lbb

Hi Graham,

I have heard of victim restitution, and I believe it is at least theoretically available as part of a judgment in US courts, but I can't think of an actual case where I've seen it practiced...which is a shame. I suspect the reason why it isn't practiced more is because it's messy, it's not simple, so it doesn't appeal to a bureaucracy that is just trying to get things to move along. And, to get more fuzzy about it, because it is a practice that (even in its most bureaucratized form) is done in the spirit of openness that you talk about above, it is vulnerable. People become vulnerable when they practice it, both those making restitution who must truly admit their fault, and those accepting restitution who must let go of their grudge. And the practice itself is vulnerable to attack because it is messy and the accounting is never perfect. People will always attack it, saying that the restitution does not fully measure up to the harm.

But a perfect accounting is never possible. In Rwanda, following the genocide of 1994, the new government was faced with a seemingly impossible task: hundreds of thousands of prisoners who had committed horrible crimes, and a court system that was more than decimated, as so many judges had been murdered in the genocide. Trying all these criminals by the conventional means was clearly impossible. Rather than attempt it, the Rwandan government instituted the gacaca court, a community-based system of public trials in which the victims or their survivors confront the accused, members of the community speak for or against the defendant, and a judgment is reached by a panel of judges who are also community members. The gacaca court can sentence defendants to prison terms, but also can sentence them to community service ("work in the general interest" it's called) and can fine them for restitution.

The ins and outs of the gacaca system aren't the point I'm trying to make, though -- the point is that it isn't perfect. It tries to strike a balance between making things right for the victim, helping a community that was harmed, and when necessary, removing a dangerous person from the community. It does what it can in all these areas. It does not pretend to be perfect justice. But it accomplishes more than an insistence on a perfect solution would. It accomplishes far more than would be accomplished if everyone concerned insisted on older-style formal trials.

I'm not proposing a gacaca court for the Aikido community. I'm using the gacaca court as an example of finding a third way. The more I think about George's story, the more "third ways" occur to me: none of them perfect, none of them comprehensive. But they're also mostly not mutually exclusive. If you claim that your solution offers Justice-with-a-capital-J, then it has to be the end of things: once your solution has been implemented, no further attempts at justice can be made, and if your justice turns out to not be perfect (shh, not supposed to say that), then nobody can do anything to fix the harm that is left. But if you claim instead that your partial solution is just one of many, then it can be useful. In this case, for example, you've got an injured person. We tend to focus first and foremost on the person who did the harm, and to put all the responsibility on them -- and ideally that's where the restitution would come from. But in the meanwhile...you've got an injured person. What can others in the community do to help her? How can they make it possible for her to continue training? What can they offer in the way of patience, guidance, willingness to practice, encouragement? Is there a medical professional or bodyworker in the dojo community that can help? What can the community do so that she doesn't have to go through this alone?