Should We Seek Healing or Closure?

When someone has been victimized by crime, we often hear people talk about how important a trial and conviction is to provide closure for the victim, or the victim's family if the victim died. This trite word, closure, treats what has happened to the victim as nothing more than a chapter in a book, something isolated that can be moved on from with the simple turn of a page. As in the relationship of a chapter in a book to the book's story, well-meaning people do not mean to imply that the story of harm that the victim experienced is unrelated to the victim's life story; yet, too often we expect victims (or their families) to simply find closure and move on with their lives. 

Closure has a sense of finality to it, as if that chapter is never to be reopened, never to be referenced again as an essential part of the broader story. But that is rarely the case. Crime causes deep and lasting scars on the lives who suffer from it. It is neither isolated in its reach nor final in its conclusion at the conviction of the person who caused the harm. Victims often want to know answers to questions like, "why did the offender target me?", "is the offender sorry for his or her behavior?", "what is the offender doing, besides prison time, to change so nobody else is harmed by him or her again?", and "what is the offender doing, either concretely or symbolically, to repair his or her wrongs?" These and many other questions are often left unanswered by the traditional criminal justice system. In other words, a conviction simply cannot provide closure for victims of crime. Instead, it often feels like an unsatisfactory finality to an adversarial process of "justice."

Restorative justice practices do not discount the necessity of holding an offender judicially responsible for his or her crime, but it also seeks to provide more than closure for the victims of crime. Restorative justice seeks to provide healing by recognizing that crime is first and foremost a violation of relationships and that those violations need healing, not simple closure. Victims deserve to have their questions answered, to participate in defining the obligations the offender has because of his or her crime, and to communicate the outcomes that would help to heal the harms they experienced. 

Crime causes harms, and those harms often result in life-long scars for the victim, the offender, and the communities of support for both the victim and offender. Focusing on healing the harms of crime does not mean that the scars of the harm are removed, but it seeks to repair the harms caused, as much as possible, through giving the victim a voice in the process and empowering him or her to help define what would best lead to healing. Until we begin to embrace a more restorative approach to crime, we will simply be asking victims to find closure, not true healing. 

Definition of "Juvenile" Gets a New Look by the Courts

Who hasn't done something stupid as a child, only to regret it later? I think it's pretty safe to say that nearly everyone has at least one story of a regretful decision born of the immaturity of youth. It's why laws prevent children from voting until they are eighteen, or buying alcohol until they are twenty-one, or renting a car until they are twenty-five. Scientific evidence has proven, over the last several decades, that the adolescent brain is still developing, especially in areas of cognitive reasoning and decision making, until around the age of twenty-five. This scientific evidence is one reason that in 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that mandatory life sentences for juveniles is unconstitutional (Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455). 

Miller is the ruling that Michigan's Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Bill Schuette has ruthlessly fought to avoid applying to Michigan, despite Michigan's clear violation of this retroactive Supreme Court ruling. Even though scientific evidence clearly supports that juveniles are not capable of reasoning out the implications of their criminal thinking like adults can, Schuette wants to keep Michigan's juvenile lifers in prison for life. To date, only about one-third of Michigan's juvenile lifers have been re sentenced. The rest are being dragged through the courts in endless appeals by the State of Michigan who refuses to abide by the Supreme Court's ruling and by developing legal understanding of juvenile brain development. 

Recent court cases have indicated a further development in the application of current understanding of juvenile culpability. If adolescent brains are not fully formed, meaning impaired reasoning and decision making capabilities, until around age twenty-five, why is "juvenile" defined by "under eighteen"? A recent federal appeals court ruling (In re Lambert, 6th Circuit) has opened the door for the possibility of expanding the definition of "juvenile" to include eighteen year olds. While no definitive judgment has yet been made, the Michigan courts are now even considering cases that would expand the application of Miller to eighteen year olds in light of Lambert.
Eventually, perhaps the courts will recognize that even eighteen to twenty-five year olds have diminished reasoning capabilities. This does not mean that they should not be held accountable for their actions--they should. It simply means that as the courts consider other mitigating factors when fashioning appropriate sentences, they will also be required to consider the mitigating factor that children do not have the same reasoning capacity as adults--and that should factor into the determination of how long they should be incarcerated for their crimes.

Shameful Use of Victims for Political Advantage

The recent media circus surrounding Judge Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court highlights two very concerning issues. The first issue involves politicians' use of people's pain for political advantage, and the second involves protecting the Constitutional right to the presumption of innocence.

It is no secret that most politicians will use whatever is politically expedient to get elected, but their use of other people's pain as a point of rhetorical strategy bothers me greatly. During the last election cycle, Michigan politicians used the Flint water crisis to strengthen their image. I heard rhetorical blather such as, "I acted quickly and decisively, and she didn't," or worse yet personal attacks like, "This candidate doesn't care about poisonous water killing our children." Now, the politicians are at it again. This time the victims of Larry Nassar's sexual abuse are being used as pawns in the nasty scramble for political position. Bill Schuette shamelessly parades his prosecution of Nassar as evidence of his nobility--as if that wasn't actually the job he was paid to do. Yet, he conveniently ignores the fact that for years the state and its agents (including Schutte) completely ignored the victims who complained of Nassar's abuse. Lest we forget, Michigan State is a state-funded university, and as an agent of the state, that makes Schutte a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.

Now, in a desperate attempt to stop the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, politicians on one side of the aisle paraded Dr. Blasey-Ford in a shameful circus of political maneuvering. Rather than caring about Ford, the politicians simply used her to their advantage, even stirring up the raw pain of the millions of #MeToo women to leverage public support. Lest I sound unfair, the other side of the aisle was no better. Allegations of sexual assault are serious, and claims ought to be taken seriously if they are reasonably credible. A short delay for a proper investigation should not have had to be forced by the party's own side.

Connected to the political use of people's pain is the deeply concerning erosion of the Constitutional guarantee of due process. It used to be that people were innocent until proven guilty. But our country's shameful history of ignoring sexual assault, sexual harassment, and abuse claims has led to a climate where an accusation is enough to convict someone. Even when accused abusers are found to be innocent, their lives are often ruined and a cloud of suspicion hovers over them for the rest of their lives. With deep insight into human nature, this country's founders ensured the Constitution protected citizens from arbitrary punishment without first being found guilty of a charge. But the founders couldn't have anticipated how cruel the media (and social media) could be, leading those falsely accused to lose their reputation and security.

If politicians really care about the pain crime victims experience, they would not use that pain for political advantage. Rather, they would protect victims' rights and privacy and empower victims to participate in the criminal justice process. They would also ensure that victims are not replaced by the government as the offended party. Furthermore, if politicians care about victims, they would preserve the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection, including for those accused of crimes who have not been proven guilty.