Native Americans bring peacemakng to Brooklyn

Center for Court Innovation - Peacemaking is a traditional, non-adversarial form of justice practiced by many different Native American tribes. It is designed to heal damaged relationships and restore harmony to the community. Peacemaking brings together the immediate parties to a conflict (such as defendant and victim), along with family, neighbors, community members, and others who wish to support the participants. In a peacemaking session, the participants sit in a circle with one or more peacemakers, who are respected community members trained in peacemaking, to discuss the underlying causes of the conflict. Peacemaking not only seek to resolve the immediate conflict but to foster healing and help the participants avoid future problems.

In January 2013, the Center for Court Innovation launched a pilot project to test whether peacemaking could be effectively applied in a state court setting. The project was implemented at the Red Hook Community Justice Center, a multi-jurisdictional community court located in southwest Brooklyn.

Peacemaking was made available as a pretrial diversion option for selected misdemeanor criminal cases or juvenile delinquency cases.  Defendants who successfully completed the program—which involved an average of 2.74 peacemaking sessions lasting approximately two to three hours each—generally had their cases dismissed, whereas defendants who did not complete their obligations had to return to court for further dispositional hearings.

The Red Hook Peacemaking Program largely, but not exclusively, adhered to the original implementation plan, which sought to adapt a traditional peacemaking model learned from Native American experts to a state court setting in Red Hook, Brooklyn. Core elements of the model were as follows:

·       The program had four goals: 1) healing relationships; 2) giving victims a voice; 3) holding participants accountable; and 4) empowering the community.

·       All criminal and juvenile delinquency cases heard at the Red Hook Community Justice Center were technically eligible for peacemaking regardless of charge, except for cases involving intimate partner violence, child abuse, elder abuse, and sexual assault. Defendants with a severe mental illness or need for intensive substance abuse treatment were also ineligible. Generally, participating cases involved a victim or complaining witness, although it was not a requirement.

·       One of the goals of peacemaking is for defendants to accept responsibility for their role in the conflict. While most participants in peacemaking accepted responsibility, some maintained through the peacemaking sessions that the victim or cross complainant was to blame, at least in part, for the conflict. Even among those who did not fully accept responsibility, participants in research interviews expressed a perception that peacemaking was beneficial in beginning to heal the relationship and identify steps to avoid future conflicts.

Over the course of the 18–month study, 42 defendants and 24 victims or support persons participated in peacemaking. Some cases involved multiple defendants or cross- complainants; thus, in total, there were 31 separate peacemaking groups.

·       Sixty-two percent of peacemaking participants were arrested for misdemeanor assault. Other charges included petit larceny, graffiti, harassment, menacing, trespass and disorderly conduct.

·       Forty-three percent of participants were arrested due to a conflict with a non-spousal family member. Other relationships included roommates, neighbors, and friends. Only eight of the 42 cases had no victim or cross-complainant.

·       Seventy-nine percent of peacemaking participants completed peacemaking successfully, of whom 90% received a straight dismissal of their case and 10% received an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, which typically leads to a dismissal after a period usually lasting six months. Thirteen percent of participants did not complete peacemaking due to noncompliance, and 8% did not complete peacemaking as a result of staff finding them inappropriate after the first session.

Peacemaking participants, including defendants, victims, and other complaining witnesses, were generally supportive of the program. Court stakeholders also perceived that the program had a positive impact on the lives of the participants and the community.

·       The peacemaking staff provided food for the participants and peacemakers at the beginning of each session. This was described as a highlight by nearly all the participants, and a few commented that it helped to alleviate an otherwise tense situation.

·       Some cases were completed with one peacemaking session, while the longest took eight sessions to complete, with the group meeting every other week (or as frequently as schedules allowed). A case could take months to complete. Even for cases that completed in one session, it sometimes took several weeks before the case was then called back to the court for a final hearing. The most common complaint participants made about peacemaking was the length of time it took to complete the sessions.

·       Everyone in attendance received an opportunity to speak and respond without interruption in the peacemaking circle. Both defendants and victims/complaining witnesses reported that they felt comfortable and that they could open up in the peacemaking circle; however, some expressed concerns about potential re-victimization through the process by interacting with someone who previously hurt them. Overall, when asked in how they felt sharing their story, the most common words participants used to describe the experience were “comfortable” and “supported.”

·       During the peacemaking sessions, the parties in the circle discussed what the defendant could do to heal the relationships damaged in the conflict, provide restitution, or improve their own lives in order to avoid future conflicts. The healing steps were designed to be flexible and individualized; they included obligations like letters of apology, volunteer work, or resume writing. To retain confidentiality these healing steps are not shared in court nor with court actors; however, some stakeholders expressed interest in hearing about the healing steps in court, when appropriate, to help them better understand the peacemaking process.

Peacemaking gave participants the opportunity to talk through a conflict in a safe setting in ways that a conventional adversarial process. Depending on the relationship and willingness of the participants, those interviewed generally perceived that peacemaking had succeeded in starting the process of healing relationships.

FULL REPORT