The Arc

A Q&A with our Tribal Justice Exchange team on respecting tribal sovereignty, the cultural wisdom behind tribal justice, and what they're doing to uplift Native youth.

Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman gives keynote address at Fordham Law School symposium. The following are the remarks of New York State Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman delivered at Fordham Law School on Oct. 13, 2006

Can the justice system make a positive difference in a family? Can courts promote healthy relationships between parents and children? These New Thinking podcasts give inside views of innovations for youth and families involved in the justice system.

Since launching its community prosecution program in 1996, the Denver District Attorney’s Office has been able to sustain a far-reaching program on a relatively tight budget. The key has been to leverage scarce resources both in and outside the office. Probably the most important way that the office has leveraged resources is by encouraging the community to play an active leadership role. The Denver District Attorney’s Office has developed a number of ways to nurture and sustain community involvement: through community justice councils, which bring stakeholders together to set priorities and develop new problem-solving strategies; through community accountability boards, which use community volunteers to determine restorative sanctions for offending youth; and through a community court, which has worked closely with local stakeholders in shaping its mission and programs. One of the Denver D.A.’s Community Justice Unit’s first initiatives was establishing community justice councils. Interestingly, the councils have evolved over time, demonstrating how important it is for community prosecutors to be flexible and adapt to the needs of different neighborhoods. The first justice councils were organized in the Denver neighborhoods of Globeville and Capitol Hill by former Community Prosecution Division Director Susan Motika, whom Ritter hired in 1997. Motika’s assignment, as she describes it, was to “develop a constructive, proactive relationship with community residents to help them identify crime and quality of life problems and develop strategies for addressing them.” Motika, a Denver native, brought a diverse background to the work—she had been at the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, working on elder protection litigation, juvenile justice, and victims’ rights issues. And before law school, she had worked as a community organizer. From the beginning, Motika met whomever she could. “What I did was meet as many key neighborhood stakeholders as possible. I also met with the neighborhood police officers and got a history of the strategies and approaches that have been used—what’s been effective for them and what hasn’t been effective.” Motika sought to build partnerships with local organizations, but found that it wasn’t always possible. While some community organizations were strong and democratic others were fledgling or less representative of a cross-section of the neighborhood. As an alternative, she came up with an idea to create an entirely new committee representing a broad range of stakeholders—residents, business leaders, community center directors, faith leaders, school teachers, community police officers, prosecutors and elected city and state representatives. “I had done community organizing and been in law enforcement work. I’d been in both worlds. It made sense to me to bring all the people together,” Motika said. Since the first committees in Globeville and Capitol Hill, similar committees—which came to be known as community justice councils—were organized in several other Denver neighborhoods. Each council has 20 to 35 members who are chosen by community prosecutors through in depth interviews. “We ask people a series of open ended questions about problems in the neighborhood, what approaches have been helpful in the neighborhood, what their role has been, what their hopes and dreams for the neighborhood are,” Motika says. “We’re looking at selecting people with a common vision for neighborhood safety. This is not a popularity contest where the most popular or powerful person wins. People are chosen for their belief in working toward a safe and unified neighborhood.” Over time, the Community Justice Unit’s use of community justice councils has evolved. While they were originally envisioned as an essential partner to any successful community prosecution effort, the unit has come to see them as useful in only certain neighborhoods, particularly those that lack strong community infrastructure. In neighborhoods with strong local organizations, prosecutors have found that creating a council is redundant. “In some neighborhoods it may make sense for the prosecutor to create an opportunity for people with widely divergent views and an interest in public safety to come together,” Motika said. “But where you’ve got a strong resident organization, you want to try and complement them and support them, not say ‘Your organization is no good, government is going to do its version instead,’” Motika said. “The prosecutor could spend time creating community justice councils, but that’s not always a fertile use of his or her time,” Motika said. Or, a council may be useful for a few years until another resident organization becomes more vibrant, at which time the prosecutor’s office might disband the justice council in favor of the home-grown group, Motika said. Ultimately, prosecutors’ experience with justice councils reinforced two lessons:  first, that the prosecutor’s office can sometimes be just as effective—perhaps even more so—leveraging existing resources rather than creating new community resources from scratch; and second, that different communities require different approaches—a single cookie-cutter model won’t do the trick.  Motika feels it’s vital to include young people on the community justice councils—and in any community prosecution initiative. “That’s extremely important because adults in many distressed neighborhoods are complaining about juvenile crime. Young people should be part of shaping the plan for making a safe neighborhood and not merely talked about as ‘you kids’ and ‘those people.’ ”

In September 2005, the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the U.S. Department of Justice funded ten demonstration projects under its new Community-Based Problem-Solving Criminal Justice Initiative. The following edited excerpt was taken from Atlanta’s winning proposal. In late 2000, the City of Atlanta’s Municipal Court created a community court, which has evolved into a comprehensive problem-solving court. Currently, the Court is operating two neighborhood Restorative Boards, both in inner-city neighborhoods where poverty rates are high. Under its problem-solving initiative, Atlanta proposes to expand and enhance its Restorative Board program into four additional Atlanta neighborhoods. The Restorative Boards have proven to be especially effective by bringing an offender back to a neighborhood for sanctioning and restoration and giving a meaningful voice to community members in the justice process. The boards seek to close the gap between the courts and community. Defendants, often young and first-time offenders, are identified by court staff as appropriate candidates for diversion to the boards. Staff recruit board members from the neighborhood where the board is established. After extensive training in the principles of restorative justice and the policies of the board, members are sworn into service by the judge of Community Court. When a defendant appears before the board, together they discuss the nature of the offense and its negative consequences for the victim, community and offender. An agreement is reached on a course of action that the defendant will take to “right the wrong” his/her actions have created. Activities are also identified for the offender to pursue in order to reduce the likelihood that he/she will offend again. Examples include GED completion, job search skills training, anger-management and conflict resolution classes, parenting classes, etc. Board members meet several times with offenders to monitor their progress and offer congratulations upon success.  

In a summer of protest and pandemic, the longstanding injustices faced by Black and Brown Americans have become clearer to more people than ever. 

“Punch” brings an incredible true story of restorative justice to Broadway. Hear from the real people behind that story in a special episode of our New Thinking podcast.

What is a community court? It can take many forms, but at its core, a community court is about partnership and problem-solving.  It's about creating new relationships, both within the justice system and with outside stakeholders such as residents, merchants, churches and schools.  And it's about testing new and aggressive approaches to public safety rather than merely responding to crime after it has occurred. Here are six principles, derived from the experience of the Midtown Community Court, to keep in mind as you plan a community court: Restoring the Community Recognize that communities are victims, too. Quality-of-life crime damages communities, often more so than individuals. If left unaddressed, low-level offenses erode communal order, leading to disinvestment and neighborhood decay and creating an atmosphere where more serious crime can flourish. A community court acknowledges this reality. Use punishment to pay back the community. Standard sentences—jail, fines, probation—may punish offenders, but they do little to restore the damage caused by crime. A community court requires offenders to compensate neighborhoods through community service. Combine punishment with help. Encouraging offenders to deal with their individual problems honors a community's ethical obligation to people who break its laws because they have lost control of their lives. Social service programs also have practical crime control value as they can permanently alter the behavior of chronic offenders. Give the community a voice in shaping restorative sanctions. A community court can open a dialogue with its neighbors, enlisting them in the effort to develop appropriate community service projects. A community advisory board can offer residents an institutionalized mechanism for interacting with the judge and court administrators. Make social services at the court open to residents. Defendants are not the only ones in a community who could benefit from educational, job training and counseling programs. A community court can be a resource for anybody who needs assistance, opening its doors for Alcoholics Anonymous groups or English-as-a-second-language classes, for example. Bridging the Gap Between Communities and Courts Make justice visible. A community court puts offenders to work in places where neighbors can see what they are doing, outfitting them in ways that identify them as offenders performing community service. The court also publicizes its social service and treatment success stories. These efforts give community residents and organizations visible and tangible evidence that the criminal justice system is accountable to the community. Make justice accessible. A community court welcomes observers and visitors. Calendars and other information about activities in the courtroom are available to the public on computer terminals in the lobby. The courthouse staff is prepared to answer questions and give tours. Community members are thus able to directly see justice in action. Make justice proactive. Court administrators monitor crime conditions in the community and look for opportunities to involve the community in addressing crime-related problems as they develop. Mediators attempt to solve simmering community disputes before they erupt into criminal matters. Reach out to victims. A community court can be a safe haven for victims, offering them both assistance and a voice in the criminal justice process. Because it is based in the neighborhood where victims live, a community court may be able to provide access to services quicker and in a less intimidating setting than larger, centralized courts. Knitting Together A Fractured Criminal Justice System Use the authority of the court to link criminal justice agencies. Too often, criminal justice agencies work in isolation, moving cases from street to court to cell and back again without communicating with one another or taking the time to problem-solve. Because of its role as a central hub in the justice process, a community court can play an important coordinating function. Don't reinvent the wheel. Courts cannot be expected to solve difficult neighborhood problems by themselves. As courts look to play a more aggressive role in addressing complicated issues like quality-of-life crime, they must also look for new partners. Social service providers—both non-profits and government agencies—can bring valuable expertise to the table, including counseling, job training, drug treatment and mediation skills. Make social service providers and criminal justice professionals work together. Judges in a community courthouse can consult with treatment professionals on individual cases. Police can alert counselors to defendants who may be open to receiving help. Clerks can help link individual victims to assistance. Physical proximity makes possible closer and more coordinated working relationships. Explore crossing jurisdictional lines. The problems faced by citizens often do not conform to the narrow jurisdictional boundaries imposed by modern court systems. Criminal defendants may also be involved in a landlord-tenant dispute or a small claims matter. Handling all of these cases in the same place may enhance the court's ability to address a defendant's underlying problems. Helping Offenders Deal with Problems that Lead to Crime Put problems first. Beyond focusing on case processing and punishment, a community court looks for ways that sentences can help defendants change their lives. Drug treatment, medical services, educational programs, and counseling all can be incorporated into sentences. Use the court as a gateway to treatment. The crisis of arrest may prompt a defendant to seek help. A court can use its coercive power to reinforce that impulse. Remain involved beyond disposition of the immediate case. The judge can monitor offenders' experiences in treatment, using the court's authority to reward progress and impose new sanctions for failure. Providing Better Information Make as much information as possible available at the defendant's first appearance. This allows the judge to act as a practical problem-solver as well as an imposer of sanctions, matching the defendant's needs with available treatment or community service programs. Make information available to everyone at the same time. Entering new data into a central database simultaneously accessible by the judge, prosecutors, defense attorneys and social service staff allows all parties to share information as soon as it is available. Simultaneous access helps disparate agencies work together and limits "gaming" of the system by attorneys who take advantage of information delays. Use current information to enhance accountability. Updates on a defendant's progress allow the court to monitor compliance with sentences. They also permit early recognition of problems and rapid responses to remedy them. Designing the Courthouse The courthouse should be a physical expression of the court's goals and values. A community court should communicate its mission in every facet of its design. All elements of the courthouse—holding cells, public entryways, and office space—should reflect a sense of fundamental respect for the legal process and for all who participate in it, including defendants, victims and the general public. A community court should be more than just a courtroom. Beyond holding pens, a courtroom, judge's chambers and a clerk's office, it must accommodate social service workers, victim advocates and community service managers; it also needs room to house community service workshops and provide conference rooms for treatment sessions and classes. After hours, the courthouse can become a community resource for tenant groups, block associations and others who want to hold public meetings. Put everything under one roof. Locating social services side by side with the legal process serves the needs of the community court by making it easier for a judge to craft sentences that combine punishment and help. It also serves the needs of social work and public health by bringing services to a center of need.

It can take many forms, but at its core, a community court is about partnership and problem-solving. What is a community court? It can take many forms, but at its core, a community court is about partnership and problem-solving.  It's about creating new relationships, both within the justice system and with outside stakeholders such as residents, merchants, churches and schools.  And it's about testing new and aggressive approaches to public safety rather than merely responding to crime after it has occurred.   Here are six principles, derived from the experience of the Midtown Community Court, to keep in mind as you plan a community court: Restoring the Community Bridging the Gap Between Communities and Courts Knitting Together a Fractured Criminal Justice System Helping Offenders Deal with Problems That Lead To Crime Providing Better Information Designing a Physical Space to Match the Court's Goals Restoring the Community Recognize that communities are victims, too. Quality-of-life crime damages communities, often more so than individuals. If left unaddressed, low-level offenses erode communal order, leading to disinvestment and neighborhood decay and creating an atmosphere where more serious crime can flourish. A community court acknowledges this reality. Use punishment to pay back the community. Standard sentences – jail, fines, probation – may punish offenders, but they do little to restore the damage caused by crime. A community court requires offenders to compensate neighborhoods through community service. Combine punishment with help. Encouraging offenders to deal with their individual problems honors a community's ethical obligation to people who break its laws because they have lost control of their lives. Social service programs also have practical crime control value as they can permanently alter the behavior of chronic offenders. Give the community a voice in shaping restorative sanctions. A community court can open a dialogue with its neighbors, enlisting them in the effort to develop appropriate community service projects. A community advisory board can offer residents an institutionalized mechanism for interacting with the judge and court administrators. Give the community a voice in shaping restorative sanctions. A community court can open a dialogue with its neighbors, enlisting them in the effort to develop appropriate community service projects. A community advisory board can offer residents an institutionalized mechanism for interacting with the judge and court administrators. Give the community a voice in shaping restorative sanctions. A community court can open a dialogue with its neighbors, enlisting them in the effort to develop appropriate community service projects. A community advisory board can offer residents an institutionalized mechanism for interacting with the judge and court administrators. Give the community a voice in shaping restorative sanctions. A community court can open a dialogue with its neighbors.  

Six new artworks created by people who have been affected by the justice system have been unveiled at the Midtown Community Justice Center.

Reforms like Project Reset show how we can respond to low-level offenses in ways that strengthen community and put people on track for a brighter future.

In September 2005, the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the U.S. Department of Justice funded ten demonstration projects under its new Community-Based Problem-Solving Criminal Justice Initiative. The following is a summary of the Chippewa Indians’ winning proposal.       The Sault Tribe of Chippewa Indians, in partnership with a Peacemaker Steering Committee comprised of representatives from seven Tribal Divisions/Departments, is creating a Peacemaker Court (Bemaadziiwiin, or “Peaceful Life”) for its Tribal community, based on the concepts of restorative justice as well as traditional Indian notions of justice. Viewing crime and offending as a conflict between individuals, restorative justice seeks to reconcile parties and find solutions to conflict through the active participation of victims, offenders, and communities. Many Tribal Communities have adopted or “reclaimed” this form of justice within their communities.   The Peacemaker Court seeks to combat high risk factors for victimization and incarceration, and to restore balance in the lives of defendants and plaintiffs by using community mediators to assist individuals and families. A major focus of this project is to provide alternative methods of adjudication for Tribal membership: the Court will enable the Judge to offer this voluntary program as a sentencing option if the client meets the criteria determined by the Peacemaker Steering Committee as appropriate and necessary for remediation. Based on screening and assessment of defendants and plaintiffs, the Peacemakers will identify needs, determine which offenders enter early diversion, or are placed on the Peacemaker Court docket, as well as provide means of aiding victims with their identified priorities. It is the intent of the Tribal Court that this program be available in five sites within the seven county service area. Therefore, representatives from each area will be provided the opportunity to become a Peacemaker, review cases for Tribal members, and conduct a peacemaker Court proceeding in their respective locations.