A Paper Presentation & Lecture

Creating Restorative and Sustainable environmentwithin custodial services: Capturing a template

for the future

Brian Steels1Curtin University, Perth. Australia

For theRestorative Justice and Chinese Culture – 2013

Kinmen and Xiamen Workshops

November 25th -30th 2013

An event organised by

National Taipei University and Xiamen University

Hosted by Kinmen University and Xiamen University

1 Dr Brian Steels, in collaboration with Dr Dot Goulding, Senior Research Fellows, Centre for Aboriginal Studies, Curtin University, Western Australia & the APFRJ, from a project initiated by Steels, B., Burbridge, M., Goulding, D., Kirk, B., with Serco Acacia and Wandoo and now an ongoing project that includes government sites.

Abstract.This paper aims to highlight the development and use of a universaltemplate for designing and implementing a wholly restorativejustice and environmental sustainable prison regime, shaped byrestorative values and sustainable practices. The authors suggestthat victims of crime, and families of prisoners need to see thatthe prison is engaged to do better and to make the community asafer place. In turn, the paper showcases the work being done toraise awareness through sustainable education and transformationalprograms, highlighting ways in which the current and punitiveculture of the penal estate can be transformed among residents andothers. It is within the prison, where residents can, if they wish,learn all aspects of the research and data collection and fullyparticipate as research assistants and technical support.

The paper will highlight these interconnected values and practicesthat remain mostly unexplored, suggesting an increase in furtherscientific literature across disciplines, communities and borders.The paper will discuss further expected outcomes including agreater understanding of responsibility taking, procedural fairnessand harm reduction within a sustainable prison - restoringprisoners; their families, their communities and the planet. Itwill show the opportunity for a paradigmatic shift in the way thatthe total prison environment is viewed and managed and how in turnthis impacts upon other institutions as well as smaller rural andremote communities where relationships with others and theenvironment are crucial in terms of sustainability and capacitybuilding.

Furthermore, paper also speaks to several important issues foundwithin prisons across jurisdictions; the high re-victimisation andrecidivism rates, the awareness of harm done to others and theinterconnection between prison, communities and the total impact onpeople and the environment. The authors draw upon the link between

the penal estate’s creative and innovative activities and the localcommunity’s needs and benefits, noting the opportunity for ex-prisoners to make the journey from convict to citizen, an area ofspecial interest throughout the project.

Human activity has brought harm to other human beings, differentspecies as well as the planet. The research project engagesparticipants at the forefront of restoration of all harm done; topeople, place and planet. Steels (2013)

Introduction to ProjectThe project see the introduction and cooperation acrossdisciplines, to reduce harm, and invites all participants toinvest, invent and involve, as well as to repair, renew, reuse andreduce. It has at its core the desire to raise awareness and applyrestorative justice practices as well as program and environmentalsustainability among prison residents, workers, visitors and othersthroughout the penal estate, including court services, transportand administrative sectors.

At the outset, we want to highlight the development and use of auniversal template for designing and implementing a whollyrestorative justice and environmentally sustainable prison regime,

shaped by restorative values and sustainable practices. A regimethat looks different to common regimes and practices in that itworks to produce informed and instructive residents, able to taketheir place as facilitators, practitioners and researchers.Management are able to embrace empowerment and see that byproviding fair practices, within a learning and mentoringenvironment, that high standards and ideals are sought by residentsand staff alike. The template will not only help to record data inthese sites but also assist across borders where different culturesand philosophies frame prison estates, and where restorative andsustainable practice acting in tandem are often a paradigm shiftfor criminologists and environmentalists.

First let us look at some of the facts as outlined by theInternational Centre for Prison Studies (2013)2, London. Here wehave taken seven nations from the world list, to highlight whereAustralia, China, India, Taiwan and other nations sit in thehighest to lowest order on the chart; the highest being the nationwith the highest percentage of its adult population incarcerated interms of 100,000 people.

Position Nation Rate per 100,000people

1 US 71674 New Zealand 192117 Australia 130126 China 121179 Sweden 67198 Taiwan 51214 India 30

The facts presented, we now move to reflect on the philosophy andknowledge base of restorative justice, and on why people complywith some requests and yet remain defiant against other ‘systems’of authority. First, we examine the benefits of RJ as seen by aleading British Peer. Lord McNally3 Minister of State for Justice,

2 http://www.prisonstudies.org/info/worldbrief/wpb_stats.php?area=all&category=wb_poprate

3 https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/speech-to-the-all-party-parliamentary-penal-affairs-group-agm

in his 2012 address to the All-Party Parliamentary Penal AffairsGroup AGM confirmed his and his office’s support for RJ, stating;

I am an ardent supporter of the principles of restorativejustice. It offers an opportunity not only to assist therehabilitation of offenders but to give victims a greaterstake in the resolution of offences and in the criminaljustice system as a whole. Victim-led restorative justice canallow us to make inroads into the re-offending cycle, withthe triple benefit of victims avoiding the trauma of futurecrimes, the tax payer not having to foot the bill of morecrime, and a rehabilitated offender making a positivecontribution to society.

McNally speaks in his address of ‘the evidence for theeffectiveness of restorative justice’ and referred to hisdepartment’s analysis of several restorative justice pilots thatshowed ‘85% of victims who participated were satisfied with theexperience and there was an estimated 14% reduction in re-offending’. These results urged him to reaffirm that the governmentis ‘therefore committed to making use of restorative justice inmore areas, and in more circumstances across the criminal justicesystem’.

As others have suggested (Steels 2007; Bevan et al 2005; Goulding &Steels 2006) restorative justice is best located within localculture, communities, customary laws and by-laws. It has to beresponsive to local crime and re-offending through uniqueresponses. It needs to be driven by the voices of those peopleharmed, (Steels, Goulding and Abbott 2013) as well as those takingresponsibility for their actions, together with communities andpractitioners, academics and respected local people. It is aboutprocess, and can be considered a participatory process of healingthat can occur inside or outside of the criminal justice system.The authors also note Maruna and Immarigeon (2004;6) contentionthat ‘the major correlates of desistance from crime identified inresearch…involve ongoing, interactive relationships that can takeup most of an individuals waking life’. Farrall (1995:23) alsofound that, in general terms, ‘…desistance occurs away from thecriminal justice system’. In short, social relationships are seento be central to restoring justice, both for victims and offendersespecially when crime is viewed as a fracture of relationshipswithin a community. This also can be applied to sustainable

practices that work best when conducted at grass roots levels, byparticipatory methods that are centred around relationships and theinterconnection with others. A sense of purpose and of being avalued person is what the research project hopes to generate amongresidents as they begin to understand the broad application of harmreduction across disciplines.

Within the penal estate, the authors, researchers and resident-researchers examine fair treatment, human rights, awarenessraising, education and innovative ways to ensure that the prisonhas a carbon neutral footprint, and exists in harmony with others,including nature and a variety of species. This fits well with manyof the Indigenous residents who have to manage taboos, totems andland use; as well as being respectful of customs and traditions;including to value the planet as a part of their traditional law,identity and spirituality.

Our introduction to the project makes no attempt to re-visitquestions of deterrence and what works literature, or indeedsentencing regimes. Rather, it focuses on sustainable andrestorative solutions that not only help to heal the fracturescaused by crime, but to make the community a safer place to livein. It examines options and innovative measures to reduce not onlyfear of crime, but the fear of food insecurity, inadequate housing,inadequate and poor quality water supplies and intermittent powerfor energy and lighting. It identifies links between prisoners,victims, and all families affected by crime, with sustainableprocesses and outcomes to suit metropolitan and rural areas of theregion. Western Australian prisons have a poor record ofrehabilitation, of creating a safe and secure community andreducing the impact of crime upon all of the stakeholders,including families and victims of crime. Data will at all timesfocus on the two major topics and will also be available to othersites across jurisdictions to examine progress, note difficultiesand challenge practices.

Restorative Justice

And so it is that we turn to the model, or models of restorativejustice. Braithwaite (1999:2) contends that restorative justice hasbeen the dominant model of criminal justice throughout most ofhuman history for all the world's peoples', whilst Bottoms (1999)argues that in pre-modern societies, the resolution of local

disputes were more varied than restorative justice advocates andpractitioners suggest, noting that many processes maintained a highdegree of threat, coercion and punishment. The authors suggest thatboth arguments hold certain truths. They suggest that the notion ofthe common good is also reflected in these discussions as socialconnections of family and community hold together the values thatlend themselves to the larger social and moral order. It is herethat we look to Tyler (2006) and his work around RestorativeJustice and Procedural Justice as a major link between socialcompliance, rule breaking and restorative processes. Tyler commentsthat;

Procedural justice research suggests that there is anotherpossible route to effective social regulation besidespunitive punishment (Tyler, 1990; Tyler & Huo, 2002). Thisroute involves treating people with procedural justice andrespect. When people are so treated, they view law and legalauthorities as more legitimate and entitled to be obeyed. Asa result, people become self-regulating, taking on thepersonal responsibility for following social rules. Thisapproach has been labelled a process-based model ofregulation (Tyler, 2003, 2006).

Interestingly, when it comes to processes following disputes,including an apology, Tavuchis (1991) notes that "no matter howsincere or effective, an apology does not and cannot undo what hasbeen done. And yet, in a mysterious way and according to its ownlogic, this is precisely what it manages to do". And so it is withour experience within the court process, within communities andwithin the prison setting; science can try to control and predict,determine and state, but the human spirit can astonish us all interms of our complexity of responses.

From day one the project calls for innovation, creativity, trust,and risk management. The team has a collective of ideas,underpinning values of restorative justice, sustainability andtherapeutic environments. But this has to be dynamic andresponsive, innovative and able to build relationships on and offCurtin University’s campus to include health scientists, electronicand structural engineers, physicists, chemists and specialists inaquaculture, permaculture, hydrologists and biophillic landscapes.It also means sustainable prisoner and staff based projects,

including further personal and facility education, managing healthylifestyles, providing food security, engaging in sustainablecommunity networks, and sustaining relationships and partnershipsdeveloped by this venture.

Underpinning the project’s restorative values are Braithwaite’sstandards that assist with evaluating degrees of restorativeness.Braithwaite has (2002) identified three types of standard forassessing and maintaining the quality of RJ practices, and thesewill be imbedded into the template’s design noting ‘Whether arestorative justice programme is up to standard is best settled ina series of regulatory conversation with peers and stakeholdersrather than by rote application of a rulebook’. Braithwaite’s firsttier are ‘constraining standards’ and include non-domination,empowerment, equal concern for all stakeholders, respectfullistening, honouring legally specific upper limits on sanctions,and the respect for human rights. The second tier are reported as‘maximising standards’ such as the restoration of human dignity,property loss, restoration of human relationships freedom,compassion peace sense of citizen duties and other social supportand prevention of future injustice. Braithwaite’s third tierstandards are noted as ‘emergent standards’ such as remorse overinjustice, apology, censure of the act, forgiveness of the personand mercy. It’s to Braithwaite’s (2002:571) words that we now turnto clarify the distinctions;

The constraining list are standards that must be honoured andenforced as constraints; the maximizing list are standardsrestorative justice advocates should actively encourage inrestorative processes; the emergent list are values we shouldnot urge participants to manifest – they are emergentproperties of a successful restorative justice process. If wetry to make them happen, they will be less likely to happen ina meaningful way.

These, especially when linked to sustaining an effective strategy for compliance with the law, lead to a better understanding of processes that are experienced as fair and just. On that note, Tyler (2006:210) adds;

To have a more effective strategy for dealing with the issueof public compliance, we would benefit from being in asituation in which people have additional reasons for obeyingthe law beyond their fear of being caught and punished forwrongdoing (Sherman, 1993, 1998, 1999; Tyler, 1990).

Throughout the penal estate, legitimacy of authority is oftenquestioned, and frequently made worse by processes that aremandatory and at times used without good reason, other than ‘forthe good order and security of the prison’. To provide processesthat are participatory, fair and just, as well as being used forthe safety of everyone within the estate, is a major point, oftenoverlooked in the process of rehabilitation and re-communalisation.However, Tyler illustrates the pathways that people walk from non-compliance to compliance as they recognise and act on proceduralfairness and legitimacy of the authority within the prison; andbeing treated fairly places them in a situation more likely,according to Tyler (2006:312), to be compliant, thus he adds;

One way to encourage people to view law as legitimate is forlegal authorities to act in procedurally just ways. Forexample, studies suggest that procedural justice duringpersonal experiences with authorities is important because itbuilds the social value of legitimacy (Tyler, 2004).Legitimacy, once activated, then encourages everydaycompliance with the law. Hence, legal authorities receivemore citizen cooperation when people generally view them aslegitimate. People, who have more supportive social values,are easier for legal authorities to deal with during personalencounters.

Not only do Tyler’s words underpin the need for legitimacy to berecognized and experiences within the penal estate, but show us thepower of compliance during and after experiences of procedurallyjust ways, or as we often call it, being treated fairly and justly.This includes being given the opportunity to engage in positivesocial values, and shown a direction by a legitimate authority,such as those professional staff and officers leading the movetowards environmental sustainability within the penal estate.Legitimacy is often at the core of non-compliance among manyprisoners, and this project attempts to ensure that actions byprison staff are fair, just and able to be reciprocated. AgainTyler (2006:313) adds to this by suggesting that;

Experiencing procedural justice, either in particularpersonal experience or in the everyday functioning of thelaw, is important because it encourages feelings ofresponsibility and obligation to follow the law—i.e., itincreases the legitimacy of the law and the legal system.

Hence, procedural justice suggests that possibility of alegal system based more heavily upon voluntary cooperation—ofprocess- based regulation (Tyler & Huo, 2002; Tyler &Sunshine, 2003a).

Sustainable PrisonsThis title could lead to wrong impressions. We do not advocate formore prisons or to make prisons a sustainable item within thediscourse around punishment. For us, sustainable prisons are thosewho reduce their carbon footprint, sustain quality restorative andhealing programs as well as teach and practice ecologicalsustainability. Such projects are usually found as an enclavewithin a larger prison or within work camps and other low securitysetting. There are no recorded fully sustainable prison or penalestates that combine sustainability with harm reduction andrestorative justice practice and philosophy. To the authors, thesego hand in hand, for sustaining harmony and peaceful communityliving is the opposite of crime and fractured relationships.Reducing carbon footprints is taking responsibility for theenvironment, one’s family and the community, its enhancingawareness and concern for others, and leads to reflection on theself and the impact on others. It moves beyond the here and now,and hopes for a safer and secure environment not just within thepresent but for the future. Thus it adds to Braithwaite’sstandards.Sustainable Prison projects (SPP) exist for small groups ofprisoners in very few jurisdictions. The most famous of these is ata work camp at Cedar Creek, a Washington state’s Department ofCorrections and The Evergreen State College. Nearly 60 inmates liveand work in the low security work camp, set inside of the CapitolState Forest. They hold a variety of jobs on the Sustainability inPrison’s project. The state’s Deputy Director of Prisons, DanPacholke4 says that any prison system will tell you that idleness isa bad thing. If we don't have stuff for them to do, then we're justgoing to hire more security staff….It's environmental economics,we're expensive places to operate. I could sell the [project] oncost containment alone: solid waste, energy, food costs." At CedarCreek, inmates composted material, looked after bees, collectedrainwater and began a scientific research project on endangered

4 http://blogs.evergreen.edu/sustainableprisons/files/2013/01/SPP-EssentialComponents-1-10-13.pdf

species, raising the Oregon Spotted Frog.

The current project will see sustainable and restorativeenvironments established as research and development projectswithin the State’s largest prison, Acacia; as well as arehabilitation and pre-release centre, Wandoo, and their ancillarytransport systems. Recently two government prisons have come on-board with the project to varying degrees.

To begin the task of implementing the project, the authors atCurtin University began to develop a team of academics,practitioners and researchers across criminology, psychology,management, sustainability and environmental studies. It also hasDirectors and/or Superintendents of Prisons, sustainable projectsmanagement and others people interested in the project includingvictims of crime, restorative justice advocates and prisoners-as-researchers and practitioners.

Sustainability of programs and environmentUnderpinning the project’s sustainability credentials is carbonreduction, ensuring the right choices to reduce further harm andthe building of quality relationships with others as a part of theplanet’s pathway for the common good of all species. Together thesevalues place the emphasis on personal responsibility for self,others and living environments. The project is at the initialstages of gathering baseline date, examining the localised‘footprint’ and ‘social’ audit at; Acacia Prison Wandoo pre-release Serco Transport and office, Canningvale. It is also in negotiations with two Government controlled lowsecurity facilities, one male and one female.

The early part of the research is to establish the basic level ofenergy and water use, and projected savings that could come about.It will assess the degree of awareness and understanding ofsustainable and restorative solutions among all stakeholdersthroughout Serco and government networks. It seeks to begin withSerco-AP’s work, government and associated NGO’s such as Outcareand Mission Australia, Sycamore Tree, Angelhands, and localcommunity organisations that interconnect with custodial andtransport services. The project’s first major task was to bring

Serco’s interested parties and others, including governmentfacility leaders, together with other key people to Curtin for asymposium on ‘Restorative & Sustainable environments in custodialsettings. Invited guests covered the following topics that relatedto;

Sustaining;

Health and Well-being, including mental health and stress Quality and safe work and living spaces Quality water supplies (renewable and reusable – fresh / grey, tanks, ponds) Energy from various sources, including new research for paintedroof tech. Industries, low and renewable energy, Food production, including cottage industry style (bee keeping,jam and pickle making) Cultural and traditional language and activities through all media / arts Rehabilitative activities including RJ, Restore, STP and othersincluding family support Support to Victims of crime and their groups Designing sustainable prisons through collectives of science and technology Quality social practices throughout the estate that are restorative A culture of support within and outside of the prison. Innovation and creativity Low carbon footprint surveillance technologies and systems

Developing and designing

New technologies, theories and practices to meet thesustainable and restorative needs of the estate / future proofing

Educating, awareness raising and Skilling

Residents Staff and Management Other visitors

Furthermore, the project now requires the establishment of a teamto have oversight of the estate that takes account of the above as

well as assist with collecting information on how to make theproject work. It includes senior people across Curtin Universityand prisons, as well as residents. For residents at each site, theaim is for them to be involved in researching and gaining a broadknowledge base of ideas suitable for their current circumstance aswell as for their own family and community upon release. Those withaccess to the community via day-release (Section 95), may be ableto assist in estimating the carbon footprint at other sites andoffices as a part of skill development, especially the young menable to be mentored within the team. We use the following chart toindicate some of the desired outcomes of the project.

Restorative Justice / people

Species and protection

Planet / Built environment

Cultural sustainability

Site audit for flora/ fauna / insects etc

Carbon footprint / audit

Health and well-being programs

Zoological connections

Water; use; waste; drain; dam;

Sycamore sustainability

Endangered species support

Solar; energy, use, off and on site

Family encounters and conferences

Local dog and cat pound support

Wind; future proofing site

International Template Dog training Electric vehicles on site

Staff training Worm farming Solar energy roof paint (trial)

Resident’s training aspeers and facilitators

River re-stocking Biophillic designs

Biophillia; development of philosophy

Seed farm Water taps

Repay to victim’s funds

Trees as plant food (koala, zoo, )

Lights; LED, 12v, autoswitched

Victim empathy and support training

Food travel / costsper kilometre

Light wells and fibre-optic light diverters

Safe Workspace and site

Food security Recycling plant / waste collection

RJ Training (staff/residents/others)

Food production / eggs / veggies / other

Transport design for reduced carbon fleet

Section 95 work Eucalypt oil Water tanksFootpaths and bush-trail rejuvenation

Aquaculture Solar pumps

Charity home (funds Infra-red & night

for victims) vision security devices

Multi faith encountersForensic cleaning of truck pods

Production and use of the template.

All data collected will filter into the database that measureschange and trends in all of the above areas, so as to be ofparticular use to other jurisdictions about to embark on similarprojects. The data will feed from both quantitative and qualitativemeasures, accessible through the original template outline. Asother jurisdictions begin to access the template and produce theirown data, this will establish cultural differences and nationaltrends across borders and help to inform others about to embark ontheir own project. In this way, prison authorities are able to notecultural differences and change as well as transformation within alocation and in other jurisdictions.

In the British Home Office’s report, Respect and Responsibility (Home Office, 2003: 6), the government of the day argued for:

the need for a cultural shift . . . to a society where werespect each other, our property and our shared public spaces .. . that the rights we all enjoy are based in turn on therespect and responsibilities we have to other people and to ourcommunity.

The project is not about further colonization of systems orjurisdictions but to express in a cohesive manner, its progress andfindings, the recorded benefits and challenges that may assistothers. Furthermore, the team recognizes that Braithwaite (2002)points to the UN Declaration (1985) as adopted by the GeneralAssembly in 1985 which covers many aspects of restoration. It washere that the Working Party on Restorative Justice adopted theMarshall (1996) definition of restorative justice:

Restorative justice is a process whereby all the parties witha stake in a particular offence come together to resolvecollectively how to deal with the aftermath of the offenceand its implications for the future.

China, India and their restorative and sustainable practices.

According to Steels & Goulding (2012), an examination of pastpractices from around the world clearly shows that ‘both violenceand peacemaking have shaped the overall human experience. In short,human beings are often, at one time or another, both conquered andconquerors’. They add that this binary state of peace and violenceis the ‘starting point for many nations and communities as they tryto live in global peace and harmony….This is a balance not alwayspeacefully achieved’. Furthermore, as the project develops, notionsof reparation and healing of the environment as well as the harmdone to others, takes shape through the broadening of restorativenotions and peace-making principles that address the totality ofhuman activity, relationships and interconnectedness. It is herethat the authors bring into focus a glimpse across borders andnational concerns, and link both RJ and sustainability to China andIndia.

It has been noted previously (Steels & Goulding 2013) that the AsiaPacific regions hold the world’s largest populations, namely China(1.3 billion) and India (1.1 billion), along with Pakistan andIndonesia. The regions are seen as encompassing many diversecultures and belief systems in a matrix of relationships; fromBuddhism with its Four Noble truths, the respectful Shinto temples,the simplicity and complexity of Zen, through to the mystics ofIndia and the Teaching of the Gita. There are also the teachings ofthe Quran among the world’s most populated Muslim country and thewords of the Old and New Testaments of Christianity as well as theteachings of the Torah.

Furthermore the authors note that the regions also include ancientConfucianism with its philosophy of restoring harmony together withTaoism and the need for balance. All of these belief systems existwithin nation states that according to (Steels and Goulding 2013:xxx) can ‘Display the politics of nationalism, communism,capitalism, juntas, democratic governments and dictatorships’.Within such diversity, the authors argue that it is still possibleto find common ground around both restorative justice as well assustainability. For example, the global ability to help others intimes of anguish and disaster that often crosses nationalboundaries and the protocols that relate to a global reduction ongreenhouse gases and global warming. Trying to keep a balancebetween yin and yang in the maintenance of harmony impacts upon the

young as well as the elderly and knows no limits. Bloodlines canstretch far across land and seas and it is these interconnectionsthat highlight the many ancient traditions working together withthe modern practices and ambitions of this research. They bringinto the 21st Century the Asian Pacific practices of harmony andpeace with the self, among others, within local villages, smallcommunities and peaceful co-existence between nations. 

Restorative Justice has been playing a role in one form or anotherin China, but has now developed along with the emergence ofprinciples and standards, especially as the process within somejurisdictions has moved into schools, nursing homes, prisons,rehabilitation centres and other institutions (Braithwaite 2002;Bazemore & Schiff, 2005; Maxwell, 2007; Newell, 2007; van Ness,2003; Zehr, 1990; 2002). A note of caution is registered here byChapman ( xxxx) who maintains that ‘Braithwaite (2002) is concernedthat the move towards standardization represents the tendency ofthe state to maintain control over a process that is meant totransfer power to citizens. This echoes Habermas’s (1984) concernsover the colonisation of the ‘lifeworld’ by the state and marketsystems’. The authors suggest that these concerns are real andevident, however as practices are established among villages andlocal communities, the hand of the state will be more of supportand less of control, with a balance to ensure fairness and justoutcomes are not motivated by fear but a willingness to engagefreely.

Responsibility taking has also moved from purely crime focus amongindividuals to include a focus on the nation’s responsibility toits people, including environmental concerns that impact on qualityof life throughout the jurisdiction. Harm is being re-definedacross borders as nations begin to cooperate to reduce harm amongpeople, species and the planet. Furthermore, the authors contestthat victim driven policies are fast becoming commonplace whererestitution and reparation are expressed in terms es concerns forvictims and the communities harmed by crime (Harris, 2008;Johnstone & van Ness, 2007; Van Wormer, 2008). Though RJ practicesare among new initiatives for dealing with various types ofoffending in many countries, there has been relatively littledocumentation and evaluation of the actual use of RJ practices inmainland China.

Throughout the Greater Chinese region, mediation (tiaojie) has beenpracticed as a central tenet in social control and has beenreferred to similar in outcome and process to some restorativejustice practices. However, RJ (hufuxing xifa) is noted as more ofa western approach; distinct to a more traditional Chinese form ofcontrol (Leng, 2011; Li, 2010). Restorative practices are noted byMok and Wong 2013 as replacing traditional mediation in some areasof China (Zhang, 2013; Wong & Lo, 2011).

Again, according to Wong and Mok (2010) the term “restorativejustice”, (hufuxing xifa) often used throughout mainland China,has attracted scholarly attention since 2000 (Wong & Mok, 2010).However, the discourse has not readily included RestorativePractice among adult offenders, victim participation regardless ofthe seriousness, and finally, the topic of restorative practiceswithin a penal institution. Furthermore, linking harm to self,others, communities and the planet, takes a bold step as it entersinto the criminological literature today as we examine acrossborders on how best to transform individuals from convicted personsinto people who comply with the social and legal demandssurrounding them as citizens.

The discussion is now focused on how the people of China and India(and indeed Australia) can take some control over their localenvironments whilst power remains invested in the state, and wherethe already established legalization is in place and yet not alwaysadhered to by legislators and developers alike. Pranis (2010:4)suggests that when a community can ‘draw on and trust its own innerresources to discover the validity of a new paradigm, the communityis liberated from bondage from old embedded, fixated ways of beingin the world’. It becomes clear that regardless of local policiesand the political ambitions of a few, the community is then,according to Pranis (ibid), ‘…able to embrace the creativity ofchaos, the possibility of dreams’. People are then ‘empowered toimagine new ways of being, to problem solve on a deep level’(ibid). Meanwhile, from New Zealand, Judge McElrae (2010:3) giveshope for the region as he suggests that the criminal justice systemwill be able to ‘…deliver justice for all, not just for defendants,and that the courts will be left to get on with the job of judgingaccording to the law and applying principles of respect andcompassion for all’. Further he claims that (2010:2)

…restorative justice offers a quite different view ofvictims’ interests, one that is not necessarily opposed tothat of offenders – and can produce “win-win” outcomes.  Theyare actually what is aimed at every time.  If the Courtscould more consistently show that victims’ interests can becatered for in meaningful ways (not token ways like victimimpact statements), and that their needs are better addressedin this way, much of the pressure for tougher sentences wouldfall away.

Again we note that throughout the region, informal as well asformal ways of dealing with wrongdoing are used. In Japan, werecall the practice of Ji-dan that has a long tradition of use asa means of conflict resolution. In contemporary Japan Ji-danremains useful as a process of negotiation between family membersas a way to resolve a dispute between two parties. It may mean thatno direct face to face meetings will occur, but that family ortrusted others will negotiate for a fair and just outcome, one thatwill save face and restore harmonious relationships. However, it ispertinent to note that Japanese social organization and culturalpractices are central to the success of Ji-dan. As Komiya(2011:132/133) points out.

As Japanese have obtained a sense of security by integrating themselves with groups, they had no choice but to strictly adhere to countless rules for group cohesiveness. In this process, the Japanese have become a patient and orderly people,and have successfully elevated their level of self-control.

Certainly, it is the authors’ contention that such elevated levelsof self-control as seen in Japan are not apparent withincontemporary Australian society where individual rights continue tosubsume notions of the common good as a societal and cultural norm.However, we note Kittayarak’s (2005) concerns that we ‘…have to bemindful that restorative justice is an evolving concept and thereis no definite formula of success….Each country has to find its ownrecipe which properly balances the conventional role of criminaljustice with this new concept so as to be able to come up with abetter way to ensure justice to all’. The same can be applied tosustainable practices emerging alongside RJ within the notion ofreducing harm. Furthermore, we note that as Kittayarak’s wordsshow, the future for restorative practices in the region is onlygoing to be as good as services allow it to be. There will alwaysbe a need for policing and court services, with a separation of the

legislators and judiciary, quality prosecution and exemplarilylawyers, and we are all aware of the question mark hanging overmuch of current practice throughout the region. We are also awarethat in some instances, long court lists, delays in claims forreparation, and the marginalization from justice for those withless power to bring about a claim, ensure that many people today donot experience fair treatment. There is however the knowledge thattransformation is occurring, mostly due to the call for change fromthe grass roots where climate change and crime require to be dealtwith at local levels where solutions can inspire personal andcommunity transformation, reduce harm among families as well ascommunities and across borders.

The changes are being driven by local people immersed in theaftermath of crime, policy makers and politicians signing up tointernational agreements, and neighbouring states showing thatrestorative practices can reduce the strain on the courts whilstoffering procedures that are experienced as being fair, timely andhealing. For the largest of the nations in the area, India andChina, restorative justice offers a very important opportunity toinvest in procedural fairness with outcomes that are socially just.It is within the vast bureaucracies of India and China that we cansee glimmers of hope, as current situations are no longer tolerablefor both the leadership or for the local people. And as Van Wormer(2008) points out, the traditional Chinese emphasis is on;

harmony between persons and on the unity of humanity withnature. Influenced by Confucian communitarian ideology, theChinese criminal justice system relies on grassrootscommittees to provide social control and to resolveconflict. (2008:3)

Returning to community solutions that each village and smallcommunity can participate in, means empowerment and working for thecommon good. Tempered with social justice, community education andan awareness of its benefits, local communities can use restorativejustice practices to heal many conflicts including the aftermath ofcrime. In turn this can lead to a sense of purpose for those peopledealing with conflicts in this manner, and seeking out solutionsthat assist in reducing crime and anti-social behaviours. Beingvalued by leadership and having leadership value its citizens willbring about the transformation of the region, for as Tyler(1996:10) maintains;

People value affirmation of their status by legalauthorities as competent, equal citizens and humanbeings, and they regard procedures as unfair if they arenot consistent with that affirmation. To understand theeffects of dignity, it is important to recognise thatgovernment has an important role in defining people’sview about their value in society. Such a self-evaluation shapes one’s feelings of security and self-respect.

The authors note that Tyler’s word could relate to sustainablepractices as much as restorative solutions, and give hope to theidea that collectively we can throughout the region lead the worldin embracing restorative solutions to relationships between peopleas well as abuse to the environment, other species, communities andplanet.

Concluding commentsAs so it is that we return to the idea of the template, a tool thatis helpful to others without suggesting sameness acrossjurisdictions. It suggests cultural variations and compliance tolocal and national, with respect to differences. In its early formit is designed to be a tool of first resort, a guide to culturalshift from punitive to restorative values, and from a consumerdriven prospective to an environmentally sustainable model.Throughout the template reference will be made to the unintendedconsequences and to risk management flexibility and innovativesecurity measures that ensure compliance whilst encouraging freedomof choice. Within the notion of resident as a person who is workingtowards being a free citizen upon release, the template willaddress local measures and positive processes to enhance such apathway. It will also note the contested spaces between staff,management and government oversight with differing values ontreatment, rehabilitation, workplace training, research and safety.Finally it will address areas that touch on the social,environmental and economic benefits and costs of a restorative andsustainable estate.

References.

British Home Office (2003) Respect and Responsibility. Home Office Press. UK.

Braithwaite, J., (2002) ‘Setting Standards for Restorative Justice’,in The British Journal of Criminology. 42, 563-577. London: Centrefor Crime and Justice Studies

Chapman. T., (XXXX) That’s how the light gets in: Facilitating Restorative Conferences, University of Ulster.

Farrall, S. (1995) ‘Why do people stop offending?’ in Scottish Journal of Criminal Justice Studies, Vol 1.

Kittayarak. K., (2005 unpub) Restorative Justice in Thailand, 11th UN Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. Bangkok.

Komiya, N., (2011) ‘Community Safety Maps for Children in Japan: AnAnalysis from a Situational Crime Prevention Perspective’, in AsianJournal of Criminology, Special Issue: Public Participation in theCriminal Justice System in Asia, Vol 6, No 2, Dec 2011.

McNally. Rt. Hon. Lord. Minister of State for Justice (2012) All-Party Parliamentary Penal Affairs Group AGM https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/speech-to-the-all-party-parliamentary-penal-affairs-group-agm

Maruna, S., and Immarigeon, R., (2004) After Crime and Punishment: Pathways to Offender Reintegration. Willan. Devon UK.

International Centre for Prison Studies (2013) Prison Population Rates. http://www.prisonstudies.org/info/worldbrief/wpb_stats.php?area=all&category=wb_poprate

Pranis, K., (2007) ‘Restorative Values’, in Handbook ofRestorative Justice, (eds) G Johnstone and D Van Ness. London:Willan Publishing.

Pranis, K., (2010) Restorative Justice in Minnesota and the USA:Development and Current Practice. In 123rd International Senior

Seminar Visiting Experts Papers. No 63 pdf. Retrieved July 30th

2010 www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/RS_No63/No63_17VE_Pranis1.pdf

Steels, B., & Goulding, D., (2009) ‘When it’s a Question of Social Health and Wellbeing, Prison is Not the Answer’, in Indigenous Law Bulletin.

Steels, B., & Goulding, D., (November 2012) Invited submission of conference paper (Asian Criminological Society Conference, Taipei, December 2011): ‘Restorative Justice: Acting Fairly, Being Just’, in Asian Handbook of Criminology, Springer.

Steels, B., (2007) ‘Imprisonment of the Many: Capacity building or community demolition?’ in Ngoonjook Vol 32, Journal of the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education.

Steels, B., Goulding, D., and Abbot, K., (Aug 2013 in print) Restorative Justice in Asia: From the Margins and Corners to Commonplace. In Monographs of 4th Asian Criminological Conference, Commemorative Edition. Korean Institute of Criminology, Seoul.

Tavuchis (1991) Mea Culpa: A Sociology Of Apology And Restoration

Tyler, T., (1996) The Psychological Consequences of Judicial Procedures: Implications for Civil Commitment Hearings, in Wexler and Winick (eds.), Law in a Therapeutic Key: Developments in Therapeutic Jurisprudence Carolina Academic Press, 1996. 3, 10-11.

Tyler, T., (2006) Restorative Justice and Procedural Justice: Dealing with Rule Breaking inJournal of Social Issues, Vol. 62, No. 2, 2006, pp. 307--326

Van Wormer, K., (2008) (Ed) Restorative Justice Across the East andWest, Casa Verde Publishing, Taiwan.