Rumours of Grace: The Dalhousie 13: Is restorative justice the right thing?

Dental students at Dalhousie University about an hour from where I live have gone back to class. Included are the 13 at the centre of the uproar about the posting of sexist comments on Facebook. They began classes segregated from the rest.

Should the university allow them back? Some answer strongly, no. They argue that the students’ offenses are too severe.

The university has committed to a Restorative Justice (RJ) process to deal with the accused students. Many question whether that approach is the right one. After all, RJ is soft. It is, some would say, weak on punishment, too kind to offenders.

Perpetrators meeting their victims, community service, writing letters of apology, visiting neighbours, friends, and family members impacted by a crime – such “punishments” seem weak compared with real time spent in youth or adult corrections, house arrest, long term probation – or expulsion from a school of dentistry.

This comes with its own problems as one ethicist told me: it is not uncommon for dental students to be carrying one or two hundred thousand dollars in debt, and there is a pronounced shortage of dentists in Nova Scotia.

But are such punishments softer than the more traditional sentences that courts impose on youth and adult offenders? Possibly not.

First though, to back up a little: Why has RJ become an alternative to traditional justice throughout Canada?

For one thing, in a typical trial, there is no meaningful connect between the accuser and the accused. Often they are required not to communicate. This disconnect means that significant potential for understanding and closure is left untapped.

Second, our justice system is adversarial. The result is that truth takes a back seat. The prosecution is not as committed to revealing the truth as it is to providing the strongest case against the alleged criminal. Meanwhile, the defence is not as committed to revealing the truth as it is to providing the strongest possible defence. Defendants feel that they should reveal as little truth as possible, admitting to doing wrong only when there is no other choice. The theory is that truth will emerge in the chamber of the judge or the jury as they weigh the (overstated) evidence and the meagre confessions – if any – of the accused.

And at the end of the process, there is the sentence. It will be as much the result of a judge’s personal convictions as the result of an unbiased assessment of the crime and the accused.

Judges – it turns out – are human.

It is no wonder that youth and adults held in custody have little respect for the judicial process and for their jailers. The sentences they have received are the result distorted processes. And often, they serve them with anger and resentment.

Three questions dominate the traditional Western and European judicial process. They are: What law has been broken? Who did it? What should the punishment be?

In contrast, the RJ approach asks, “Who has been harmed? What are their needs? Who has the obligation to address the needs, put right the harms and restore the community?” This can be found on many RJ websites.

Furthermore, RJ rejects the adversarial approach. It requires that as many as possible involved in the offense meet together, not as adversaries, but as a community. A judge typically will have agreed to the RJ process as an alternative to a traditional judicial process. At that meeting, or a series of them, the discussion is guided by the three RJ questions.

Can a RJ process work for the Dalhousie 13 and those they have offended? The university thinks it can. But I return to the question I asked earlier: Is the RJ process likely to be soft compared to the traditional one?

That might depend on what we mean by soft. If we mean no expulsions or less jail time, then I suppose we can argue that RJ punishments are softer.

But we can consider that during an RJ process, the offender is going to meet his or her victims and the families of victims. He or she is going to have a guided conversation with them about the multiple impacts of their actions. They will have to respond, to speak with the people and the community that were hurt. I am not sure that such a meeting will be a soft experience. It could hurt a great deal.

But it could also be transformative. It could bring healing to the perpetrator, the victim and the community. That is the ultimate goal of RJ.

That goal of healing brings us back to the Christian, Mennonite Church roots of RJ: its first advocate was a Mennonite police officer in southwestern Ontario. And the emphasis on healing explains why RJ has connected so well with the Aboriginal traditions of healing and sentencing circles.

If the RJ process were embraced by all concerned at the Dalhousie School of Dentistry, it might set the stage for more a more collaborative and community-building approach to other offenses committed by students – and others – in the country.

Michael Veenema is a former chaplain of Fanshawe College and Western University. He currently lives in Nova Scotia, where he continues to write and is a chaplain with the province’s Department of Justice and the pastor of two churches.

Editorial opinions or comments expressed in this online edition of Interrobang newspaper reflect the views of the writer and are not those of the Interrobang or the Fanshawe Student Union. The Interrobang is published weekly by the Fanshawe Student Union at 1001 Fanshawe College Blvd., P.O. Box 7005, London, Ontario, N5Y 5R6 and distributed through the Fanshawe College community. Letters to the editor are welcome. All letters are subject to editing and should be emailed. All letters must be accompanied by contact information. Letters can also be submitted online by clicking here.