TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
they were asked to preside as judge and jury by the accuser, should they have refused this request?
SWP expulsions and squabbles
- Thread starter Nigel Irritable
- Start date
dennisr
the acceptable face
this has been answered about 20 times on this thread alone - go away you troll
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
so you shouldn't misrepresent the facts then.
tenniselbow
Active Member
Had to take RMP3 off ignore to make sense of this turn in the thread! Now, back on ignore
oskarsdrum
Active Member
dennisr said:
yes it's certainly a more productive avenue to explore than my shrill outrage. Maybe someone might take the initiative to form a cross-union/party working group of the left who can read up on the area, talk to practitioners and experts and come up with something more practical. If this kind of response has already been promoted on the left, then I've never managed to happen across it in all the multi-million words I must have read around the subject since December 2012! I've heard of a few excellent results from restorative approaches in schools and communities, albeit not focussed on partner abuse, but I should think there's lots of lessons out there to learn already.
tenniselbow
Active Member
This is a key question.
It depends at what institutional level we're considering, whether parties, employers, or the judicial system. I think a perspective like this is rightly going to look different in each context. And also, I would reiterate that a restorative approach would be relevant only for a sub-set of cases I think. Or, perhaps better put, there should be a variety of restorative approaches?
Now, considering the case of left parties, as it's to hand, I think an abstract notion of "natural right" just isn't a very good guiding principle in such a sub-set of cases of abuse in interpersonal relationships. For one thing, we should have a much more complex -- dare I say dialectical -- conception of how such relations are inextricably intertwined with wider patterns of social relations, structural forces, and formations of power. This, you would think, should allow us to be both more critical in the sense of more attentive and attuned to noticing potentially abusive relationships, and more critical in the sense of situating these relationships within a wider social analysis -- rather than seeing them merely as a matter of individual guilt/innocence.
This is not to say I don't think we should be vigilant and tough in such cases; I think we should and really I favor a no-tolerance approach. However, it seems to me that a better guiding principle (than natural right/liberal justice) would be some kind of twin conception of safety and human flourishing, inasmuch as this is possible under current social conditions. The former is obviously a precondition for the latter. It's clear to me that abuse proliferates to varying degrees and in various styles in all kinds of relationships. It's also clear that since forms of abuse are so preponderant, and given our understanding of the way individuals bear the mark of wider social relations, we would do better to adopt an approach that recognized the suffering caused by abuse and recognized the suffering of abusers (I am not equating the two, by the way) who in other respects are good human beings. Rather than a judicial approach that aims guilt or innocence, which is impossible for political organizations to determine adequately as we've seen, a restorative approach focused on reducing suffering, making the organization safe for all, and encouraging individuals' flourishing and development seems a possible route for me.
I realize this might all sound rather wishy-washy to some of the hardened souls of U75. And in any case, having said all this, I really think these suggestions imply a left with much more open, democratic and self-critical structures in which power is less concentrated at the top, which adopts quite a different perspective on feminist debates and the personal and social psychology of "(wo)man under capitalism" than the simplistic formulae we hear reiterated, and involves cadre who are far more reflective on these issues and self-reflexive in practice.
Apologies by the way if experienced hands feel this is a derail of the thread. I'm new here so I'm not sure of the norms. Quite happy to take this elsewhere if asked.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Nope, it's good stuff and i'm glad to see it.
marty21
One on one? You're crazy.
Brunswick Centre nr Kings X ? I might have even bought a paper off you then
Sorry, but none the wiser about your 'interesting' occupation,
the bold bit sounds ominous...
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
That's interesting, tenniselbow. And evidence that even now the thread can still produce some constructive stuff.
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
Why should a restorative approach make an organisation any safer than a punitive approach - I don't see any practical reason for that, some might argue a restorative approach would just allow another avenue for an abusive partner.
tenniselbow
Active Member
Thanks for that. I don't think there are easy answers, sihhi, and was thinking out loud a bit there.
But I think the problem lies in how do you execute a punitive approach. If a member is sent down for a serious crime, this is pretty easy. But if things are far less clear-cut, and no external authority has made such a ruling, it seems impossible to get into a punitive procedure in a one-word-against-another situation -- even when there has been wrong done.
A restorative approach, on the other hand, could help to address situations where it would be impossible to adjudicate in this manner, thus allowing the organization to address the issue internally but without forcing its leadership/membership into the totally impossible position of trying to judge and punish. Of course this wouldn't work for all cases. But a general orientation in this direction combined with a more nuanced understanding of gendered power relations in society (as mentioned above) could be a useful way to go.
No one wants to allow abusive partners to be able to continue abusing others. But the punitive approach leaves just as much of an avenue open for abusers to continue to perpetrate (if it is impossible to find against them). The difference here, compared to a restorative approach, is that in the absence of punishment or a "not proven" finding, the accused arguably has more space to return to past behaviors -- and the complainant will likely be left more isolated -- than in a restorative approach that recognizes harms done and tries to improve the situation for both of the parties.
Just to reiterate, it's a subset of cases I'm talking about here and I may be way off the mark. Part of my thinking here is the vast spectrum of forms and levels of abuse in relationships -- I really think abuse in some form is pervasive -- which suggests to me that a punitive approach will only capture (imperfectly) cases towards one pole of a continuum that as a whole we should be looking to address.
tenniselbow
Active Member
Didn't he write: homelessness investigations in the welfare state?
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
In reality for restorative justice to work someone has to agree that they are at fault and that there is a victim who is willing to engage in the process
dennisr
the acceptable face
Yep, it is a problem going round and round in my head at the moment. There's a brief guardian article here that specifically argues that, in cases of doemestic violence, it can become a case of justice denied:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/12/restorative-justice-domestic-violence
"An offender making reparation to a victim may be fine and noble. But to blur the line over punishment for partner abuse is reckless"
Women's Aid are certainly not convinced: http://www.womensaid.org.uk/domestic-violence-articles.asp?section=00010001002200070001&itemid=1185
"This definition clearly outlines why restorative justice is not appropriate for domestic violence cases. Restorative justice implies a position of equality and of equal bargaining power between two parties."
That's one view. I'll like to hear more for and against.
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
I assume we're talking about coercion or domestic violence behind closed doors which doesn't always leave marks.
Why should only one organisation try to keep it within its confines? I believe accusations particularly if they are for serious things like domestic violence should be aired more widely - obviously this could be misused allowing false accusers etc.
How can conflicting accounts of harm done be recognised and reconciled?
If someone has abused you and hit you, you don't want people to worry about the non-suffering and the pattern of lies the person who has hit you has weaved.
Likewise, if someone has purposefully blackened your name, giving them restorative help/counselling on the basis of a wrong done by you, is to let yourself go down as a besmirched figure.
Fine but which judge judges which cases is part o;f the subset and which not?
My general thoughts - perhaps it's wise if possible to encourage some males to not be couples if they feel they might be incapable of self-control in domestic/partnership situations.
full freedom for single women within an organisation is important.
don't want to turn this into the health/relationships forum but if within an organisation single women are perceived oddly or are often receiving male attention, it can become easier to partner up and deflect this attention, whereas singlehood should be respected both for men and women.
oskarsdrum
Active Member
It is recognised as being a valuable approach to bullying even in schools with entrenched behavioural problems, fwiw. I'll try and find a couple of links later but it's not the case that restorative practice is necessarily a 'soft touch' approach - though there's a danger it will be if safety and prevention of abuse isn't prioritized first and foremost. there's no simple solutions, of course, but it can be better than punitive models in creating a culture where abuse can be identified readily and never covered up or brushed aside.
I guess there might be a minority of implacable, out and out predators that need taking into account.
I guess there might be a minority of implacable, out and out predators that need taking into account.
andysays
Love and solidarity
Restorative rather than punitive justice sounds like a good idea, though there might be some situations where it isn't appropriate.
But isn't that a completely separate issue to the one of establishing the truth of an accusation, the guilt or otherwise of the accused?
It's the difference between the "verdict" and the "sentence". The latter only becomes an issue if a guilty verdict is reached.
But isn't that a completely separate issue to the one of establishing the truth of an accusation, the guilt or otherwise of the accused?
It's the difference between the "verdict" and the "sentence". The latter only becomes an issue if a guilty verdict is reached.
tenniselbow
Active Member
Thanks for your comments, sihhi.
I definitely did not mean to suggest that such issues should be kept inside an organization, rather that the route I was suggesting poses one way in which they could be addressed internally in situations where they have not been addressed e.g. through prosecution, elsewhere.
I agree with your most of your general vision of what a healthy organizational culture should look like. But you also highlight the intractable nature of some of the issues at hand, problems many of us are struggling to think through.
I've been pretty clear about the fact I think abuse is on a spectrum, and an expansive one. And I also feel that abuse of various forms is pervasive. Now, for my part a punitive approach would definitely apply for a large part of that spectrum. But for much of it, I don't think it is necessarily the best route. So I'm not trying to deal out absolutes here. Where the line is drawn is an entirely different question (and one that in the abstract is not strictly answerable).
And I've been talking about organizations, figuring primarily with cases in which external prosecutions have not been brought and there are conflicting accounts and little evidence. Now, my feeling is that a system that focuses on punishment is inevitably going to be insufficient in such circumstances. There seems to be a widespread feeling here that internal committees should not be acting as quasi-judicial bodies; the possibility of them giving an honest accounting is in grave doubt. There is also a priority to prevent abusive relationships developing and not to allow them to be perpetuated. There's also a danger of unfairly condemning innocent individuals. And there is a recognition of gendered power-imbalances and other social dynamics that fundamentally shape relationships, perceptions of victimhood, likelhood of reporting. I'm on board with all of this.
And it just seems impossible for a punitive approach to function in such a stuation. In such circumstances there seem to be no good options. This is where sihhi's question about how conflicting accounts can be reconciled and recognised comes in. They can't be reconciled logically but mutual recognition is surely a possibility?
I slightly regret raising these abstract questions on a thread detailing specific cases, since I'm sure we all have them in mind. I don't want to be read as suggesting an approach involving a form of "recognition" and return to the status quo ante. Factors such as multipe accusations, witnesses, indisputable evidence of harassment or abuse, major power or age imbalances are obviously all important to the kind of approach taken.
I definitely did not mean to suggest that such issues should be kept inside an organization, rather that the route I was suggesting poses one way in which they could be addressed internally in situations where they have not been addressed e.g. through prosecution, elsewhere.
I agree with your most of your general vision of what a healthy organizational culture should look like. But you also highlight the intractable nature of some of the issues at hand, problems many of us are struggling to think through.
I've been pretty clear about the fact I think abuse is on a spectrum, and an expansive one. And I also feel that abuse of various forms is pervasive. Now, for my part a punitive approach would definitely apply for a large part of that spectrum. But for much of it, I don't think it is necessarily the best route. So I'm not trying to deal out absolutes here. Where the line is drawn is an entirely different question (and one that in the abstract is not strictly answerable).
And I've been talking about organizations, figuring primarily with cases in which external prosecutions have not been brought and there are conflicting accounts and little evidence. Now, my feeling is that a system that focuses on punishment is inevitably going to be insufficient in such circumstances. There seems to be a widespread feeling here that internal committees should not be acting as quasi-judicial bodies; the possibility of them giving an honest accounting is in grave doubt. There is also a priority to prevent abusive relationships developing and not to allow them to be perpetuated. There's also a danger of unfairly condemning innocent individuals. And there is a recognition of gendered power-imbalances and other social dynamics that fundamentally shape relationships, perceptions of victimhood, likelhood of reporting. I'm on board with all of this.
And it just seems impossible for a punitive approach to function in such a stuation. In such circumstances there seem to be no good options. This is where sihhi's question about how conflicting accounts can be reconciled and recognised comes in. They can't be reconciled logically but mutual recognition is surely a possibility?
I slightly regret raising these abstract questions on a thread detailing specific cases, since I'm sure we all have them in mind. I don't want to be read as suggesting an approach involving a form of "recognition" and return to the status quo ante. Factors such as multipe accusations, witnesses, indisputable evidence of harassment or abuse, major power or age imbalances are obviously all important to the kind of approach taken.
tenniselbow
Active Member
Thanks for the links dennisr. I feel like the Guardian article is somewhat contradictory. On the one hand domestic violence is treated by community as a personal issue, which the author sees as a problem. On the other hand, restorative justice is a problem because it involves the community, with its own ideas, in the process. Using a restorative justice approach involving the community could therefore move things in the direction of de-personalizing this crime and understanding it in a social context. But I think her emphasis on the victim's wishes in this respect are crucial.
treelover is a selective reader as you will soon find out
Jean-Luc
Well-Known Member
If a person subject to such accusations is innocent this seems grossly unjust. What do the philosphers of justice here think can be done to put things right in such a case? The only wayout I can think of would be not to talk about it at all and hope people forget.
bolshiebhoy
socialism leinster drink
The prof has shared this rather shall we say critical appraisal of the Delhi HM conference he's been excluded from: http://radicalnotes.com/2013/04/03/historical-materialism-delhi-legal-marxism-redux/
"The recent vocalisation of an open dissociation with the Socialist Workers Party of Britain by the organisers of HM, Delhi, further reveals their desperation to satisfy and bridge liberal consensuses of the West and India. And the last straw in this regard was the withdrawal of their invitation to Alex Callinicos, perhaps the only Trotskyist in whom genuine Marxist activists in India find some ‘cultural’ affinity. This was obviously done to appease the disgruntled pocos, who were lately alienated from the organising committee. As they are on the lookout to find opportunity to vent their frustration of not having been included in this gala event, this was done to preclude any disturbance from their side."
What is a poco?
"The recent vocalisation of an open dissociation with the Socialist Workers Party of Britain by the organisers of HM, Delhi, further reveals their desperation to satisfy and bridge liberal consensuses of the West and India. And the last straw in this regard was the withdrawal of their invitation to Alex Callinicos, perhaps the only Trotskyist in whom genuine Marxist activists in India find some ‘cultural’ affinity. This was obviously done to appease the disgruntled pocos, who were lately alienated from the organising committee. As they are on the lookout to find opportunity to vent their frustration of not having been included in this gala event, this was done to preclude any disturbance from their side."
What is a poco?
post-communists
bolshiebhoy
socialism leinster drink
Duh thank you!
kavenism
Progressive misanthrope
Given the recent issues on rape that have been highlighted in India of late, I wonder what 'cultural' affinity they could be referring to?
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
Restorative justice as an alternative to traditional prosecution is quite well used for lower level offending especially youths and under a number of community justice pilots that the Ministry of Justice run, its also used in schools and in some children's homes.it is possible to impose sanctions through this process but if the perpetrator doesn't accept those sanctions then they have to go through the 'normal' criminal justice system where ( having already accepted that that they have done something wrong are dealt with as a guilty party).
There are restorative justice schemes where precisely because it is recognised that there is no equal bargaining power that a third person or third party acts as the voice for the aggrieved, in some case this is a friend or a family member, there role is to articulate the victims view. Restorative justice isn't mediation, it is victim based and is designed to bring about closure that is acceptable to the victim.
Restorative processes can be used, and are used even when someone had been convicted by the court and jailed.
Where I am restorative justice isn't used for domestic abuse. But processes have been used for victims where the offender is in jail for serious offences such as burglary and other forms of violence where the victim has agreed.
We had this bloke up for a seminar:
Whilst we have a very formal bourgeois justice system which normally has a magistrate or judge listening to submissions form prosecution and defence ( representing the Crown and the defendant not the victim and the defendant) other countries ,and in times where there have been more civic engagement of ordinary people through mass struggle, have adopted more of an inquiry or panel process that seeks to try and understand what has occurred rather than prove or dismiss either parties claim.
Similar threads
