Heather Rice-Minus: Justice for all

Heather Rice-Minus is senior policy adviser for Justice Fellowship, the advocacy arm of Prison Fellowship Ministries. She works on issues including victims’ rights and ex-prisoner re-entry programs.

Within our system the government takes revenge on the criminal as if the government is the offended party. You’re pushing restorative justice. What is that? Sometimes in our system the government steps in the place of the person who’s been harmed and doles out a punishment that does not necessarily make the victim whole. We’re arguing for policy changes that would allow people harmed by crime to have greater participation in the process. The person who is responsible for the crime should get proportionate punishment but should also make amends to the victim and earn back the public’s respect.

One Texas prison inmate I interviewed has a life sentence because 20 years ago he slashed the throats of two people and killed them. What does restorative justice mean in a situation like that? The harmed family will never feel whole again after a situation like that. But often people who have been harmed by crime want the opportunity to ask questions. They want to know why something happened, why the person chose to do this. Part of the healing process may be to see changes in that person’s life. Or for the prisoners to write apology letters every year on the anniversary of the death of the person they killed.

That’s a tough one. Let’s try an easier one: A 15-year-old does some daytime robberies of houses. For him it’s a way of getting stuff. He hadn’t thought about the psychological havoc he created among the people who lived in those houses. They would feel violated, so it’s a lot more than just property involved, but the 15-year-old didn’t think of that. When he’s caught, how could restorative justice work there? Victims should receive restitution and compensation. Maybe the youth comes back and mows the lawn for the rest of the summer. The goal is to let people know who they harmed and be accountable. The ongoing relationship can have a deterrent effect.

Do the harmed parties tend to want this, or do they want to forget about it? It’s completely valid to want to forget about it. We don’t force people harmed by crime to participate in a restorative justice process. But a program in Brooklyn right now involves people who have committed assaults and other very serious crimes. Prosecutors can refer a case for restorative practice instead of the traditional criminal justice process. It’s up to the victims whether to use the traditional criminal justice process or this restorative process.

If they choose restoration? They go through an 18-month mediation with an individualized restitution plan and craft what they want accountability to look like. If the person responsible completes this plan and doesn’t have other major problems along the way, it’s a misdemeanor on the record. If not, it’s a mandatory period of incarceration. In any cases referred by prosecutors, 95 percent of the victims opt for the restorative justice programs versus the traditional criminal justice process.

What about sexual predators? That is a tough situation. I would say that there is something still to be said for giving those harmed by sexual violence the opportunity, with proper preparation and training, to say what accountability should look like for the person who has harmed them.

Do the victims decide what the accountability is? Victims should have the right to craft what would make them whole, but that can’t go beyond the bounds of what our Constitution would allow for punishment. There’s also a responsibility to the community as a whole. If a victim decides to extend mercy, that still needs to be weighed against public safety.

What is risk convergence? Over time the risk of a criminal committing another crime is going to converge with that of the general public: Risk convergence occurs at some point when they are no more likely to commit a new crime than Joe Shmo who has never committed a crime. We often ask people on job applications to say if they have had a conviction, felony, or even a misdemeanor—but we know from data that this person does not pose any greater risk after a certain point, because of the phenomenon of risk convergence.

On average … That’s correct. Everyone has some risk of committing a crime at some time. We advocate that people who have committed crimes, after receiving proportionate punishment, should be allowed back into the community.

What is “the box”? Often employers will ask on an application about criminal history. “Ban the box” is about removing that box from the initial application process because often people will not even be considered after employers see that. About 15 states and more than 100 cities across the country now ban the box.

And then expunging records? Also on the basis of risk convergence. If we know that after this period of time a person’s risk has gone down to the general public’s, on average, removing criminal history records means a better chance at reintegration.

Isn’t that depriving a potential employer of valuable information? At the point of risk convergence, how valuable is that information? If on average this person is no more likely to commit a crime than any other applicant, why should that information be such a telling factor? I’m not saying that someone shouldn’t talk about criminal history in the process of interviewing, but to make that up-front automatically excludes people and reduces our GDP.

As a journalist I tend to favor more information rather than less. Could certificates of rehabilitation—evidence from more than a person’s own testimony that he has changed—have the same effect without limiting information? Unfortunately, because of the stigma that goes along with having criminal history, they haven’t been particularly effective at helping people secure employment and having other opportunities open up to them.

How effective can any of these external measures be without internal change? I really don’t think they can be. You can’t force a victim to participate in a restorative justice practice.

In the absence of Christ, what’s the likelihood of any of these things having an effect? If you look at recidivism rates in our country, it is pretty bleak. I’m blessed to work for an advocacy organization that has decades of experience in getting at the heart of why people landed in prison, and then helping them walk with Christ.