitate any dialogue be tween victims a n d offenders a n d p ro h ib it victim -offender e n c o u n te rs.108 K athleen Daly, Does Punishm ent Have a Place in Restorative Justice? 14 (Sept. 1999) (unpublished m anuscript), available at http://w w w .grifFith.edu.au/__d a ta / assets/pdf_file/0016/50326/kdpaper7.pdf. 1,1 Kin g e t a l ., supra n o te 29, a t 14. 106 J o h n B r a it h w a it e , Rest o r a t iv e J u s t ic e & R espo n siv e Re g u l a t io n 251 (2002) (“T he facilitator is an agent o f justice first, conflict resolution second, because a restoration of harm ony based on injustice makes m ediation a tool of dom ination.”). 1 Non-adversarial elem ents seek to address the root o f the problem and solve it, instead o f searching for a short-term resolution o f the cu rren t legal dispute. Kin g et a l ., supra note 29, at 14—15. See, e.g., Stephanos Bibas & Richard A. Bierschbach, Essay, Integrating Remorse and Apology into Criminal Procedure, 114 Yale L.J. 85, 148 (2004) (arguing th at the crim inal justice process denies victims and offenders opportunities to reconcile).

914


[Vol. 18:4

T hey are form al, hierarchical, a n d coercive, alth o u g h e n te rin g a pleaag re e m e n t is officially voluntary."’1 C ourt-based crim inal processes are p ro fessional-centered, " exclusive,1" a n d state-m anaged because those in ch arg e are p ublic pro secu to rs a n d o th e r state officials. T hey are offendero rie n te d because they co n sid er th e o ffen d ers’ blam ew orthiness, reh ab ili tative prospects, a n d p ro c ed u ra l rights, b u t are n o t victim -oriented, d e spite re cen t victim s’ rights reform s. W hen resolved th ro u g h a plea ag reem en t, th e m ainstream crim inal process may be co n sid ered even less victim -oriented because victims are typically d e n ie d the o p p o rtu n ity to speak directiy with th e d e fe n d a n t.'" T h e m ainstream crim inal process is located at the ex trem e ends o f sub stan ce-related param eters: it relies heavily o n rights-based term in o lo gy, even w hen d e fe n d a n ts’ rights are secondary to d e te rre n c e a n d in cap acitation. M ainstream crim inal processes generally reject em o tio n al lan g u ag e, re g ard due-process restrictions as obstacles, ra th e r th a n vehi-

See A lbert W. Alschuler, Straining at Gnats and Swallowing Camels: The Selective Morality of Professor Bibas, 88 C o r n el l L. R e v . 1412, 1417 (2003) (arguing that because the legal system threatens defendants with increased penalties for exercising their right to trial, they are pressed to subm it Alford and nolo guilty pleas); cf. R obert E. Scott & William J. Stuntz, Plea Bargaining as Contract, 101 Yale L.J. 1909, 1920-21 (1992) (explaining that plea bargaining does not rely on duress because prosecutors are not responsible for creating the defendants’ predicam ent). Bibas , supra note 25, at 31 (explaining that “outsiders” are left w ithout any ability to check, balance, and dispute decisions that public prosecutors and defense attorneys make on a regular basis w ithout m uch public supervision). They are exclusive both in the quantity of people invited and in the quality of participation. Only the offender and those who may provide relevant evidence are invited. T he interest o f o th e r stakeholders is not a consideration for inclusion. They are similarly exclusive in the quality of participation, because the ability o f those invited (for example, the victim) to affect the outcom e is limited and incidental. Id. at 38.

112 Id. at 75. " ' Id. at 111-12. It is possible to argue that there is substantial discussion of the o ffender’s needs in the defense argum ents at the sentencing stage. Needs also em erge when state authorities are asked to rep o rt on the rehabilitative prospects of the defendant. Nevertheless, the dom inant discourse is ab o u t defendants’ dueprocess rights and the right against disproportional punishm ent. 1" Id. at 90. It is possible to argue that there is extensive use o f emotive language d uring the sentencing stage aim ed at eliciting desired outcomes: prosecutors talk about the gravity of the crim e and the em otional dam age to victims; defense attorneys stress their clients’ sense of repentance and the horrific implications that incapacitation may have for their families. “P u re” crim inal law, however, regards emotive discourse as undesirable and even contradictory to its fundam ental principles. See Payne v. T ennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 818 (1991) (citing Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 (1987). In Payne, the C ourt overruled its previous decision in Booth v. Maryland, and held that victims may present victim im pact statem ents. 501 U.S. at 827. T he dissenting justices, in agreem ent with Booth, argued that the submission of victim im pact statem ents in capital cases prom otes “arbitrary and capricious” decisions. See id. at 845-46 (Marshall, J., dissenting) (citations internal quotation marks om itted).

2014 ]

CRIMINAL I A W MULTITASKING

915

cles for achieving ju s t deserts, d e te rre n c e , a n d reh ab ilitatio n ," a n d are based o n lib ertaria n n o tio n s o f individual freedom s a n d autonom y ra th e r th an co m m u n al ties a n d obligations.' W ith resp ect to o u tco m e-related param eters, m ainstream crim inal processes are largely past-oriented, as they search fo r ju s t deserts o u t com es, b u t they m ay also in teg ra te fu tu re-related outcom es w hen reh ab il itatio n o r in cap acitation goals b eco m e salient." C ourt-based sen ten cin g decisions have, p rim a facie, a re p u ta tio n for achieving “ju stic e ” acco rd in g to th e term s o f the co n tin u u m o f justice-m aking versus conflict resolu tion, because they are p u rp o rte d to co n sid er b ro a d e r values th a n th e dis p u te at h an d , in clu d in g the public in tere st o f ju s t d ese rts." ' In reality, however, th e extensive use o f guilty pleas, o ften based on prosecutorial estim ates o f w in-lose chances, u n d e rc u ts this assu m p tio n .'" We th ere fo re follow the critics o f th e m ainstream crim inal process' " a n d p osition it at the “conflict re so lu tio n ” e n d o f th e ju stic e scale. W hat m ost sharply separates m ain stream crim inal processes from existing nonadversarial m echanism s is that the fo rm er seek to achieve ju st-d esert o u t com es, th a t is, retributive requital. Punitive sentences are desig n ed not only to reh ab ilitate, d eter, an d incapacitate, but, first a n d forem ost, to provide a p ro p o rtio n a l retributive response to th e w ro n g d o in g o f th e of fe n d e r." ' It is m o re difficult to place th e m ainstream crim inal process alo n g th e rehab ilitation-incapacitation co n tin u u m . C ourt-based sen ten c es can lead to e ith e r o f these outcom es, d e p e n d in g o n th e o ffe n d e r’s es tim ated rehabilitative prospects a n d the norm ative prioritization o f sen ten cin g goals w ithin each specific legal system. B.

Problem-Solving Courts

It is difficult to m ake conclusive statem ents ab o u t the position o f problem -solving courts along the various co n tin u a because different

11 Packer, supra note 33, at 61. "6 W algra ve , supra note 9, at 78. 117 See, e.g., Andrew Von Hirsch, Punishment, Penance, and the State, m P u n is h m e n t and P o l it ic a l T h e o ry 69, 69-70 (M att Matravers ed., 1999). 118 See, e.g., Bib a s , supra note 25, at xv-xvi (contrasting the p opular portrayal of crim inal trials as morality plays that broadly evaluate conflicting societal values and do justice for victims and defendants with practitioners’ experience of a system where “plea bargaining is the nam e o f the gam e.”). " Id. at 19 (arguing that, in practice, m ost sentences are n ot based on justice considerations, but on prosecutorial needs to win cases). Even when o th e r interests are considered, such as the victim’s difficulty to testify, reaching a plea agreem ent to address those interests is often considered a legal com prom ise, n ot a trium ph. 1711 Id. at 42 (“[Prosecutors] may use plea bargaining to help rack up relatively easy convictions and avoid risking em barrassing acquittals, at the expense o f sentence severity. . . . They may be tem pted to push a few strong cases to trial to gain m arketable experience while bargaining away weak ones.”). 171 See Bazemore, supra note 22, at 769.

916

LEWIS & CLARK I AW REVIEW

[Vol. 18:4

types o f problem -solving courts ra n k differently in each scale.122 This di versity is particularly p ro n o u n c e d re g ard in g stak eh o ld er-related p aram e ters. D ru g courts, m ental-health courts, a n d veteran courts are clearly of fe n d er-o rien ted , a n d it is ra re to see a victim playing a m eaningful ro le in them . ‘ D om estic violence courts, by contrast, are noticeably victimo rien te d , a n d it is likewise ra re to see o ffen d ers’ n eed s b e in e discussed 124 ^ th ere. ' C om m unity courts re p re se n t a m o re b alan c ed tre a tm e n t o f b o th offen d ers a n d victims a n d th ere fo re m ay be co n sid ered as b o th o ffen d er o rie n te d a n d victim o rie n te d .1' Problem -solving courts are largely exclu sive, with th e exception o f som e com m unity courts, w here com m unity m em b ers can b ecom e m em bers o f the advisory boards a n d are welcom e to take p a rt in p ro c eed in g s.1' 1’ M ost problem -solving courts are state122 See M o d el P enal C o d e : S e n t e n c in g , Reporters’ Memorandum at xx (Council Draft No. 4, 2013) (“The configurations of these courts, and the resources they command, vary by jurisdiction and by the problems they are designed to confront. Some courts operate as diversion programs, while others are positioned at sentencing or within deferred-adjudication programs. Many embrace nontraditional models of legal advocacy, setting aside some adversarial protections in favor of a more holistic or problem-oriented approach to criminal offending. Whatever form they take, these courts have strong supporters and equally vehement opponents.”). 123 See Michael Daly Hawkins, Coming Home: Accommodating the Special Needs of Military Veterans to the Criminal Justice System, 7 O h io St . J. C r im . L. 563, 568 (2010); Miller, supra note 42, at 1501; Shauhin Talesh, Mental Health Court Judges as Dynamic Risk Managers: A Neu> Conceptualization of the Role offudges, 57 D e P a u l L. R ev . 93, 11516 (2007); see also N a t ’l A ss ’n o f D r u g C o u r t P r o f ’l s , D e fin in g D r u g C o u r t s : T h e Key C o m po n e n ts iii-iv (Jan. 1997), available at http://www.nadcp.org/sites/ defauIt/files/nadcp/KeyComponents.pdf (listing ten key components, none of which mention the victim). We thank Eric Miller for pointing out that in drug courts and mental health courts, the offender’s family may be considered the victim of the defendant’s behavior. We note, however, that families of defendants may be considered their victims in all justice mechanisms, even when they do not get the same attention of the courts as in problem-solving courts. The direct victims of the offense that brought the defendant to court are typically excluded in non-domestic violence problem-solving courts. Drug court defendants retain some power and can always opt out of treatment and accept incarceration. See Stacy Lee Burns & Mark Peyrot, Reclaiming Discretion: Judicial Sanctioning Strategy in Court-Supervised Drug Treatment, 37 J. Contemp. Ethnography 720, 739 (2008). 12-1 Michael S. Ring, Should Problem-Solving Courts Be Solution-Focused Courts?, 80 Re v . J u r . U.P.R. 1005, 1023-24 (2011); Lisa Lightman & Francine Byrne, Addressing the Co-Occurrence of Domestic Violence and Substance Abuse: Lessons from Problem-Solving Courts, 6 J. C e n t e r fo r Fa m ., C h il d & C t s . 53, 59-60 (2005). 2j Michael Cobden & Ron Albers, Beyond the Squabble: Putting the Tenderloin Community Justice Center in Context, 7 H a s t in g s Race & P overty L.J. 53, 56 (2010). ” Jeffrey Fagan & Victoria Malkin, Theorizing Community Justice Through Community Courts, 30 F ord h a m U r b . L. Re v . 897, 907 (2003). One example of a

community court is the Victorian Koori Court in Australia, where the inclusion of community members is explicit. Koori Court, M a g is t r a t e s ’ C o u r t V ic t o r ia , http://www.magistratescourt.vic.gov.au/jurisdictions/specialist-jurisdictions/kooricourt. Community courts are also criticized in feminist literature for excluding women from the dialog. See, e.g., Erin S. Mackay, Therapeutic Jurisprudence: A Just Framework for Indigenous Victim/Survivors of Sexual Violence? 81, 243-44 (Oct. 2013) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of New South Wales) (on file with

2014]

CRIMINAL IAW MULTITASKING

917

m an ag ed , b u t com m unity courts are largely ru n by the com m unity.12' Problem -solving courts are relatively consistent in b ein g professionalcen tered : alth o u g h oftentim es lawyers are ab sen t from re g u la r sessions a n d th ere is em phasis on em pow ering offenders (clients), th e decision m akers are still th e professionals, in p artic u la r ju d g e s a n d social w ork ers. us Problem -solving courts a p p e a r m ore consistent re g ard in g th e p ro cess-related param eters. M ost problem -solving courts do n o t have built-in dialogue betw een victims a n d offenders, with som e ex c ep tio n s . 129 They differ from m ainstream crim inal courts in th e ir flexible process th at al lows th era p eu tic co m m u n icatio n betw een th e ju d g e a n d the d e fe n d a n t . 1 " T hey are based on voluntary participation. A lthough ju d g e s are consid ere d “team lead ers” a n d are often accessible, inform al, a n d com m unica tive with th eir “clients,” the process is hierarch ical a n d the ju d g e m akes th e final decision; th e professionals have a n advisory role a n d the offend er, at best, is co n sulted an d in fo rm e d . 1 11 R egarding substance-related p aram eters, a d efin in g elem e n t o f p ro b lem-solving courts is th eir use o f need-based, ra th e r th a n rights-based term inology. " D efendants a tte n d in g problem -solving courts waive m any o f th eir p ro c ed u ra l rights a n d receive a need-based co n sid eratio n leading to a trea tm e n t program , ra th e r th an p u n is h m e n t.11' At the sam e tim e, alth o u g h em o tional discourse exists in problem -solving courts, as w hen ju d g e s express th e ir satisfaction o r d isap p o in tm e n t with th e ir clien ts’ progress, it is th e clients’ behavior, ra th e r th a n em o tio n , th a t is typically

authors). In addition, the invitation extended to com m unity m em bers to take p art in the advisory board does not ensure m eaningful participation (quality inclusiveness). See Fagan & Malkin, supra note 126, at 898 (“Com m unity justice projects go beyond the problem-solving court m odel to create legal institutions th at bring citizens closer to legal processes.”). Greg Berman & Jo h n Feinblatt, Problem-Solving Courts: A Brief Primer, 23 L. & P o l ’y 125, 131-32 (2001). ■' Some com m unity courts have in-house program s that ad o p t restorative justice principles and involve direct victim-offender dialog. See, e.g., Peacemaking: Practitioners from Navajo Nation Train Volunteers in Red Hook, C e n t e r F or C t . I n n o v a t io n (N ov. 16, 2012), http://w w w .courtinnovation.org/research/peacem aking-practitionersnavajo-nation-train-volunteers-red-hook. Domestic violence courts may allow and even encourage victim -offender dialogs, particularly when there are no acute safety concerns and when the parties are interested in restoring their relationship. 111 Petrucci, supra note 38, at 264. 1,1 S hannon Portillo et al., Front-Stage Stars and Backstage Producers: The Role of Judges in Problem-Solving Courts, 8 V ic t im s & O ffenders 1, 17-18 (2013). 132 Kin g e t a l ., supra n o te 29, a t 164. Id. at 14—15, 144, 164. T he need-oriented approach is at times subject to criticism based on the concern that defense attorneys easily give away their clients’ procedural rights, even when the chances o f w inning the case legally are high, because o f their com m itm ent to their clients’ rehabilitative needs. Mae C. Q uinn, Whose Team Am I on Anyway? Musings of a Public Defender About Drug Treatment Court Practice, 26 N.Y.U Re v . L. & Soc. C h a n g e 37, 51 & n.89 (2000-01).

918

LEWIS & C IA R K LAW REVIEW

[Vol. 18:4

at th e c e n te r o f th e discussion.' ' O n th e process-as-vehicle vs. process-asobstacle co n tin u u m , problem -solving courts clearly re g ard th e ir th e ra peutic p ro ced u res as en ab lin g ra th e r th a n lim iting. Problem -solving courts utilize u n iq u e p ro c ed u ra l qualities such as the em phasis o n voice, respect, dialogue, ju d g e -d e fe n d a n t relationship, a n d o th ers as vehicles for attain in g th eir desired outcom e: th e reh ab ilitatio n o f th e ir c lie n ts ." ’ Problem -solving courts m ay have grow n o u t o f lib ertaria n n o tio n s o f indi vidual rights a n d liberties, b u t com m unity courts in the U n ited States as well as som e A boriginal, M aori, a n d tribal courts w orldwide have b een injecting co m m u n al values a n d active particip atio n in to th e ir stan d ard processes."" Finally, re g ard in g the o u tco m e-related param eters, problem -solving courts are clearly fu tu re -o rie n te d " ' a n d usually lack retributive requital, as lo n g as th e client is cooperative. Som e problem -solving courts focus on resolving th e individual conflict, as, for exam ple, in dom estic violence courts. O th ers search fo r b ro a d er, universal concepts o f ju stic e a n d seek solutions th a t p ro m o te equality, healing, a n d respect, even if the parties w ould settle fo r less."" M ost problem -solving courts seek to address the ro o t o f th e p ro b lem a n d solve it ra th e r th a n search fo r a short-term reso lution o f th e dispute at hand.""

4 Nolan, supra note 43, at 1543. Uj Kin g e t a l ., supra note 29, at 14. Problem-solving courts, however, as well as other non-adversarial mechanisms, are often measured in accordance with their success in reducing recidivism. This preoccupation with outcomes and specifically with recidivism rates often leads to the abolition of process-oriented mechanisms such as Problem-Solving Courts. One example is the abolition of the original Murri Court in Queensland, Australia, following a governmental evaluative study showing no reduction in recidivism rates. An t h o n y M or g a n & E r in L o u is , A u s t l . In s t , of C r im in o l o g y , E v a lu a tio n o f t h e Q u eenslan d M u r r i C o u r t : F in a l Re p o r t 145 (2010), available at. http://aic.gov.aU/docum ents/9/C/3/%7b9C3FF400-3995-472BB442-789F892CFC36%7dtbp039.pdf. 116 See, e.g., Greg Berman & Aubrey Vos., Justice in Red Hook, 26 J u s t . S ys .J. 77, 7881 (2005) (discussing the central role of the local community in planning, developing, and managing the Red Hook Community Court in New York); Rekha Mirchandani, Beyond Therapy: Problem-Solving Courts and the Deliberative Democratic State, 33 L aw & Soc. I n q u ir y 853, 857-58 (2008) (explaining that restorative justice forums arose in places like neighborhood justice centers and offer individuals choices for active participation in the legal process). But sec Fagan & Malkin, supra notel26, at 948-54; Miller, supra note 42, at 1574-76 (presenting a more skeptical standpoint). 1" Kin g e t a l ., supra note 29, at 140-41. liB Fagan & Malkin, supra, note 126, at 928-30. 130 Kin g e t a l ., supra note 29, at 14; Nolan, supra note 43, at 1554 (“In the drug courts, . . . treatment, healing, [and] problem-solving . . . constitute the very meaning of justice. . . . In such a context, it is now possible to speak of just treatment.’”); see also Susan Daicoff, The Comprehensive Law Movement: An Emerging Approach, to Legal Problems, 49 S ca n d in a v ia n St u d . I.. 109, 125-26 (2006) (“[Creative Problem Solving] proponents sometimes use the “SOLVE” acronym . . . . This method relies on five steps: (1) state the problem clearly... ; (2) observe, organize, and redefine the problem . . . ; (3) learn about the problem by questioning i t . . . ; (4) visualize possible solutions, select one, and refine i t . . . ; and (5) employ the situation and monitor the

2014]


919

C. Restorative Justice T h e ch allenge in classifying restorative ju stic e lies n o t only in the m any m odels (best know n are victim -offender m ed iatio n , conferencing, a n d circles), b u t also in the variety o f ways in w hich these m odels are im p le m e n te d daily. N ote th a t o u r taxonom y is based on the p u re prototype o f each crim inal ju stic e m echanism , n o t on th e ways in w hich they are p racticed in d iffe ren t places. W ith this cautionary n o te in m ind, we place m o st restorative ju stic e m odels at o n e e n d o f m o st continua. W ith re sp ect to process-related p aram eters, m ost restorative ju stic e p ro g ram s facilitate d irec t dialog betw een victims a n d offenders— o n e o f th e m ain virtues o f this non-adversarial ju stic e m echanism . T h e p rogram s are flexible, non-hierarchical, a n d voluntary. C o n sid erin g the stakeholder-related param eters, restorative ju stic e p ro g ram s are re g a rd e d as lay-centered because they tran sfer th e decision m ak in g pow er from the professionals to the private stakeholders. Alt h o u g h process facilitators play an im p o rta n t role in p re p a rin g the parties a n d e n su rin g a safe a n d respectful atm o sp h ere, they lack decision m ak in g pow er d u rin g th e restorative e n c o u n te r." ” T he role o f o th e r state rep resentatives is typically lim ited to providing in fo rm atio n a n d advice, a n d m o n ito rin g the im p le m e n tatio n o f th e re p ara tio n plan. Restorative ju stic e m echanism s are b o th o ffen d er an d victim o rien te d . In th e ir ideal form , th e processes aim to address th e needs, rights, wishes, a n d interests o f b o th p arties to the m axim um e x te n t possible. M oreover, p ro p o n e n ts o f restorative ju stic e argue th at this m echanism challenges th e zero-sum gam e betw een victim s’ a n d o ffen d ers’ interests, re p re se n tin g a win-win fo rm u la for resolving conflicts created by c rim e .'" M ost restorative ju stice processes are inclusive a n d involve n o t only victims a n d offenders b u t also family m em bers, su p p o rters, a n d com m unity m em bers. W hen these ad d itio n al participants ho ld decision-m aking pow er, th e process m ay be co n sid ered fully inclusive. B ut the m o re in tim ate variants, such as victim -offender m ed iatio n program s, are exclusive, a n d only the d irec t stakeholders a n d the m ed iato r are involved."' W hen o th e r in tere ste d p arties atten d , they are typically p re se n t as su p p o rters, n o t as decision m akers, re n d e rin g these variants m o re exclusive. Som e restorative ju stice m odels, such as circles, are com m unity-m anaged; others, such as policebased co n feren ces, are state-m anaged, d e p e n d in g o n th e type o f m odel a n d its local ap p licatio n ." ’ results of it.” (internal citations omitted)). 140 W. Reed Leverton, The Case for Best Practice Standards in Restorative Justice Processes, 31 A m . J . T r ia l Ad v o c ., 501, 508, 511 (2008). 141 Yvonne Byrd & Judith Gibson, RestorativeJustice: ADR in Criminal Cases, Vt . B.J., Fall 2010, at 49, 51-52. 142 St r a n g , supra note 7, at 188-91. 141 See id. at 43-44. 144 See Marshall, supra note 55, at 11. 145 For a discussion of community circles, see generally Julian V. Roberts & Kent

920


[Vol. 18:4

W ithin substance-related param eters, restorative ju stic e p ro m o tes a need -b ased term inology, leaving the rights discourse o u t o f the discus sion alm ost entirely. R estorative processes en c o u rag e em otional dis course, based on th e assum ption, evidence-based by now, th at it is the em o tio n al elem ents o f th e discussion th a t m ake restorative ju stic e so ef fective. R estorative ju stic e considers its p ro c e d u ra l characteristics as e n ab ling ra th e r th a n lim iting th e ach iev em en t o f its stated goals. F or exam ple, th e p re fere n ce fo r d irec t dialog is based o n th e prem ise th at it p ro m o tes reconciliation a n d en h a n ces th e p artie s’ well-being.14' T h e em phasis on p ro c e d u ra l ju stic e is based n o t on a legal necessity bu t ra th e r o n th e belief, by now also evidence-based, that perceived p ro c e d u ra l jus tice en h a n ces o ffen d ers’ a n d victim s’ accep tan ce o f ju stic e decisions' as well as o ffen d ers’ willingness to com ply with th e m .'4 Most restorative ju s tice m odels are fo u n d e d on a co m m u n ita rian co n c ep tio n th a t p eo p le live w ithin social a n d family netw orks, th at crim e infiltrates these delicate bonds, a n d th at it is th e m ission o f th e restorative process to resto re the affected relationships. T h e com m unity is re g a rd e d b o th as a secondary victim a n d as indirectly responsible fo r th e crim e.' " Finally, restorative ju stic e outcom es are largely fu tu re -o rien ted an d in te n d e d to address th e n ee d s o f all stak eh o ld ers.'51 But restorative ju stic e also en d o rses p ast-oriented outcom es, w hich are reflected in th e symbolic a n d m aterial re p a ra tio n aim ed at re p airin g th e h arm inflicted by the

Roach, Restorative Justice in Canada: From Sentencing Circles to Sentencing Principles, in Re st o r a t iv e J u s t ic e a n d C r im in a l J u s t ic e : C o m p e t in g or R ec o n c ila ble P a r a d ig m s ? 237, 240 (Andrew Von Hirsch et al. eds., 2003). For a discussion of

police-based conferences, see generally David O’Mahony &Jonathan Doak, Restorative Justice-Is More Better? The Experience of Police-led Restorative Cautioning Pilots in Northern Ireland, 43 How.J. C r im .J u s t . 484 (2004). 146 Braithwaite, supra note 4, at 38-41 (explaining the reintegrative shaming theory and showing relevant evidence from different settings); Lawrence W. Sherman et al., Effects of Face-to-Face Restorative Justice on Victims of Crime in Four Randomized, Controlled Trials, 1 J. E x p e r im e n t a l C r im in o l o g y 367 (2005) (showing evidence supporting the argument that restorative justice involves therapeutic components of cognitive behavioral treatment); E liza A h m e d e t a l ., Sha m e M a n a g em en t T h r o u g h Re in t e g r a t io n 4 (2001) (explaining that shame management is “acknowledg[ing] shame and makjing] it work for you”). "7 Caroline M. Angel, Crime Victims Meet Their Offenders: Testing the Impact of Restorative Justice Conferences on Victims’ Post-Traumatic Stress Symptoms (Jan. 1, 2005) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania), available at http://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI3165634 (presenting findings about reduced post-trauma symptoms among robbery and burglary victims whose cases were randomly referred to conferences). 11' T om R. T y l er , W h y P eo ple O bey t h e 1.a \v 63-64 (2006); St r a n g , supra note 7, at 190-91. 1 Braithwaite, supra note 4, at 41. Albert W. Dzur & Susan M. Olson, The Value of Community Participation in RestorativeJustice, 35 J. Soc. P h il . 91, 96 (2004). 1,1 Braithwaite, supra note 4, at 5-6.

2014 ]


921

w ro n g d o er.' ~ W hen p racticed well, restorative e n c o u n te rs are co nstruct ed to achieve jn s t outcom es.' ” But som e critics o f restorative ju stic e have a rg u ed th a t these processes lead to the privatization o f ju stic e and, lack ing any p u b lic m essage, leave the b ro a d e r sense o f ju stic e outside th e res to ratio n p la n .*1I’1 T h e re is d isag re em en t ab o u t w h eth er o r n o t restorative ou tco m es involve an e le m e n t o f requital, b u t as we have shown else w here, 1,1 even if th e re is requital, it is p re se n t w hen the re p ara tio n plan d esig n ed to co m p en sate the victim an d prevent fu tu re h arm constitutes a b u rd e n fo r th e offender. Restorative ju stice outcom es may incapacitate, in a restorative m eaning: car keys a n d licenses m ay he taken away.' But restorative ju stic e processes clearly achieve rehabilitative outcom es, as m easu red by a decline in recidivism rates.' ’ D.

Therapeutic Settlement Conferences

T his innovative m odel integrates ideas in sp ired by th erap eu tic ju ris p ru d e n c e a n d arb itratio n . F ocusing first on its process-related ch a rac te r istics, th era p eu tic settlem en t conferences facilitate dialogue betw een the in tere ste d parties. T hey are flexible because they are co n d u c te d outside th e b o u n d arie s o f evidentiary rules an d pro ced u res, providing th e parties with a safe a n d privileged “p lay g ro u n d ” to express them selves freely a n d allow for th era p eu tic c o m m u n ic a tio n .'s M oreover, the last best offer is su b m itted in th e final stage o f th e process only after each party has sub m itted an initial offer, a n d the ju d g e has exam ined them a n d provided o p p o rtu n itie s for tire parties a n d th eir legal representatives to express th e ir interests a n d n e e d s .'1' T h erap eu tic settlem en t conferences, liowev-

152 Id. at 17, 24. lJi See Barbara Hudson, Restorative Justice: The Challenge of Sexual and Racial Violence, 25 J.L. & Soc ’y 237, 248 (1998) (arguing that in restorative justice conferences the involvement of women’s groups, community leaders, victim-support movements, and others can all be heard, contributing to the achievement of a clear denunciation of criminal behavior and setting standards for appropriate behavior). L’4 See Shirley Jiilich, Restorative Justice and Gendered Violence in New Zealand: A Glimmer of Hope, in Re s t o r a t iv e J u s t ic e a n d V io l e n c e A g a in s t W o m e n 239, 243-45 (James Ptacek ed., 2010) (arguing that shifting power to the local community through community-based restorative justice processes is a way to absolve the state from its responsibility toward victims and reduce public expenses, relying on the good will of citizens to safeguard victims and rehabilitate offenders); Frederick & Lizdas, supra note 59, at 39-59 (discussing how a failure to generate a clear message against violence, or worse, victim blaming, may result not only in further victimization and isolation of the victim, but also in increased risk for her safety, because the perpetrator’s behavior is not unanimously censured). I Dancig-Rosenberg & Gal, supra note 11, at 2334. II Braithwaite, supra note 4, at 66-67. Latimer et al., supra note 61, at 137. 1,8 Wexler & Jones, supra note 64, at 846. (“This discussion would provide an excellent opportunity for the judge to use—and to encourage others to use—active listening, empathy, and perhaps confrontation.”).

922


[Vol. 18:4

er, can also b e co n sid ered form al because they are tightly stru c tu re d ac c o rd in g to specific steps, a n d allow the ju d g e to accept o n e offer com pletely a n d reject th e o th e r." ’" This form ality in process leads to creativity in substan ce because know ing th at th e ju d g e m ust choose o n e offer over th e o th e r brings “th e particip an ts a n d th eir positions closer together, providing an incentive fo r each party to com prom ise a n d reach a settle, „161 m en t. T h e ra p e u tic settlem en t conferences are com pletely voluntary, an d b o th h ierarch ical a n d n on-hierarchical in som e respects. T hey are h ie r archical in that th e re are clear differences in pow er betw een various p ar ticipants: th e ju d g e selects th e in d icated sentence; th e o ffen d er can veto th e p lea a n d take th e case back to the m ainstream track."" T hey are nonh ierarch ical in th a t victims are co n sid ered full parties to the process an d th e ir offers may be selected as th e verdict for the offender, in sharp co n trast with crim inal processes w here victims may, at m ost, co n fer with the p ro se c u to r re g a rd in g plea agreem ents. C o n cern in g stakeholder-related param eters, o ffenders a n d victims are active in the dialog, bu t th e state is re p re se n te d by a professional p ro se cu to r a n d b o th o ffen d er a n d victim are en c o u rag e d to b e re p resen te d . It is th ere fo re likely th a t attorneys will have som e in flu en ce over th e dialogue, m aking the conferences relatively p ro fessio n al-cen tered .1,3 T h e ra p e u tic se ttle m e n t conferences are o ffen d er-o rien ted because only d ie o ffen d er holds the rig h t to veto. T hey are also victim -oriented, how ever, because victims play a cen tral role, m uch m ore so th an in m ain stream crim inal processes, flic co n feren ces are som ew hat exclusive b e cause, at least fo r now, they d o n o t involve com m unity participation; alt h o u g h they invite family m em b ers a n d o th e r su p p o rters o f victims a n d offen d ers to atten d , these particip an ts typically do n o t have decision m ak in g pow er, a n d th ere fo re even w hen inclusive in quantity they are generally exclusive in quality."’4 T hey are state-m anaged, specifically ju d g e-m a n ag ed ."’’ R eg ard ing substance-related p aram eters, th erap eu tic settlem en t c o n feren ces use largely a rights-based term inology because they consider possible legally-prescribed sentences ra th e r th a n individually-tailored re parative plans. ” A lth o u g h em otive talk is allow ed d u rin g such processes, th e n e e d to reach an ag reed -u p o n sen ten ce is likely to m inim ize em otive d iscourse a n d lim it th e discussion to th e d esired outcom es. T h erap eu tic settlem en t co n feren ces reg ard th e ir u n iq u e p ro c ed u ra l elem ents as ena-

161 Id. at 847. 162 Id. at 846. However, there is am ple room for authentic dialog between the direct stakeholders and their family m em bers. See id. at 847. M a t 847-48. 165 Id. at 846. See id. at 846, 853.

2014 ]

CRIMINAL LAW M ULTITASKING

923

b lin g ra th e r th a n restricting, because the th re a t o f the ju d g e ad o p tin g o n e sen ten c e over th e o th e r m odvates th e pard es to reach a fair, bal an ced , ag reed -u p o n o utcom e, w hich is th e desired goal o f these processlfi7 es. Finally, in the o u tco m e-related param eters, th era p eu tic settlem ent co n feren ces are likely to be past-oriented because they focus on th e d e sirable p u n ish m en t, alth o u g h futu re-related outcom es such as reh ab ilita tion m ay also be involved."’” B ecause the p ard es n e e d to reach a settle m en t th at is “lawful, reasonable, a n d in accordance with governing sen ten c in g prin ciples,”1”' these processes e n c o u rag e the pard es to search for a ju s t response th a t reflects, beyond th e p artie s’ interests, the b ro a d e r public interests o f desert, re h ab ilitatio n , incapacitation, a n d d eterren c e. T h e ra p e u d c settlem en t co n feren ces involve an ele m e n t o f retributive re quital, a n d they may lead to b o th rehabilitative a n d incapacitadve o u t com es, d e p e n d in g o n the specifics o f each case. E.

Restorative Sentencing Juries

T h e vision o f restoradve sen ten c in g ju ry hearings is th a t o f m arrying th e retributive elem ents o f m ain stream crim inal jusdce with the em otive, . . . 170 th erap eu tic, a n d em pow ering elem en ts o f restorative justice. R egarding th e process-related p aram eters, restorative sen ten c in g ju rie s allow d irec t dialog betw een victims a n d offenders, su p p o rte d by family m em bers an d o th e rs . 1’ 1 T hey are flexible in that they are “[f]ree o f rules o f evidence a n d p ro c e d u re .”' 2 T h e ju rie s are p o sitio n ed som ew here in the m iddle o f th e h ierarch y spectrum . T hey are n on-hierarchical, as victims a n d of fen d ers can equally affect th e ju rie s by expressing th eir needs, em otions, a n d wishes, a n d in th a t each ju ry m e m b e r has an equal voice in d e te r m in in g th e sen tence. A t th e sam e tim e, restorative sen ten c in g ju rie s are hierarch ical because victims a n d offenders c a n n o t vote as p a rt o f th e jury, b u t only p ersu ad e the ju ry th ro u g h reason o r e m o tio n . 1 Faithful to re storative principles, th e ju rie s c a n n o t be coercive. Victims can n o t be fo rced to en g ag e in a dialog with th e offenders ab o u t the offense, a n d of fen d ers m ust n o t b e forced to a p p ro a c h th e ir victims a n d su p p o rters and express th e ir rem orse, as th e ir neig h b o rs w atch th em apologize. R eg ard in g th e stak eh o ld er-related p aram eters, restorative sen ten cin g ju rie s are lay-centered. M ediators have largely a “coaxing” role, ' lawyers play only a lim ited, explanatory role, a n d th e discussion is “in plain EngSee id. at 853. m See id. at 847-48. 169 M at. 846, 854. 111 B ib a s , supra note 25, at 157-59. 171 See id. at 159-60. m Id. at 159. 173 Private correspondence with Stephanos Bibas (Sept. 15, 2013) (on file with authors). 1,1 B ib a s , supra n o te 25, a t 159.

924


[Vol. 18:4

lish, n o t legalese.”1' Restorative sen ten c in g ju rie s are b o th victim- a n d of fe n d er-o rien ted because they co n sid er b o th as cen tral stakeholders, if not decision-m akers, in the p rocess.1'1 This envisioned m o d el is likely to be inclusive ra th e r th an exclusive, a n d com m unity- ra th e r th a n statec e n te re d because at least h a lf th e ju ry is com posed o f “a ra n d o m ran g e o f n eig h b o rs n o t re la ted to e ith e r party o r directly h arm e d by th e crim e.” '' Q uality inclusiveness is achieved by g ra n tin g decision-m aking pow er a b o u t th e sen ten c e to each p articip atin g com m unity m em ber. T h e ju r y ’s sense o f ju stic e w ould co u n terb alan c e prosecutorial professional deci sions th ro u g h th e ir sen ten c in g decisions. R eg ard ing th e substance-related param eters, restorative sen ten cin g ju rie s are envisioned to in teg ra te the needs a n d rights term inologies. S en ten cin g guidelines a n d rules facilitate d irect dialog th a t allows ex ch anges o f apology, em pathy, a n d acknow ledgm ent o f the h arm d o n e to th e victim. ' T h e authenticity o f the dialog, however, is je o p a rd iz e d by th e p resen ce o f ju ry m em bers, who seal th e o ffe n d e r’s fate based, am o n g oth ers, on his expression o f rem orse. R estorative sen ten c in g ju rie s are likely to en c o u rag e em o tio n al discourse."1" T hey involve victims, o ffen d ers, th e ir su p p o rters, a n d com m unity m em bers, first in a potentially em o tional dialog a n d later in d eliberations ab o u t an ag reed -u p o n sentence. B ecause they e n h a n c e b o th th era p eu tic a n d retributive goals, th e ju rie s lean tow ard process-as-vehicle. T h e o p p o rtu n ity fo r ju rie s to witness the d irec t co n fro n tatio n betw een victims a n d offenders goes to the ro o t o f w hat Bibas envisions as a “m oral th e a te r”181 designed to achieve ju s t o u t com es th at re p resen t b o th th e public in terest a n d the stak eh o ld e rs’ m o r al sentim ents. T hey are co m m u n ita rian in n a tu re because they place g re at im p o rtan ce o n com m unity m em bers as b o th in d irect victims o f crim e a n d as stakeholders acco u n tab le tow ard each o th e r.182 Finally, in th e area o f outcom e-related p aram eters, th e attrib u te th at distinguishes restorative sen ten c in g ju rie s from o th e r alternatives to fo r m al crim inal processes is th at they provide re trib u tio n .183 T h e re fo re they

178 176 177 178 179

Id. at 159-60. Id. at 158. Id. Id. at 159. Id. Id. at 159 (“[PJarties would be free to vent, discuss, apologize, an d forgive, but could not be forced to do so.”). 8 Id. at 113-14 (According to the Morality Play Model, crim inal justice should “include a wide range of parties: defendants, victims, their friends an d families, neighbors, and the public at large . . . [and] should give them plenty o f opportunities to speak and listen.”). i8~ H udson, supra note 153, at 249 (“With restorative justice, ‘the com m unity’ is involved in expressing disapproval, and in providing and guaranteeing protection and redress for victims, but it is also involved in supporting the p erp etrato r in his efforts to change, and in m aintaining him as a m em ber o f the com m unity.”). Bibas , supra note 25, at 156-57, 160.

2014]


925

are likely to be categorized as m ostly p ast-oriented. B ut they are also p a rt ly fu tu re -o rien ted because they m ay in clu d e forw ard-looking outcom es such as re h ab ilitatio n a n d d eterren c e, a n d m ost im p o rtan t, restitution. In a sim ilar vein, restorative sen ten cin g ju rie s are desig n ed to b rin g ab o u t ju stice a n d move beyond the conflict reso lu tio n characteristics o f m any sen tences based on b arg ain in g .185 Likewise, restorative sen ten c in g ju rie s are d esigned to involve a retributive requital, b u t they may involve b o th rehabilitative a n d incapacitative elem ents, d e p e n d in g o n th e circum stances o f each case.

F.

Integration

T o m ake o u r taxonom y m o re robust, we now invert o u r view point an d m ake th e p aram eters o u r starting p o in t, th e n po sitio n each o f the m echanism s along th e various scales. This m eth o d o lo g y ensures th a t o u r taxonom y w ithstands a change in perspective a n d confirm s th e tentative statem ents we m ade w hen discussing each m echanism separately. A n ad d itio n al goal o f th e table is to serve as a com parative in stru m e n t th at highlights th e differences betw een the various ju stic e m echanism s once placed in relatio n to th e o th ers alo n g each scale. Instead o f re p eatin g the analysis from th e opposite direction, we show th e results in th e table b e low a n d discuss in footnotes only th e po in ts th a t n e e d fu rth e r ex plana tion. In teg ratin g the p aram eters with th e relative position o f the various m echanism s creates a diagram in w hich p aram eters are lined u p along o n e axis a n d locations o n each scale alo n g a n o th e r (T able 1). N ote th at th e p o sitio n in g o f each m echanism along each scale is n o t conclusive b u t rep resen ts relative, general, tentative claim s th a t m ay b e ch allen g ed in specific circum stances a n d across im p lem en tatio n s o f each m echanism .

184 W e th a n k S tep h a n o s Bibas fo r p o in tin g o u t th a t restorative se n te n c in g ju rie s are likely to aw ard b o th sym bolic re stitu tio n (in th e fo rm o f a v erd ict d e n o u n c in g th e crim e) a n d som e m aterial re stitu tio n , w hich may in fact in flu e n c e th e re trib u tio n n e ed ed . 185 Id. a t 160-61 (“S e n te n c e b a rg a in in g w ould be tra n sfo rm e d fro m a raw q u id p ro q u o to a process o f e x p la in in g why a w ro n g d o e r deserves a p a rtic u la r sen ten ce. . . . As ag en ts o f th e p u b lic, p ro se c u to rs sh o u ld o rd in arily co nvince th e relev an t public th a t th e ir p le a b a rg a in in g decisions a re ju s t.”).


926

[V ol. 18:4

Table 1: T axonom y o f Criminal Justice M echanisms Processrelated Parameters

Stakeholderrelated Parameters

VictimO ffender Dialog

RJ, TSC, RSJ

Flexible

RJ

RSJ

Nonhierarchical

RJ

TSC, RSJ1"

Voluntary

RJ, TSC, RSJ, PSC188

Lay-centered

RJ

RSJ

PSC

TSC'89

PSC CP

Lack of VictimO ffender Dialog

TSC, CP186

Formal

PSC

CP

H ierarchical

CP

Coercive

CP

Professionalcentered

PSC

We placed m ainstream crim inal processes together with therapeutic settlem ent conferences in this param eter because the vast majority o f crim inal cases are resolved in plea agreem ents, which are less formal th an court-based admissions of guilt. See Stephanos Bibas, Plea Bargaining Outside the Shadow of Trial, 1 17 H a r v . L. R e v . 2463, 2 4 8 6 - 8 7 (2004) (“T he theory of bargaining in the shadow o f trial presupposes that parties can finely calibrate bargains to reflect slight gradations in probabilities.”). In both therapeutic settlem ent conferences and plea agreem ents accepted in m ainstream crim inal processes, th ere is am ple room for inform al bargaining outside the courtroom . At the same time, plea agreem ents are still bound by the formal restrictions of mainstream crim inal processes, in particular in states that have adopted guidelines or m andatory penalties. See id. T he small m inority of cases that do not involve plea agreem ent would be placed closer to the form al en d of this scale. Each of these mechanisms is m ore hierarchical than restorative justice because the ju d g e retains the final word in both an d because there are differences in decision-making power between the various stakeholders. Each o f them is less hierarchical than m ainstream crim inal justice and problem-solving courts, because a deliberative, egalitarian process o f shared decision-making precedes the final decision. All these mechanisms involve active participation of the victim an d therefore cannot be coercive. They also impose certain responsibilities on offenders and therefore cannot be forced upon them either. Note, however, that none o f these m echanism s are entirely voluntary, given the possibility o f the case being retu rn ed to the m ainstream process. : In therapeutic settlem ent conferences the stakeholders are em pow ered to make their own offers regarding the suggested sentence, leading to the indicated sentence selected by the judge. Judges involved in therapeutic settlem ent conferences are required to adopt one of the offers completely, w ithout any modifications, as long as that offer is “lawful, reasonable, and in accordance with governing sentencing principles.” W exler & Jones, supra note 64, at 846. Despite this extensive prerogative provided to the parties, therapeutic settlem ent conferences are also somewhat professional-centered because the ju d g e takes an active role th ro u g h o u t the process, and because the lawyers’ role is considered crucial for protecting th eir clients’ rights. In restorative sentencing juries, by contrast, jury m em bers m eet and discuss the crim e, its afterm ath, and the desirable sentence away from the ju d g e. We therefore

2014 ]

Substancerelated P aram eters


927

Victim-oriented

RJ, PSC- RSJ, TSC191 PSC, CP192 DV190

N ot Victimoriented

O ffenderoriented

RJ, PSC

Not Offenderoriented

Inclusive

RSJ194

RJ

PSC

CP, TSC

Exclusive

Communitym anaged

RJ

RSJ

PSC

TSC

Statem anaged

Needs-based Term inology

RJ, PSC

RSJ

TSC, CP195

RJS, TSC, CP'93

PSC-DV

CP

Rights-based Term inology

placed the two closer to the lay-centered end o f the continuum . Restorative justice gets the highest score on both victim- and offenderorientation. Problem-solving courts are generally offender-oriented, with th eir typical focus on client desistance. We have created a special category for problem-solving courts specializing in domestic violence (PSC-DV) in the context o f victim-oriented— not-victim-oriented and offender-oriented— not-offender-oriented param eters, because they are vastly different in their orientation from o th e r problem-solving courts. Thus, they are positioned at the far end of the victim-oriented param eter and at the opposite end from the offender-oriented param eter. Both therapeutic settlem ent conferences an d restorative sentencing juries receive a relatively high score in victim orientation because they allow active involvement of victims and consider their interests to be im portant. They are not as victim-oriented as restorative justice and specialized domestic-violence courts, however, because the defendants still hold the right to veto. ' Because m ost crim inal cases are resolved through plea agreem ents, the m ainstream crim inal process is less victim-oriented th an m echanism s designed by victims’ rights reform s, especially when the plea agreem ent includes an agreed-upon sentence. In these cases, victims are not heard even at the sentencing stage. Plea agreem ents are particularly non-victim-oriented when allowing defendants to “p le a[ ] without confession!]” using Alford and nolo pleas, because they “leave victims frustrated and defendants defiant and resistant to treatm ent.” Stephanos Bibas, Harmonizing Substantive-Criminal-Law Values and Criminal Procedure: The Case of Alford and Nolo Contendere Pleas, 88 C orn ell L. R f.v . 1361, 1379 (2003). I ! In these three mechanisms the offender’s interests are balanced with external public considerations such as the protection of significant social values. II We categorized restorative sentencing juries as the most inclusive model because, unlike restorative justice, they involve by definition com m unity m em bers and those representing the offender and the victim. Only some o f the restorative justice models, in particular circles, involve com m unity m em bers and invite all who are interested to take part. Many others, like victim-offender m ediation, are exclusive to direct stakeholders. 1" Because most crim inal cases are resolved through plea agreem ents, defendants “sell these rights to the prosecutor, receiving concessions they esteem m ore highly than the rights su rrendered.” Frank H. Easterbrook, Plea Bargaining as Compromise, 101 Yale L.J. 1969, 1975 (1992). T herefore, we placed m ainstream

928

Outcomerelated Param eters

LEWIS & CLARK I AW REVIEW Em otional Discourse

RJ

Process as Vehicle

RJ, PSC

Com m unitarian

RJ

Future-oriented

PSC

W ithout Retributive Requital

RJ, PSC

Rehabilitative

PSC

Justice Making

RSJ

[Vol. 18:4 c p l "0

No Emotional Discourse

RSJ TSC191

CP

Process as Obstacle

RSJ

PSC

CP

Libertarian

RRJ

CP, RJC, TSC

RSJ

PSC

TSC

TSC

Past-oriented

RSJ*1™, TSC'99

CP

With Retributive Requital

RJ

RSJ, TSC

CP

Incapacitative

RJ200

PSC

CP2'"

Conflict Resolution

TSC

crim inal process together with the m ore therapeutic variant o f plea negotiation, therapeutic settlem ent conferences. 1 If the plea agreem ent does not include an agreed-upon sentence, the sentencing stage allows the expression o f em otions by victims, defendants, and their supporters. Such cases are placed together with th erap eu tic settlem ent conferences along this scale. 1 In restorative sentencing juries, the procedural arrangem ents that make the victim and offender engage in “m oral th e atre” are both an obstacle an d a vehicle in prom oting the com bined goal o f restoration and retribution. A lthough these procedural restrictions ensure neutrality and fairness, the concern is that they may encourage offenders to act according to jury expectations an d make insincere statements. In therapeutic settlem ent conferences the procedural restrictions set clear boundaries as to the ability o f the parties to engage in free dialog, b ut they provide incentives for the parties to offer balanced solutions. I!>" A lthough restorative sentencing ju rie s place im portance on retribution, when victims and their supporters express a willingness to forgive an d an inclination to leniency, restoradve sentencing juries are m ore receptive to such notions than the m ainstream crim inal process is. T herapeutic settlem ent conferences are cond u cted within the retributive paradigm , although W exler and Jones do not specifically address the question of w hether or n o t retribution per se is necessary. A lthough restorative justice is aim ed at achieving justice, in its restorative m eaning, through accountability and the reparation o f harm , restorative sentencing juries are said to achieve a b roader understan d in g of justice, em braced by the neighboring com munity, and n o t only by the offender, the victim, and their supporters. Proponents o f restorative justice argue that, at least in the broad models o f com m unity conferences and justice circles, it achieves the broadest m eaning of justice possible (“Shalom ,” as Howard Z ehr explains). See Zehr , supra note 6, at 130-

2014]


929

Table Legend CP - Mainstream Criminal Process PSC - Problem-Solving Courts PSC-DV- Domestic-Violence Problem-Solving Courts RJ - Restorative Justice TSC - Therapeutic Settlement Conferences RSJ - Restorative Sentencing Juries IV. IM PLEM ENTATION O u r taxonom y provides an analysis o f divergent p ro c ed u ra l m echa nism s th a t reflect different ideologies a n d norm ative p referen ces co n ce rn in g th e substantive goals o f crim inal law. For exam ple, restorative ju stice rep resen ts a u tilitarian ap p ro ach giving h ealin g a n d re p ara tio n p re c e d e n c e over ju s t deserts. Problem -solving courts are based o n re h a bilitative n o tio n s o f crim inal law. M ainstream crim inal process integrates u tilitarian a n d retributive objectives b u t currently em phasizes just-desert ideology in m ost ju risd ictio n s. Policym akers a n d law en fo rce m e n t profes sionals are continually balan cin g these co m p etin g philosophies. T h e tax onom y provides a rich fram ew ork from w hich it is possible to select the desired m echanism s a n d to arb itrate the conflicts betw een th e u tilitarian a n d retributive ten d en cies o f crim inal law. Sim ilar to th e la te n t role evidentiary rules play in m ed iatin g co m p et ing p h ilosophies in crim inal law, identified by B ierschbach a n d S tein , 2" 2 we suggest th at the p ro c ed u ra l plurality und erly in g o u r taxonom y reflects a plurality o f values with priorities th at vary acco rd in g to circum stances. F or exam ple, rules th a t m ake restorative ju stic e m echanism s the defau lt o p tio n fo r ju v en ile offenders, first-tim e offenders, o r m isdem eanors play n o t only a practical role, b u t also shape substantive crim inal law by stress in g its rehabilitative a n d reparative elem ents. " Similarly, p ro ced u ral rules en ab lin g th e referral o f cases involving Native A m erican d efen d an ts

32. But the restorative sentencing juries envisioned by Stephanos Bibas arguably satisfy the additional public interest in retribution, achieved thorough the engagement of uninvolved participants and the guiding principles for sentencing that provide upper and lower boundaries. Ironically, the one instrument designed specifically to achieve just deserts and other public interest goals, the criminal justice process, has become a pragmatic, mechanistic, individualistic conflict resolution tool through its massive use of plea agreements. Even when the victim’s wellbeing, rather than the evidentiary strength of the case, drives the prosecutorial decision, the broad sense of “justice” and “truthfinding” are arguably overlooked. Bierschbach & Stein, supra note 17. See, e.g., C .R .S . A . § 1 8 - 1 . 3 - 1 0 1 (LexisNexis 2 0 1 3 ) (encouraging the development and use of pre-trial diversion programs for eligible offenders); F . S .A . § 9 8 5 . 1 5 5 (West 2 0 1 1 ) (authorizing the referral of first-time, nonviolent juvenile offenders to neighborhood restorative justice programs). o l o

e v

t a t

n n

l a

t a t

n n

930


[Vol. 18:4

to co m m u n ity h ea lin g circles em phasize such values as com m unity em p o w erm en t."11 O u r taxonom y also shows th a t at least som e o f th e m echanism s dis cussed are p ro c ed u ra l constructs designed to balance, w ithin them selves, co n flictin g values a n d goals. T his is true, fo r exam ple, fo r restorative sen ten cin g ju ries, w hich co m b in e re p a ra tio n o f h arm with re trib u tio n , a n d fo r th era p eu tic settlem en t conferences, w hich in teg rate em o tio n al h eal ing w ithin re trib u tio n . Finally, th e taxonom y envisions a system th a t can m ix a n d m atch two o r m o re m echanism s fo r h a n d lin g th e sam e case, balancing varying an d even conflicting crim inal law goals. F or exam ple, som e states enable vic tims o f severe crim e, in clu d in g family m em bers o f hom icide victims, to m e e t th e ir p e rp e tra to rs while they serve th e ir p riso n sen ten ce in o rd e r to reco n cile u n d e r the auspices o f victim -offender m ed iatio n p rogram s.205 T his possibility o p en s th e d o o r fo r injecting h ealin g a n d re p a ra tio n into th e crim inal process after o th e r goals, in p artic u la r re trib u tio n , have b een ad d ressed th ro u g h the form al process. O u r u n d erly in g p e rc e p tio n o f crim inal law as a b ro a d fram ew ork in volving m any processes a n d substantive goals is reflected in th e c u rre n t d raft o f th e M odel P enal C ode re la tin g to sen ten cin g .2"" This d ra ft grants th e p ro se cu tio n th e au th o rity to d efer ch arging individuals w ho are sus p ec te d o f co m m ittin g a crim e with sufficient adm issible evidence against th em if they are willing to com ply with certain con d itio n s.2"' If the co n d i tions are m et successfully, the case is dism issed w ithout leaving a crim inal reco rd . ' T h e M odel P en al C ode also authorizes courts to re fe r eligible d efen d an ts to specialized courts.2"9 O u r a p p ro a c h m ay b e helpful in fill in g th e b ro a d provisions o f th e M odel P enal C ode with specific co n ten t.

Jl See M in n . St a t . A n n . § 609.135 (West 2008) (allowing courts to refer defendants to restorative justice program s after their conviction and before sentencing). See also State v. Pearson, 637 N.W.2d 845, 846-47 (Minn. 2002) (authorizing lower court to refer Native Am erican offenders to com m unity healing circles to make decisions about the appropriate sentence). Mark S. U m breit et al., Victims of Severe Violence Meet the Offender: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue, 6 I n t ’l R e v . V ic t im o l o g y 321, 323 (1999) (describing the Texas Public Prosecution schem e that allows families of m u rd er victims to have faceto-face restorative m eetings with the incarcerated offenders; h u n d red s of families are awaiting their tu rn ). 206 See M o d el P en al C o d e : S e n t e n c in g §§ 6.02A, 6.02B (Council Draft No. 4, 2013). Id. § 6.02A(3). See also id. § 6.02B(4) (authorizing court judges to defer adjudication after charges have been filed). Id. §6.02A (11) (“If the term s of the deferred-prosecution agreem ent are materially satisfied, no crim inal charges shall be filed in connection with the conduct known to the prosecution that led to deferred prosecution. Com pletion o f the terms o f deferred-prosecution ag reem ent shall not be considered a conviction for any purpose.”). See also id. § 6.02B(8) (providing th at the co u rt shall dismiss the case following m aterial com pletion o f the agreem ent, w ithout conviction). 209 Id. § 6.13.

2014 ]


931

T h e characteristics o f the ju stic e m echanism s id en tified in th e p re sen t taxonom y can g uide states looking to develop new d eferre d adjudication o r p ro se cu tio n p ro g ram s a n d for specialized courts. O u r list o f p aram e ters a n d tentative suggestions re g a rd in g the relative position o f each m ech an ism alo n g each scale m ay also provide criteria to guide prosecu tors a n d judges w hen selecting m echanism s in co n crete cases.'"’ F or exam ple, o ffen d ers’ a n d victim s’ dispositions are p o ten tial crite ria fo r selecting m echanism s th a t re q u ire th em to take active roles in the process. O ffen d ers who are willing to m eet th eir victims, assum e re sp o n sibility, a n d are responsive to self-regulation efforts may be suitable for m ech an ism s th at involve em otive discourse a n d are dialog-driven, layce n te red , victim -oriented, a n d rehabilitative. T h e type o f the offense may serve as a n o th e r criterio n for selecting a p p ro p ria te m echanism s. O ffenses w ithout a specific, individual victim are n atu rally less suitable fo r m echanism s th a t stress dialog a n d em o tio n al discourse a n d are victim -oriented. O ffenses th a t result from u nderlying ad dictions o r illness are potentially suitable fo r m echanism s th at are of fen d er-o rien ted , rehabilitative, fu tu re-o rien ted , a n d non-retributive. T h e in clin atio n o f the com m unity to participate in the ju stic e m ech anism , d e n o u n c e th e o ffe n d e r’s behavior, an d p ro m o te the stak eh o ld ers’ reh ab ilitatio n could be a n o th e r helpful consideration. W ith a willing com m unity, inclusive, com m unity-m anaged, a n d co m m u n ita rian m echa nisms are likely to be successful. W hen the local com m unity is unw illing to su p p o rt th e re h ab ilitatio n o f the parties, cen su re the o ffen d er’s behav ior, a n d vindicate the victim, m echanism s that are strong in these p aram eters can be h arm ful. C O N C LU SIO N O u r A rticle highlights th e m ultifaceted n a tu re o f crim inal law, an d its ability to use m u ltip le in stru m en ts to achieve its goals. 11 By developing o u r u n d e rsta n d in g o f various p ro c ed u re s a n d th eir characteristics, the Article advances th e th eo retical discourse ab o u t th e n a tu re o f crim inal law a n d its pluralistic quality.

210 Section 6.02A(14) determ ines: Each prosecutor’s office shall adopt and m ake written standards for its use of deferred-prosecution agreem ents publicly available. T he standards should address: (a) T he criteria for selection of cases for the program ; (b) T he content o f agreem ents, including the n u m b er and kinds of conditions required for successful com pletion; (c) T he grounds and processes for responding to alleged breaches of agreem ents, and the possible consequences of noncom pliance; and (d) T he benefits afforded upon successful com pletion o f agreem ents. 2" Compare Issa K ohler-Hausm ann, Managerial Justice and Mass Misdemeanors, 66 Stan . L. Rev . 611 (2014) (pointing at the use o f various procedural instrum ents within conventional crim inal processes for achieving diverse goals).

932


[Vol. 18:4

At th e m acro-level, o u r taxonom y helps identify ju stic e m echanism s th a t sh o u ld be p ro m o te d a n d developed in given ju risd ictio n s. T h e tax onom y does n o t prioritize th e param eters, leaving it to policy m akers to m ake these ju d g m e n ts. A fter policy m akers have selected th e param eters they co n sid er im p o rtan t, they can use th e ch a rt to identify the m ech a nism s th at receive high m arks in those selected param eters. F or exam ple, if policy m akers co n sid er com m unities im p o rta n t a n d wish to create, stre n g th e n , o r aw aken d o rm a n t com m unities, they may co n sid er develop ing ju stic e m echanism s that are relatively lay-centered, inclusive, com m unity-m anaged, a n d co m m u n itarian . T h e sam e param eters are relevant if policy m akers are c o n c e rn e d ab o u t public distrust a n d co n sid er b u ild in g trust to be im p o rtan t. T ru st may be b uilt th ro u g h in creased tran sp ar ency o f th e decision-m aking processes a n d participatory ju stic e m ech a nism s th a t en a b le in tere ste d citizens a n d stakeholders to b ecom e involved in justice-m aking; these param eters are helpful in identifying such m echanism s."'" Similarly, if re trib u tio n is co n sid ered to be a core el e m e n t o f crim inal law, th e taxonom y is useful in w arning against m echa nism s th a t do n o t co n tain retributive elem ents. Finally, policy m akers w ho reg ard th era p eu tic goals such as h ealin g a n d reconciliation as desir able can use th e taxonom y to identify m echanism s th a t p ro m o te d irec t d ialog a n d em otive discourse, are need -cen tered , a n d re g ard fairness, em p o w erm en t, a n d dialog as en ab lin g p ro c ed u ra l features for achieving these goals. I .aw e n fo rc e m e n t officials may find the taxonom y useful at th e m i cro-level as well. G uided by th e norm ative priorities a n d practical re strictions im posed by policy m akers, law en fo rc e m e n t officials can use the ch a rt to select th e m ost ap p ro p ria te m echanism th at is consistent with given circum stances a n d available instrum ents. For exam ple, in cases in volving victims w ho are willing to participate in the process, a voluntary process th a t achieves o th e r desirable goals may be m ore a p p ro p ria te th an th e coercive crim inal o ne, if such a process is available locally. In o th e r cases, if th e o ffen d er is responsive to persuasion a n d expresses willing ness to em ploy self-regulation,"1’ law en fo rc e m e n t officials m ay p re fer processes th a t are m o re rehabilitative a n d fu tu re -o rien ted in th eir ou t co m e-related p aram eters. A lth o u g h o u r taxonom y focuses only o n five m echanism s, we envi-

"'" See generally Denise M. Rousseau et al., Not So Different After All: A Cross-Discipline View of Trust, 23 A c a d . M g m t . Re v . 393, 399, 401 (1998). See also M. Audrey Korsgaard et al., Building Commitment, Attachment, and Trust in Strategic Decision-Making Teams: The Role of Procedural Justice, 38 A c a d . M g m t . |. 60, 66—68 (1995) (arguing that processes which enable m eaningful participation o f the group members, and are perceived as fair, enhance the trust in the group leader). " B r a it h w a it e , supra note 106, at 29 (“Responsive regulation requires . . . [that] if the offender is responding to the detection of h er w rongdoing by turning aro u n d h e r life, kicking a heroin habit, helping victims, and voluntary working for a com m unity group . . . then the responsive regulator of arm ed robbery will say no to the jail option.”).

2014J


933

sion th e d ev elo p m en t o f a rich, pluralistic crim inal law system with a grow ing n u m b e r o f ju stic e m echanism s re p re se n tin g divergent values a n d goals. T his tre n d is already noticeable in th e c u rre n t M odel Penal C ode draft. T his pluralistic reality with m u ltip le diversions a n d altern a tives available fo r alm ost every crim inal case may be p roblem atic, in term s o f equality a n d consistency. T h e taxonom y m ay act as a buffer against ca pricious decisions o n th e m acro (policy) as well as m icro (case) levels. It p roposes a m eth odology th at can be ap p lied to o th e r m echanism s as they em erg e, assisting in m aking rational, in fo rm ed , a n d stru ctu re d selection o f a single m echanism o r com binations o f two o r m o re o f them , which may be used co ncurrently, as n ee d ed . T his m ethodology uncovers the p o ten tial fo r c o n c u rre n t use o f various m echanism s, reflecting crim inal law m ultitasking.

Copyright of Lewis & Clark Law Review is the property of Lewis & Clark Law Review and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.