iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Derek Flood

GET UPDATES FROM Derek Flood
 

Restorative Justice and the Economy of Grace

Posted: 10/20/11 11:00 AM ET

Grace is not fair. Fairness means treating people as they deserve. Grace means treating people better than they deserve. Grace, after all, means unmerited kindness. Because of this, theologians have traditionally spoken of a conflict between justice and grace. In this way of thinking, justice is about there being consequences for wrong action (usually in the form of punishment), and grace, in contrast, is about leniency -- overlooking problems rather than actually dealing with them.

Over the last century however, there have been major shifts in how we understand justice and its relation to punishment. While it was common in the past to think it was good to beat children at home and at school, or to beat one's servants and workers, we as a society have largely come to realize that, far from being good for a person's soul, such violence instead can cause significant psychological damage that stunts a person's healthy development.

One of the last places where we still embrace the idea of punitive justice today is in our prison systems. Yet even within our criminal justice system there is an increasing awareness that a strictly punitive approach rarely produces reform. Offenders who simply serve their time commonly go right back out and commit more crimes because the root factors have not been dealt with. In contrast, where rehabilitation programs have been made available, there have been dramatic drops in repeat offenses. In other words, this is not merely a matter of compassion, but of societal self-interest, because it means working to stop the "revolving door" of our prison system.

While punitive justice does little to actually mend wrong, restorative justice in contrast is all about making things right, about changing negative dynamics and helping people to overcome hurt. That's what grace is all about: It does not ignore problems, but in fact addresses them on a much deeper level than punitive justice does. So while grace may be in conflict with a strictly punitive understand of justice, it is not in conflict with restorative justice. In fact, grace is all about restorative justice.

Despite these broad trends away from a punitive understanding of justice, clearly evident in the changed approach to child rearing and education, grace is still largely a foreign language to us, while the language of payback remains our native tongue. Recall the Amish school shooting in 2006: The emphasis on forgiveness and reconciliation in the response of the Amish community was widely discussed in the national media. Reporters hardly knew what to do with it because it was so radically different from the usual tenor of sensationalism and fear that characterizes how television news typically covers crime.

On an international scale, the way the Truth and Reconciliation Commission responded to the violence and injustice of Apartheid stands out sharply against the backdrop of so many other places in our world where cycles of violence just seem to be never-ending, each side finding a justification for their continued retaliation. In the entertainment industry, it is extremely rare to find a movie that plumbs the depths of grace, and so common to see yet another film or television show that glorifies violence and paints the world in black and white. Yet when something like the musical "Les Miserables" comes along, it is an international sensation.

These are all lofty examples, and they can therefore feel overwhelming and out of reach. But the issue here is not ultimately about being virtuous or good (let alone is it about tolerating injustice!). It is about allowing healing to take place in our lives, and refusing to be sucked into the perpetual cycle of violence and toxicity. Grace is indeed hard, but even taking a few small faltering steps in its direction can open the doors for healing to start and violence to stop. That's why grace is not an ideal luxury, but quite literally a life and death necessity. Grace is the very means by which true justice comes about.

 

Follow Derek Flood on Twitter: www.twitter.com/therebelgod

Grace is not fair. Fairness means treating people as they deserve. Grace means treating people better than they deserve. Grace, after all, means unmerited kindness. Because of this, theologians have t...
Grace is not fair. Fairness means treating people as they deserve. Grace means treating people better than they deserve. Grace, after all, means unmerited kindness. Because of this, theologians have t...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 18
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
11:27 AM on 10/24/2011
As a Restorative Justice practitioner, I have been able to experience what I call "Restorative Grace". Working with the parties most impacted to guide them to a moment of healing, often times forgiveness. I did a blog post, http://circlespace.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/restorative-grace-giving-after-so-much-has-been-taken/. Thank you for this beautiful contribution to what Restorative Jusitce can do and is necessary for.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Elijah A Alexander Jr
Elijah NatureBoy
08:13 AM on 10/24/2011
I would be said "Justice" and "Grace" are the same once we get the actual definition of grace as "the right to explore evil and good to determine their proper usage" (Isaiah 7:15-16). When we understand "reaping what's sown" or Karma and Reincarnation controls all earthen activities requiring every lifeforce of every manifested life type to incarnate as the ones they interacted with, both, meeting the approval or rejection of the receiver, to embed in our lifeforces the emotional feelings of both the giver and receiver, we recognize Jesus brought us the right to explore all things to determine purposes.

Understanding karma reveals everything any manifestation does to any other is destiny causing us to ultimately conform to the son's standard, as Paul told the Romans, we are free from judging. There are 2 civilization, this material one and the spiritual one of Revelation 21, that's why after the discarnated in christ are reincarnated the rest of the dead reincarnates (Revelation 20:4-5). Thus, we man are unable to make judgments concerning the actions of others concerning justice, all we can do is, as revelation 22:11 suggests, allow everyone to live as destiny has bestowed upon them to.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
hornedcog
Tax Tea Now!
08:28 AM on 10/23/2011
On an application to carry a concealed weapon, could this be phrased for a yes or no answer?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:47 AM on 10/23/2011
nice article, thanks
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:41 PM on 10/22/2011
Accepting for now the binary grace/justice (surely the human condition is more complicated), does it not depend on the personality of the so-called culprit? I recall Richard Pryor commenting after one of his episodes behind bars that there are some guys who need to be there, all excuses notwithstanding.

Forgiveness (grace) can be interpreted as weakness, particularly when the incident is testing of authority. In that case, can forgtiveness not be legitimately interpreted as contributing to repeat offenses?

Today we no longer think in terms of a universal human nature, especially when it comes to predicting a response to imposing behavior on someone. So this issue is one of the hardest to write laws about. In our current climate of "being tough on crime" we have an abudnance of laws that simply are irrelevant. But candidates get elected to office espousing irrelevant solutions.

So I suggest that the question is not justice/grace but whether any consideration limited to those concepts is relevant. I do not have a better answer. I only hope for and wish there were a better answer.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Derek Flood
10:42 PM on 10/23/2011
These are all very valid concerns. I am only attempting to sketch out in broad strokes the general direction that we should be aiming for -- that we should be moving towards restoration as the goal of justice, rather than aiming for retribution as the goal (a goal we here expressed quite a lot from politicians on both sides of the fence whenever they speak of killing someone as "bringing them to justice").

Part of move towards restorative justice would entail that we make sure that people are protected from harm. So forgiveness should never be understood to mean that we simply say "that's okay" to hurtful behavior, nor should a belief in restorative justice withing the criminal justice system be thought to imply that we should simply empty all the jail cells. Rather, we need to look to find a sophisticated approach towards rehabilitating and reforming offenders into healthy and responsible members of society, and we also need to care for the safety, restoration, healing, and empowerment of their victims as well.
01:53 PM on 10/21/2011
Concepts like justice and grace keep changing their meanings. I have no confidence that what I think of as justice is what anyone else thinks of as justice. And the same for grace.

I would define justice as acting positively without favoritism and I have difficulty even recognizing grace except as a form of giving out of abundance without any consideration of compensation. I don't see punishment per se as having any place in justice.

But locking up a serial child molester where he cannot come in contact with chlldren is not punishment - even though the child molester experiences it as punishment. It is really only common sense. All criminal law should handled this way. The goal is prevent more crime - not to punish for crime already committed.

I think the author would describe that as grace. The victims do not ask for revenge. I would not use grace in this sense. I would call it justice. But, in the end, the words used do not matter, only the actions.
02:37 PM on 10/21/2011
An apparently reasonable, yet perhaps novel, suggestion for the definition of justice is “the appropriate allocation of resources”. These resources might be reasonably considered to include both intellectual or emotional resources such as self-esteem or material resources. However, the apparent MesKalamDug suggestion appears to be reasonable that justice appears to be less easily defined for implementation than it is macroscopically perceived.

Grace appears to suggest the absolution of responsibility for what should not be. That seems simpler to implement. Simply, eliminate certain responsibility for wrong.

However, perhaps the complexity in indentifying justice is humanity’s apparently Biblically- and secularly-suggested limitations in knowledge and discernment. To the extent that humanity is thusly limited, humanity appears to be reasonably considered to be unable to determine what should be and how to appropriately achieve it based upon what currently is.

I welcome your thoughts.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Derek Flood
11:42 PM on 10/23/2011
"But locking up a serial child molester where he cannot come in contact with chlldren is not punishment - even though the child molester experience­s it as punishment­. It is really only common sense."

In once sense I completely agree. People do need to be protected from harm. However, because convicts can "serve their time" without needing to receive any sort of psychological treatment, that child molester can go right back out on the street after their sentence runs out and since their disease has not even been addressed while in prison, they will go right back to their hurtful patterns.

So at the very least we need to recognize that crime is often tied together with other factors (for instance with mental illness, addictions, etc.) and so we therefore need to address these issues as well, and not simply think that after "doing their time" a person is automatically better.

In other words, the mistake of a purely punitive understanding of justice (which still characterizes how some understand crime, notably how many politicians understand it) is that it completely ignores what we have learned about mental health over the last century. A restorative approach in contrast incorporates this knowledge into its approach.
11:43 PM on 10/20/2011
The criminal is alienated from society. The non-violent criminal, especially, needs to be engaged with mankind rather than incorporated into prison society where wrong-doing is not only the norm, but the badge of honor.

Thank you for this wonderful article - so necessary in this day of blood-lust for capital punishment.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Derek Flood
01:22 AM on 10/21/2011
That's an excellent insight! A lack of empathy in criminals is a hugely important factor, and ostracizing them as you say does not exactly help them to connect to humanity.

One place were I see signs of progress here is with bullying in schools: rather than simply expelling kids, the growing focus has been on helping children to develop emotional intelligence and empathy, and teaching kids how to regulate their emotions, and deal with conflict without violence.

The environment we are in shapes us. So we need to work to create environments that cultivate reform and rehabilitation.
02:46 PM on 10/21/2011
Without claiming authoritative insight, an apparently purely logical issue regarding this apparently well-intentioned suggestion appears to address whether the non-violent are capable of being un-rehabilitate-able. Perhaps, the suggestion is intended to suggest that a non-violent nature warrants the risk.

I welcome your thoughts.
10:59 PM on 10/20/2011
Nice article. But you startout with the presumption that grace and justice need tobe reconciled. At theend we see the benefits of grace and "restorativejustice", but havewe really established that consequential justice (the word punitive is kindof loaded) is never appropriate?

To me the sourceof morality is always inthe momentary choice; the need to reconcile our biological motivations, the competing emotional feedback loops that attach irrational valueto alternatives. Everything else is projection and intellectualizing. Wecan almost never talk about morality without bringingup examples and evoking thebrain's provisional response. Justice and grace aren't the onlytwo drives that aren't harmonious. For me morality is almost bydefinition the moral choice, the momentary conflict of compulsions that mustbe resolved. Ifour motivations were entirely harmonious, there wouldbe no morality.

The otherthing that's clear tome, is that the momentary choice cannot be resolved rationally. The onlyway competing premises canbe resolved isby a third premise and thereis none. Every moral choice is resolved bywhat we feel like doing inthe moment. It's like a condo association meeting. Everyone has anaxe to grind and tales ofpast victimization, but thereis little rational content tothe discussion. It's really justabout which side wants it more.

You make a beautiful advocacy for grace, oneof our higher social instincts, but it's ultimately just an intellectual exercise. The choice willbe made in the subconscious backwaters of the brain when the rubber hits the road. We hope that those weeks of seeking inspiration at church will change the story, but there's little evidence that it has.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Derek Flood
01:05 AM on 10/21/2011
Yes, “where the rubber meets the road” is quite hard. As much as I want to respond with grace, when I feel wronged I often find myself jumping right back into that focus on myself. Neural scientists refer to this as a “limbic reaction.” In other words, it is not a rationally chosen response, but one that is triggered in us, causing us to react defensively. My mind will then seek to rationalize my feelings, and swims in a sea of self-focused arguments that drape themselves in the lofty terms like “justice.”

As a parent of young children there have been many times when they have been screaming and having a total fit, and (since I was stressed and fatigued) my impulse was to yell back. But what I really needed to recognize is that the reason they were doing this is because they were hungry. Once I gave them food, everything was fine. It’s really hard to see past your emotions, and to instead see the needs of another person like that. But that’s what parents need to do constantly (and why its so hard to be one!).

I think that illustrates on a small scale the way grace is about having a relational-focused response rather than a self-focused reaction. I do think that the more we practice and rehearse and cultivate this counter-intuitive response, the better we get at it.
03:30 PM on 10/21/2011
The Derek Flood post appears to suggest that grace is the more relational-focused response alternative to the self-focused justice reaction. I humbly and respectfully submit the apparently reasonable complementary or alternative suggestion that grace might also or alternatively be considered to be the alternative response to justice in that grace takes into account a larger scope of factors than might most perspectives regarding justice. The apparent Derek Flood illustration regarding children’s agitation being caused by hunger appears to illustrate this perspective. Another example might be that of a thief who is forgiven because the judge perceives that an unjust economic system appears to have left the thief little, if any, alternative for obtaining needed and appropriate resources.

As a result, I humbly and respectfully submit the apparently reasonable yet possibly confusing theory that, when “grace” is applied rather than “justice”, grace is so applied because doing so is considered to be more just than not doing so.

I welcome your thoughts.
03:16 PM on 10/21/2011
Without claiming authoritative insight on the nature of contemplative or reflexive decision-making, I humbly and respectfully submit that reflexive decision-making does appear to be somewhat more intuitive than calculative. The calculative aspects of logic and reason appear to play a more retrospectively or prospectively analytic role in more contemplative decision-making. The role of such analysis appears to be reasonably considered to be to establish and/or shape the reflexes that are triggered in reflexive decision-making contexts. The topic of morality, therefore, appears to be a topic that is intended to be considered, and yet, might reasonably appear to be insufficiently considered in sufficiently contemplative decision-making contexts.

I humbly and respectfully submit that the apparently reasonable yet possibly confusing theory that, when “grace” is applied rather than “justice”, grace is so applied because doing so is considered to be more just than not doing so. Apparently, in this context, a larger scope of factors is taken into account. An example might be the thief who is forgiven because the judge perceives that an unjust economic system appears to have left the thief little alternative for obtaining appropriate resources.

I welcome your thoughts.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
educatormary
Always encouraging inquiry and introspection
08:28 PM on 10/20/2011
Derek,
This is a very interesting commentary of attributes of grace and restorative justice. It is precisely what God intended by extending to us His grace and mercy and restoring us to a right relationship with Him.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Derek Flood
01:23 AM on 10/21/2011
thanks Mary :^)