Abstract
Whilst no one will contest that community is a key theme in today’s restorative justice (RJ) rhetoric, it is perhaps not clear what form community involvement takes in so-called RJ activities. Rosenblatt’s book, originally her doctoral study, therefore, comes at a good time, providing clarification about the concept of community involvement. Her contribution lies in both a theoretical and empirical investigation, and most importantly, a well-structured, in-depth analysis of both.
The author starts from a broad discussion of the restorative justice ‘spirit’ in chapter 1, and then narrows down to RJ’s appeal to community in chapter 2. To summarize the author highlights the ‘problematic’ nature of such an appeal by posing a few provocative questions, such as ‘How more concrete can community involvement get?…What is so good about lay involvement?…What does the community get through its involvement in restorative justice practices?…What are the dangers of community involvement?’ (pp. 52–59); these key issues are addressed in the following chapters.
These questions which are raised, in my opinion, are substantive and more concrete than the simple critique or questioning of ‘community rhetoric’ by many other RJ scholars. But they are not entirely new since, for example, Crawford and Clear (2001) asked who the ‘stakeholders’ in RJ are, what stakeholding entails and how far the involvement of stakeholders should go. Exactly because these questions are so important, I applaud Rosenblatt for exploring them.
In chapter 3, ‘Selecting a Case Study’, the author explains the legal framework of English youth justice, which is useful for readers who are unfamiliar with the English context, including the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, Youth Offending Teams (YOTs), the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, referral orders and youth offender panels. Simply put, youth offender panels are a way of dealing with youth offending performed by community members (volunteers) and YOT workers. There are different opinions about their restorative nature, but it is largely seen as a restorative programme. Thus, the author chose the English and Welsh experience with youth offender panels as a case study to dig into the role of community in restorative justice. In chapter 4, ‘Notes on an Empirical Study’, the author delineates the steps and approaches involved in carrying out the empirical part of the study, after offering a description of youth offender panels as well as a justification of their use as a case study for her research.
In chapters 5 to 7 empirical findings are presented. In chapter 5 this is done in the narrative of a ‘theatre play’. A key issue elucidated here regarding the role of community panel members concerns the ownership of the restorative process: ‘however, it seems to me that the idea that community panel members “own” the process, or that they are the ones who determine the direction and outcome of panel meetings, is more rhetorical (or “theatrical”) than real’ (p. 124). But does this imply that youth offender panels should be outcome-predetermined? The study was not explicit about this.
In chapter 6 the author specifically focuses on the role of community members in youth offender panels. The chapter critically points out that community panel members’ self-perception does not unanimously represent a ‘community’ ethos; rather, much of their notion of being a voice for the ‘victimised community’ comes only later through their training. Very often it is perceived that ‘community panel members come to panels as individuals, representing their own views, opinions and experiences, rather than carrying a mandate from the community’ (p. 133). The community is usually referred to as ‘a place’ by both community panel workers and YOT workers. What is more striking is that young people are in general quite indifferent to the involvement of community members. The community as ‘a place’ and community panel members as ‘the public’ result, in actuality, in there being no such notion of ‘community’, no matter whether it is in terms of geography, interdependency or identity (Clear and Karp, 1999, as cited in Rosenblatt, 2015).
The role of community panel members is rather limited in that they are not the decision makers. The ideas of activities that could be included in an outcome agreement come from the YOT workers instead of community members. Community panel members only meet the young offenders once instead of supporting them during the course of carrying out the restitution plan. Moreover, the professionalization of community panel members, reinforced through the training provided to panel members has produced another ‘professional’ group which renders the claim of lay involvement and informality unconvincing.
In chapter 7, the author discusses what implications these key findings can have for our understanding of the role of community in RJ, in the first place by analysing the restorativeness of youth offender panels in the English and Welsh justice context. Findings, for instance, imply that we might need to re-think the role of professionals vis-à-vis volunteers in running these restorative justice programmes, as well as the benefits of these programmes for the community because ‘the chances of them having a truly restorative experience, and of understanding the role of community panel members therein, are minimal’ (p. 200). At best, the panels are ‘restorative justice friendly’ (p. 201, italics original). These may be the lessons that the English and Welsh experience have for the entire restorative justice community.
What I personally find interesting is that ‘communities are hierarchical formations structured upon lines of power, dominance, and authority’ (Crawford and Clear, 2001: 137), but this type of community is absent from Rosenblatt’s book. Instead, the communities examined mainly allude to the panel members, who seem to act under professional guidance from the YOT workers. Various pieces of evidence point at the fundamental question: where is the community? This book alludes to the fact that there is none. Still, what might continue to puzzle readers is whether these professionals, i.e. the YOT workers, act on behalf of the state or the local community. The study does not consider the distinction between state and community, which is a pity but one study can never tackle all the issues no matter how important these issues are.
Overall, I find this study exceptional. Compared with previous studies on the topic, its contribution lies in what is noted by the author: ‘there has been no up-to-date study of the restorative component of referral orders, and certainly not on the role of community in youth offender panels’ (p. 78); this is perhaps the first systematic study to both theoretically and empirically examine the notion of community involvement in RJ programmes. Additionally, this book brings forward a call for reflection upon the claims that have been easily made but not empirically tested. It is a shame that so far so few studies have given due attention to the ‘commonplace’ ideas and notions regarding the role of community in RJ. Rosenblatt’s work is a wake-up call for stubborn minds, and stimulates more groundbreaking studies and insights in the future.