Chapter 14 - Fuzzy Justice: Alternatives to Court

Abstract

Restorative justice is an informal method of resolving disputes that seeks to preserve relationships. Restorative justice programs forgo the adversarial processes of the traditional court system in favor of a less formal way to allow people to resolve conflicts. Restorative justice programs seek to solve the present dispute and address underlying issues. The advantages of restorative justice processes are that they attempt to repair the harm done to relationships and give the victim the opportunity to address the offender. The disadvantages of restorative justice processes are that victims often do not want contact with those who have harmed them, particularly in cases of violence, and that restorative justice processes do not necessarily guarantee due-process rights. Bringing offenders, victims, and other interested parties together can give everyone an opportunity to understand the effects of the offense. By including community members, some of the underlying conditions that lead to offending can be addressed. An ombud serves as a neutral party within an organization and provides conflict resolution and problem-solving services. Ombud program standards of practice revolve around four principles. These are: independence (the ombud should be independent from other entities within the organization); neutrality and impartiality (the ombud should not advocate for the organization or for any of the participants in the dispute and have no interests in the outcome); confidentiality (participants should feel that their conversations are confidential); and informality (conflicts may be addressed without putting individuals on the record). Ombud’s offices engage in mediation, help disputants identify options for resolution, and help the organization evaluate problematic trends. Military commissions are courts used to try violations of the laws of war and other offenses. Some reasons that military commissions are appropriate for dealing with terrorism are they protect sensitive information; the United States has a history of using military commissions during war; al Qaeda fighters do not follow the rules of war, so they lose the right to be considered soldiers; and terrorist activities are not like traditional street crime. Some reasons that military commissions are inappropriate for dealing with terrorism are that the definition of terrorism is so broad that it could include almost any behavior; military commissions circumvent the principles of due process; terrorism is enough like war that fighters should be accorded Geneva Conventions protections; military commissions flout constitutional values.