Showing posts with label justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label justice. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 3, 2018

Who's Watching The Watchers?

A new study, conducted out of the University of Denver, reveals that despite open records laws on the book and a state supreme court mandate for records custodians to release public records related to police misconduct, Colorado police remain extremely opaque in their internal affairs investigations. The police investigate themselves and find themselves innocent of wrongdoing. We all know that from experience; that’s why it’s cliche, but now we can put some hard data to it.

The researchers in this case used the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act to request the internal affairs logs of the forty-three largest law enforcement agencies within the state from the years 2015 and 2016. The jurisdiction of these forty-three agencies cover eighty percent of Colorado’s population; thus, they are critical to any measure of government transparency (Dupey, Kwoka, and Mcmichael, 2018). Of the forty-three agencies that received CCJA requests for any lists, logs, summaries, or synopses of internal affairs investigations, twenty-four either did not respond or rejected the request outright without explanation (Dupey, Kwoka, and Mcmichael, 2018). Law enforcement agencies were given thirty days respond to the request and multiple attempts were made to contact their records custodians (Dupey, Kwoka, and Mcmichael, 2018). Out of the remaining respondents, the law school researchers requested specific internal affairs files, categorizing them by the type of incident, the outcome of the investigation, the party making the claim against law enforcement and media coverage of the incident which would indicate public interest (Dupey, Kwoka, and Mcmichael, 2018). They requested the internal affairs files of investigations into both alleged policy violations and criminal complaints and noted whether the allegations were considered unfounded or sustained, hypothesizing that police agencies would be more willing to release the files of internal affairs investigations that concluded that the complaints were unfounded.

In the second wave of CCJA requests, researchers requested sixty-one specific internal affairs files from the law enforcement agencies that responded to the first wave of requests. Six of the sixty-one specific internal affairs files concerned police misconduct that garnered significant media coverage, resulted in ‘unfounded’ allegations, but nonetheless lead to a large settlement with the alleged victim. The results were even more dismal than the first wave of requests. Seven agencies failed to respond even after multiple attempts were made to follow up with them (Dupey, Kwoka, and Mcmichael, 2018). Another seven agencies denied the requests outright without providing a sufficient explanation (Dupey, Kwoka, and Mcmichael, 2018). One agency sent a duplicate summary of internal affairs files and two agencies demanded thousands of dollars in fees to fulfill the requests (Dupey, Kwoka, and Mcmichael, 2018). Not one complete internal affairs file was obtained in the process (Dupey, Kwoka, and Mcmichael, 2018).

Most law enforcement agencies denied access to internal affairs files in violation of the Colorado supreme court decision in Harris v. Denver Post Corp, which requires records custodians to determine the release of files on a case by case basis, using what is referred to as a balancing test that weighs five factors to determine release or withholding of files. Records custodians must consider the privacy of the individuals who would be affected by the release of certain files, the agency’s interest in retaining confidential information, the agency’s interest in not compromising ongoing investigations, and the public purpose of releasing the files.

In making this statutory determination, the custodian takes into account and balances the pertinent factors, which include the privacy interests of individuals who may be impacted by a decision to allow inspection; the agency's interest in keeping confidential information confidential; the agency's interest in pursuing ongoing investigations without compromising them; the public purpose to be served in allowing inspection; and any other pertinent consideration relevant to the circumstances of the particular request.

- Harris v. Denver Post Corp, 2005

As the study relates, the seven agencies that outright denied their requests used similar vague statements and without citing the specific source for their statements (Dupey, Kwoka, and Mcmichael, 2018). Researchers recommend an amendment to the current Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act that requires law enforcement records custodians to publicly release complete internal affairs investigation files upon request with some redactions. Like all well meaning police reformists, they seem to be operating under the false presumption that the police are here to ‘protect and serve’ them.


Dupey, B., Kwoka, M. B., & Mcmichael, C. (2018). Access Denied: Colorado Law Enforcement Refuses Public Access to Records of Police Misconduct. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3136011

Harris v. Denver Post Corp (November 15, 2005).

Tuesday, March 20, 2018

Florida Police Now Confiscating Guns From People With No Due Process

Source: Studio News Network

A 56-year-old Lighthouse Point man in Boward County, Florida had all four of his pistols taken away under Florida’s new red flag law. The man did not commit a crime and he was not involuntarily hospitalized and given a psychological evaluation, as required by the baker act. The authorities simply deemed him psychologically unfit based on a few strange behaviors and subsequently confiscated his weapons. A similar fate befell a man in Seattle, Washington, who had his guns temporarily confiscated for staring out a shop window while open carrying. Both men must now prove that they are ‘psychologically fit’ to get their guns back. These pre-crime red flag laws aren’t any different from civil forfeiture where the police can take your property without providing evidence that you committed a crime and the IRS can wipe your bank account for making frequent deposits slightly below $10,000. Yes, the same pre-crime laws that allow police to rob small business owners who run legal establishments, allows them to disarm innocent people and leave them defenseless. These laws are also reminiscent of a not too distant past when states forcible sterilized certain people under the guidance of eugenics theories on the presumption that they were degenerate: genetically prone to crime and poverty. These laws no less promote deep seeded societal prejudices against the mentally ill, and gives credence to the false notion that they are inherently violent. If the thinking behind these laws were taken to its logical conclusion there would be no reason not to eliminate the presumption of innocence across the board. Why not throw people in prison without a trial based on their supposed ‘risk’ to society? Such thinking would logically lead us to a totalitarian state not much different from Trump’s communist friends across the Pacific. Of course gun control advocates don’t think logically. It is more profitable for them to use cheap appeals to emotion and scare tactics.

Friday, March 9, 2018

NYPD Gang Lets Criminal Cops Keep Their Jobs

Sources: Secret NYPD Files: Officers Can Lie And Brutally Beat People — And Still Keep Their Jobs, WYNC News,

And keeps it a secret from the public.

From 2011 until 2015, at least 319 NYPD employees committed criminal offenses, but were allowed to keep their jobs. At least 50 employees lied on official reports, under oath, and in internal affairs investigations. 57 employees were found guilty of driving under the influence. 38 officers were found guilty of using excessive force and instigating fights by a police tribunal. 71 officers were caught ticket fixing. At least 3 officers were found guilty of sexual harassment, one of whom solicited sex from a minor. One officer sold prescription drugs to another undercover officer, and another officer threatened to kill someone. The police commissioner gave all of them a year of dismissal probation, which amounts to a slap on the wrist. They were allowed to keep their job and salary; the only difference is that they got less overtime and weren't eligible for promotion during the one year of probation. What’s more disturbing is that the public isn’t allowed to know about their misconduct. New York is one of fifteen states where officers’ disciplinary history and personnel files are confidential and can only be released by court order, so the public is kept in the dark about crooked cops. This information only came to light when an anonymous source within the department leaked it to Buzzfeed.

There is also no proportionality in the manner in which this penalty is applied. Officers that commit minor infractions, which are not necessarily criminal in nature receive the same punishment as those who commit criminal offenses. According to the NYPD, 777 officers in total were given dismissal probation over the same five year period, some of whom were punished arbitrarily for complaining about other officers’ misconduct or not going along with their department’s politics. Not surprisingly, the union that represents these thugs didn’t want to talk about anything negative. The deputy commissioner of the Advocate’s Office also had little to offer in the way of a justification since state law prohibits him from talking about specific disciplinary trials.

Monday, February 19, 2018

In 34 States, Police Can Legally Rape People They Detain

Sources: Big Think, Associated Press, New York Daily News

Currently 34 states, including my own, do not prohibit police officers from making sexual contact with the people they detain as long as they claim that consent was given. I don’t think I need to point out how this is completely inappropriate on the job even when consent is given; it should be a no brainer even for pro-cop simps. However, the coercive relationship between an officer and a detained citizen makes consensual sex all but impossible. To put this in perspective, imagine a scenario in which a young girl is caught with pot or some other illicit substance on her person. The officer, who is a straight male in this example, tells her that she can avoid arrest by giving him head. If she were to comply with his request, it wouldn’t be consensual by any known legal standard. Similar propositions are illegal in every other profession, but somehow the one profession that uses state sanctioned violence gets a free pass. Since 2006, at least 26 officers have been acquitted of sexual assault and rape charges by arguing that the detained person consented in their defense. To boot, sexual assault is one of the most reported forms of police misconduct second only to use of excessive force. From 2009 until 2014, approximately 550 officers lost their jobs for sexual assault and rape charges, and an additional 440 for possession of child porn and soliciting sex from minors. The example I gave earlier is not too far off from the real story of Anna Chambers, who was raped in the back of a police van by two plainclothes NYPD detectives. It began when the detectives caught her and 2 male friends smoking pot. They let her two friends go, but she was handcuffed and placed in the back of the van, which means sex was their motive all along, not some heroic stand against the reefer madness. It will be interesting to see how quickly state legislatures across the country follow suit and close this loophole out of sheer embarrassment to the rest of the civilized world.

Monday, February 12, 2018

A Few Bad Apples Spoil The Whole Bunch

Source: Baltimore Gun Trace Task Force trial: These 12 additional police officers have been accused of wrongdoing

Gondo testified that he stole for years and lied about it, and said he never worried about internal affairs.“It was just part of the culture,” Gondo testified. “I wasn’t getting complaints; I wasn’t putting my hands on people.”

As testimony against two Baltimore police officers, indicted on federal racketeering charges, wrapped up last week, we learned that corruption within the Baltimore County Police Department wasn’t limited to the 8 members of the Gun Trace Task Force. It should go without saying that these 8 officers could not have carried out their decade long crime spree without the complicity or assistance of their supervisors and cohorts. As early as day 2 of the trial it was admitted that Lt. Ian Dombroski, who is the head of internal affairs, credited GTTF officers for 8 hours of overtime that they didn’t have to work if they recovered guns. In another instance, Momodu Gondo, a convicted member of GTTF, testified that retired deputy commissioner Dean Palmere coached two officers on what to say after they fatally shot a man sitting in his vehicle in an alley. The six convicted officers and one bail bondsman, who provided witness testimony in this case, have indicated that at least 12 other officers were complicit in covering up their crimes or alerting them to a federal investigation. Some of these officers, like former homicide detective Sean Suiter, are dead; some, like Michael Sylvester, have since left the force, and others are still around. Convicted bail bondsman Donald Stepp testified that Sgt. Thomas Wilson III provided him security when he met with a New York drug supplier at a strip club. In 2013, Wilson was charged with perjury for lying on a search warrant affidavit, although he was later acquitted. Another shocking instance of complicity is that of Sgt. Ryan Guinn, who took part in a 2010 incident where GTTF allegedly planted drugs on a man who later fled and died during a police pursuit. Sgt. Ryan Guinn is one of three former members of GTTF who has not been charged. There were still other officers who were not members of GTTF but took part in stealing cash from suspects. Officers Michael Woodlon, Jason Giordano, Sean Suiter, Tariq Edwards, and Kenneth Ivery alleged took stolen cash. Other officers named as accomplices to the crime spree include officials that had tipped off GTTF members to an ongoing federal investigation. This includes officer Sherrod Biggers and an unnamed prosecutor.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Leo Wise said in federal court in March, just after the GTTF officers were indicted, that a Baltimore assistant state's attorney had tipped the officers off to the federal investigation before it was concluded.Jenkins’ plea agreement last month reiterated the claim, saying the attorney had tipped Jenkins off. The attorney has not been identified by federal prosecutors.

Hopefully, as more evidence comes to light we will go deeper down the rabbit hole of police criminality. So far, we have barley scratched the surface.

Tuesday, February 6, 2018

Police Brutality Cost Pittsburgh Over 11 Million During The Past Decade

Making the case for independent oversight of police (and eventual abolition) one example at a time

Source: Pittsburgh City Paper

In case you haven’t seen it, I wrote a similar article last year about the civil settlement costs for Baltimore taxpayers over a five year period. You can find it here.

Since 2008, excessive force, police misconduct and false imprisonment has cost Pittsburgh taxpayers $11, 281,178 in civil settlements. The largest settlement to date, which cost the city $5.5 million, resulted from an officer shooting Leon Ford five times during a traffic stop in 2012, paralyzing him. The second largest settlement to date, which cost the city $3.7 million, resulted from the false imprisonment of Thomas Doswell, who was initially convicted of rape in 1986 but exonerated with DNA evidence in 2005. The city has paid a total of 43 civil settlements over the past decade, most of which were much smaller than the two aforementioned cases, ranging from $1,000 to $250,000. Often the officers that caused the civil damages were allowed to keep their job, like the cop that shot Leon Ford or in the more disturbing case of an off-duty officer assaulting a civilian.

In 2011, the city paid $40,000 to Kaleb Miller following a claim of excessive force against Pittsburgh police officer Paul Abel. In June 2008, Abel allegedly assaulted Miller and shot him in the hand while off duty. Abel’s homeowner’s insurance was supposed to pay out an additional $4,500 as part of the settlement for Miller, but the decision was ultimately overturned and the city ended up picking up the tab for the additional $4,500. Following the incident, Abel was fired, charged criminally, acquitted by a judge and then given his job back by an arbitrator.

It is no secret that police are usually not held personally responsible for their misconduct, but this problem extends to all government officials as well. Unlike the private sector, where individuals and companies bare the cost of their failures and mistakes (unless there is some intervention to save them e.g. a bailout), government officials can always shift the cost of misconduct and failure onto taxpayers in the form of civil suits, settlements and public debt. Personal responsibility is foreign to them. This is why police officers, and really all civil servants, should be required to purchase malpractice insurance as a corrective measure, essentially a band aid policy until such time as alternative institutions can be introduced.

Man Who Raped Young Girl At Church Camp Spared Prison Because He is 'legally blind'


This is the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard. It gives a new meaning to the phrase justice is blind.

Benjamin Lawrence Petty, age 36, rapped a 13 year old girl in June 2016, while working at the Falls Creek church camp in southern Oklahoma.

Court documents state that Petty told the young victim that he wanted to show her a new type of device he brought to the camp when he suddenly pulled her into his cabin.
Petty then "closed the door to his bedroom, tied [the victim's] hands behind her back, pulled down her jeans, pushed her face down on his bed, and violently raped and sodomized her," records show.

Petty pled guilty to charges of forcible sodomy, 1st degree rape, and rape by instrumentation last month; all three resulted in felony convictions. His punishment? Only 15 years of probation, 2 of which he is required to wear an ankle monitor. Apparently, his attorney was able to find some loophole that allows him to avoid prison because he is “legally blind.”

Murray County Assistant District Attorney David Pyle, who negotiated the guilty plea, said that Petty's blindness was a major factor in his decision not to insist on prison time.
"The big thing is Mr. Petty is legally blind and the parents (of the victim) live out of state and this little girl lives out of state and didn't want to make all the travels back and forth," Pyle said. "The plea was negotiated with their permission."

According to Fox News this man has since resigned as DA.

Although I’m not a fan of putting people behind bars I make exceptions for heinous crimes like this. Obviously, Mr. Petty can see well enough to cook and rape a little girl so I fail to see how his so called ‘medical condition’ would make it impossible for him to go to prison. If his blindness is as bad as the moral ineptitude of the prosecutor then maybe they should put him in solitary confinement. You don’t need your sight to rot in solitary confinement.

Wednesday, January 24, 2018

New Jersey Spent $42 Million Protecting Crooked Cops

Source: Asbury Park Press

In aggregate, municipal governments across the state spent a combined $42.7M covering up a range of police misconduct, from wrongful deaths and false arrests as well as use of excessive force and sexual assault, over the past decade. These New Jersey cities used a litany of secret settlements and out of court non-disclosure agreements with the victims to deny wrongdoing and keep their constituents in the dark about the ‘few bad apples’ on the force.

Often these lawsuits are settled before a jury can resolve the critical question of facts – was excessive force used or were the officer's actions justified? After a citizen files a lawsuit, lawyers for both sides and the judge frequently agree that police documents reviewed in the case will be kept secret, preventing public scrutiny of an officer's history.

Over the course of their two year investigation, Asbury Park Press reviewed 30,000 pages of legal and internal affairs documents, that reveal a history of badge abuse and subsequent cover ups that included 19 wrongful deaths, 130 injuries, and 7 sexual misconduct cases. Often, internal affairs didn’t even investigate complaints of police misconduct and abuse. Out of the 64,353 complaints filed since 2011, 37,470 have been thrown out and 7,674 are still pending. When police misconduct does lead to a settlement, the accused officer sometimes remains on the job.

Of the 531 officers named in suits alleging abuses, at least 231 remain on the job after their employer settled with their accusers, a Press review of employment records found. Many others normally retired years after an allegation.

This happened in the case of Sterling Wheaten, who despite costing Atlantic City $4.5M in 5 lawsuit settlements, remains on the force with a chusy annual salary of $108,548.

Still others were allowed to abuse their power for years before finally being brought to justice, such as in the case of Sgt. Philip Seidle.

Neptune Police Sgt. Philip Seidle has an internal affairs record that tops 600 pages and spans two decades, with several complaints known to involve domestic disputes between him and his wife. He was considered enough of a risk to the public that his service weapon was taken from him, but he was later rearmed. He used that gun to fatally shoot his ex-wife in 2015 in the middle of an Asbury Park street, in front of their 7-year-old daughter.

There is also the slightly less disturbing case of Jersey City cop MD Khan, who was arrested for assaulting his brother-in-law in 2016 but only received a 40-day suspension as a result. In the following year he assaulted another innocent man that got caught in a high speed car chase.

The June 4, 2017, chase ended tragically for Miguel Feliz, 28, an innocent victim caught in the mayhem. The father of a 6-year-old was driving home from his Peapod grocery delivery job when the suspect ran Feliz's aging Toyota off the road. The car burst into flames after slamming into a utility pole. With his clothing on fire and choking on the acrid smoke, Feliz needed help from the police. He got Khan. Khan and another officer kicked Feliz as he laid burning on the ground. Feliz was struck in the face, a cellphone video shot by a passerby showed. Months later, both officers were indicted on aggravated assault charges. The officers have pleaded not guilty.

Naturally this is what happens when you allow the police to investigate themselves. Sure, requiring settlements to be publicized might make police misconduct more transparent and requiring police to be licensed might disincent this behavior but It won’t stop the bleeding. Our form of government is supposed to be based on checks and balances of power. Oversight of the police department shouldn’t come from the same police department. This would be akin to the president having his cabinet investigate him during an impeachment trial. Oversight of executive officials should come from an independent elected body that has the power to subpoena the police department, just as it does at the federal level.

Wednesday, January 17, 2018

Washington School District Steals Couple's Home

Source: K5 News

Everett Public School District intends to forcibly take Bruce Gutschmidt and Christine Messer’s home, through eminent domain, in order to build a second school building. Bruce Gutschmidt and Christine Messer have lived on the 1.8 acre property for the past 14 years, and the property has been in Gutschmidt’s family since 1967. It’s fair to say that the property has both a real and sentimental value to Bruce which the school district has failed to take into account. To rub salt in the wound, they have refused to compensate him for its full appraised value or help him with relocation expenses. Unless the couple has relatives and friends in the area, they could very well end up homeless as a result of the school district’s belligerence. The couple has until March 30th to pack up their belongings and move out.

While this eminent domain seizure is for a public use, it violates the just compensation part of the 5th amendment takings clause. Not only are they offering him less than half of his property’s appraised value, they’re also refusing to compensate him for relocation costs. Regardless of how noble their ends are, forcing someone out of their own home, and especially without fair compensation, is always wrong, but that has become the norm in the USSA, where no one has property rights apart from government agencies. The actions of this school district are really no different than the eviction of pygmy clans from the forests of the Congo. Sure, Bruce Gutschmidt and his girlfriend aren’t repressed minorities in a third world country, but the actions are morally equivalent. In both instances, the government claims to use violence for some noble and lofty goals. In the Congo it’s to create national parks to preserve wildlife or the ‘world’s heritage’ as Europeans like to call it. Similarly here, it’s to educate children. In both instances, the government uses these lofty goals to justify violence, but politicians always have ulterior motives, which are impossible to have any certainty of unless you can read minds. That is why actions should be judged by their means, not their ends. The means doesn’t justify the end.

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

Second Pillar of Restorative Justice

The second pillar is victim - perpetrator reconciliation

Reconciliation between the victim and the perpetrator requires an encounter between
the two adversarial parties. The encounter can be a direct meeting between the two
parties (and perhaps other community members) with a mediator or it can occur
indirectly through the exchange of letters, videos, and messages delivered by a third party
There are five elements of victim-perpetrator reconciliation:
  1. Meeting
  2. Narrative
  3. Emotion
  4. Understanding
  5. Agreement


In mediation, conferencing, and circles, the victims meet with their offenders; with
victim-offender impact panels, the meetings are between representative victims and
offenders. If the meeting is done through exchange of letters, tapes, or videos, or if it is
done through indirect communication, the "meeting" will not involve face - to - face
confrontation. Nevertheless, what takes place during any form of the meeting directly
engages the other party, in contrast with court proceedings where at most each party
will only observe the other's statements to the judge or jury.


At the meeting, the parties talk to one another; they tell their stories. In their narrative
they describe what happened to them, how that has affected them, and how they view
the crime and its consequences.


Narrative permits the participants to express and address emotion. Crime can produce
powerful emotional responses that obstruct the more dispassionate pursuit of justice to
which courts aspire. Encounter programs let those emotions be expressed. This can
result in healing for both victims and offenders.


The use of meeting, narrative and emotion leads to understanding. As David Moore has
observed about conferencing, "in this context of shared emotions, victim and offender
achieve a sort of empathy. This may not make the victim feel particularly positive about
the offender but it does make the offender seem more normal, less malevolent."
Likewise, for offenders, hearing the victims' story not only humanizes their victims but
can also change the offenders' attitude about their criminal behavior.


Reaching this understanding establishes a productive foundation for agreeing on what
happens next. Encounter programs seek a resolution that fits the immediate parties
rather than focusing on the precedential importance of the decision for future legal
proceedings. Encounter, therefore, opens up the possibility of designing a uniquely
crafted resolution reflecting the circumstances of the parties. Further, they do this
through a cooperative process rather than an adversarial one, through negotiation that
searches for a convergence of the interests of victim and offender by giving them the
ability to guide the outcome.

Learn more at

Sunday, July 16, 2017

First Pillar of Restorative Justice

The first pillar is 'inclusion of all parties, which have been affected by a crime, to resolve
the crime.'

Inclusion seeks the full participation of all parties affected, and it is accomplished by:
  1. Inviting all interested parties to participate
  2. Expecting the parties to pursue their own interests
  3. Being flexible enough to accept new approaches relevant to the particular situation.

One of the problems that the current criminal justice system suffers is that it excludes
the victim’s legal interest.There are several methods that can be utilized to include the victim in the restorative
justice process.

Keep victims informed about the services and rights they may expect, and the statusof their particular case in the punitive justice process. They should be informed ofvictim compensation, victim services, 
the steps of the criminal prosecution and the victim's rights during the proceedings.

Allow the victim to offer testimony about the physical, mental, emotional, social, and/or
economic harm caused by the crime during the sentencing phase, as well as comment on what sentence the offender should receive.

Give the victim the legal right to pursue restitution during the criminal proceedings.

Allow the victim to consult with the prosecutor and initiate action independent of the prosecutor.

The victim should also be included in other stages of the criminal justice process such
  • Investigation
  • Arraignment through pre-sentencing
  • Plea-bargaining
  • Sentencing
  • Post sentencing

Friday, July 7, 2017

Why Is Our Criminal Justice System Defective?

Our criminal justice system is based on the retributive justice paradigm, which focuses on punishing those who violate the law. However, this paradigm does not address or account for all of the damaged caused by crime. It also does not effectively discourage crime, as is evident by high incarceration rates and recidivism; all of this is exacerbated by the immoral 'war on drugs' and other imaginary crimes. Evidence of its obsolescence is obvious to anyone who isn't willfully ignorant.

U.S. has the highest incarceration rate

and high recidivism

The restorative justice paradigm, by contrast, focuses on repairing the damage caused by crime and accounts for not only the harm inflicted upon the victim, but also the harm inflicted upon the victim's family, other people affected by the crime, and the community as a whole. Unlike retributive justice, restorative justice necessitates redress for victims and amends by offenders. The final goal of restorative justice is the reintegration of the victim and the offender (if he/she committed a non-violent crime) into their community, which would reduce recidivism.

What is restorative justice?

I know I did a story contrasting restorative justice with our current paradigm, retributive justice, but I never really defined what it is besides its ultimate goal. So here is what I consider to be the 5 theses of restorative justice.

5 theses of restorative justice

1. Crime causes harm to people, relationships, and the community. Justice requires repairing that harm.

2. The people most affected by the crime should be allowed to participate in its resolution.

3. By committing the crime, the offender creates an obligation to the victim, the community, and the state.

4. When the offender meets that obligation, they are taking responsibility for their actions, and begin to understand and value their relationship with other people, the community, and the state.

5. The responsibility of the government is to maintain order and peace in the community.

Here is a more in-depth contrast between restorative justice and retributive justice