ESPECIFICACIONES TECNICAS PARA EL SUMINISTRO DE EQUIPOS DE PROTECCION Y MANIOBRA.

Before beginning an investigation into the concept of community and the nature of its role, both practically and theoretically, within restorative justice practice, it is necessary to outline the reasons why such a level of importance has been placed on the concept and whether this level of importance can be seen to be justified. What is it that places community alongside other important restorative principles such as reintegration, rehabilitation and remorse? Certainly, within the restorative justice literature there have been a number of examples of the concept being highlighted as a key ingredient in

3 _{Paul Mc Cold and Benjamin Wachtel, ‘Community is not a place: a new look at community justice}

initiatives’ in Gerry Johnstone (ed.), A Restorative Justice Reader (Cullompton: Willan Publishing, 2003), 294. This ‘community’ represents the relational supports around a particular offence for offender and victim. For an explanation of the ‘communities of interest’ concept, see John Braithwaite and Kathleen Daly, ‘Masculinities, Violence and Communitarian Control’, in Tim Newburn and Elizabeth A. Stanko (eds.),

Just Boys Doing Business (London and NewYork: Routledge, 1995), 189. Braithwaite has also classified a

‘community of care’ within the restorative process. See John Braithwaite, Restorative Justice and

145

both principle and practice.4 _{Moreover, within this jurisdiction, the town based RJC}

reparation panel model continues to include the concept as part of their programme title.5 _{In this regard, the RJC programme has previously reiterated that one of their main}

aims is to ‘strengthen the community by involving victims, offenders and community members in a balanced approach to criminal behaviour’.6 _{Furthermore, the model has}

underlined the perceived uniqueness of its workings in that it operates through the criminal justice system, but can be seen as being ‘based solely in the community; an example of the community taking care of its own’.7 _{Similarly, the city based Restorative}

Justice Services programme has previously underlined the importance of community within its policy aims, stating that it strongly believes that

‘the role of the community and voluntary sector in the criminal justice process within the context of a partnership model should be encouraged and enhanced in order to promote a sense of ownership and meaningful participation in the criminal justice process’.8

Such references to community within the restorative literature might be problematic without a clear and concise definition of what the concept actually means and represents. There is a potential danger of idealising the community concept without

4 _{See generally Charles Barton, Restorative Justice: The Empowerment Model. (New South Wales: Hawkins}

Press, 2003); and Howard Zehr, Changing lenses: a new focus for crime and justice (Scottsdale: Herald Press, 1995); and, Gerry Johnstone, A Restorative Justice Reader (Cullompton: Willan, 2003).

5 _{Formally known as Nenagh Community Reparation Project, the scheme has since changed its name in}

2014 to Restorative Justice in the Community.

6 _{See the Nenagh Community Reparation Project. Presentation to the National Commission on Restorative}

Justice (July, 2007), 3. Available at http://nenaghreparation.com/report-2007.php.

7 _{Nenagh Community Reparation Project. Presentation to the National Commission on Restorative Justice}

(July, 2007), 11. See further, the Nenagh Community Reparation Project (NCRP), NCRP Evaluation, 2004. in which it is noted that reparations are given to ‘the victim and/or the community’ (at 3), the importance of ‘community interests’ and ‘community voluntary activity’ (at 6), and ‘community managed adult reparation panels’ (at 23). Within this 2004 Report the scheme argues that panel members ‘gain knowledge and practical expertise in diversionary aspects of criminal justice systems and the restorative justice process. This results in a better informed, more active community and the transference of skills and knowledge to others’ (at 23). Despite the proliferation of the term ‘community’, both reports appear to lack any clear and concise definition of what the concept might actually represent.

146

actually defining its precise boundaries and membership. This is apparent in references to the reparation model as an example of ‘the community taking care of its own’; in the suggestions that its practices can result in a ‘more active community’; and in the call for the ‘role of community [to] be enhanced’. The question should be asked as to exactly what section of the community is ‘taking care of its own’. How do you begin to enhance the community’s particular role if you cannot distinctly define that actual community? The temptation to promote restorative justice and community as a symbiotic relationship, to link it in with some vague notion of an ideal communitarian ethos, has been further evidenced within other discourses. For example, within the context of a number of National Commission on Restorative Justice Reports, the community concept has been continually identified as an important element within restorative practices without any concrete definition of what such a community might represent and for whom.9 _{Within the National Commission literature, it has been argued that ‘the}

community in which the offence took place is also a stakeholder’ and that ‘the support and engagement [of the community] with the process is vital to ensuring legitimacy of the programme’.10 _{The Irish Probation Service has previously stated that its main goal is}

to provide ‘safer communities through respect, accountability, restoration and social inclusion’.11 _{Further, one of their core values is said to enhance public safety and reduce}

recidivism by way of ‘engaging effectively with communities, particularly through a restorative justice model to address crime’.12

9 _{In January 2007, the Joint Oireachtas (Irish Parliament) Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and}

Women’s Rights issued a report with twelve recommendations for strengthening restorative justice in Ireland. Among these was the recommendation that a cross-sectoral working group be created in order to develop a national strategy based on international best practices. From that, the National Commission on Restorative Justice was formed in March and began its work on a full time basis in August 2007. For the Joint Oireachtas report, see Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women’s Rights:

Report on Restorative Justice (Dublin: House of the Oireachtas, 2007). Available at

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/committees29thdail/committeereports2007/Restorative- Justice.pdf.

10 _{National Commission on Restorative Justice: Final Report (Dublin: Department of Justice, Equality and}

Law Reform, 2009), 2.22. Also see National Commission on Restorative Justice: Interim Report (Dublin: Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, 2008).

11 _{The Probation Service: Supporting and Delivering Change. Strategy Statement, 2006-2007. Available at}

http://justice.ie/en/jelr/pages/restorative_justice.

147

The community concept is upheld as an important, if not a vital, cog both within the restorative and criminal justice system machinery and is said to occupy ‘a central position’ within restorative ideology.13 _{If this level of importance is justified, it should}

then be a necessary aim to unravel its contours so that practices and principles can be improved and the full potential of such practices realised. Despite this notion of importance, the community concept has been generally viewed as one that remains vaguely defined.14 _{For Verity and King, such definitions within the restorative literature}

problematically centre around a ‘narrow and simplistic’ identity and they suggest that ‘there is much that restorative practitioners could gain from engaging with both long standing and more recent debates within community development, about the contested nature of ‘community’ and participation’.15 _{In this regard, Woolford has suggested that}

‘restorativists must be extremely careful in the image of community life they construct when constructing their programmes’, and that inherent appeals at idealising the concept as community centred might result in ‘strict social and spatial boundaries’ being drawn around such ‘centred’ restorative communities.16 _{While it is easy to agree with}

Woolford’s assertion that ‘restorative justice must work with a notion of community that is open, multiple and flexible’,17 _{it is also the case that a lack of specificity might}

result in empty promises and idealised ‘jargon’ within which the promise of restorative justice and restorative principles such as reintegration and rehabilitation can become diluted to the point of being meaningless. Certainly within observations of the reparation panel models, as this chapter will go on to detail, any sense of a practical community presence was limited to a small selection of caseworkers, facilitators and volunteer panel members from the local geographical area along with a number of

13 _{Lode Walgrave, ‘From Community to Dominion: In Search for Social Values for Restorative Justice’ in}

Elmar G. M. Weitekamp Lode and Hans-Jürgen Kerner (eds.), Restorative Justice: Theoretical Foundations (Cullompton: Willan Publishing, 2002) 71.

14 _{Paul McCold and Benjamin Wachtel, ‘Community is not a Place: A New Look at Community Justice}

Initiatives’ in Gerry Johnstone (ed.), A Restorative Justice Reader (Cullompton: Willan Publishing, 2003) 296. See also Jonathan Doak and David O’Mahony, ‘State, Communty and Transition: Restorative Youth Conferencing in Northern Ireland’ in Paul Knepper, Jonathan Doak and Joanna Shapland (eds.), Urban

Crime Prevention, Surveillance and Restorative Justice (Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2009) 158. Here the

authors have argued that the concept can be ‘vague and contested’.

15 _{Fiona Verity and Sue King, ‘Responding to Intercommunal Conflict – What can Restorative Justice Offer?’}

(2008) 43 Community Development Journal 470, 473.

16 _{Andrew Woolford, The Politics of Restorative Justice. A Critical Introduction. (Halifax and Winnipeg:}

Fernwood Publishing, 2009), 109.

148

connections with geographically local rehabilitative and reparative services. Moreover, these services were centred for the most part on the participating offender only. It should be recognised that the question of how the concept of community is defined, and who exactly should be represented within it, is difficult to accurately answer. However, there is a need for restorative justice practitioners and advocates, as well as criminal justice policy makers and legislators to reduce the idealistic rhetoric and understand more clearly what the concept represents and how it can be best utilised within practices and principles.