鈥淥ur goal for this learning tour was to expose the delegation to many different applications of restorative justice in the local area beyond the criminal justice system,鈥� said professor , who hosted the delegation as co-director of the . 鈥淢any in the delegation later said they were truly impressed with the potential for restorative justice to impact the whole of society.鈥�

The delegation鈥檚 visit was sponsored by with support from the United States Agency of International Development. The foundation is engaged in a long-term project to introduce and integrate restorative justice practices into the Nepali criminal justice system through training of judges, prosecutors, lawyers and law enforcement officials, said program officer Ramkanta Tiwari, who escorted the group.

The foundation also wants to establish the academy as a resource center for restorative justice in Nepal and in the larger South Asia region, Tiwari added.

Well-placed to effect change

Officials from the academy included Keshari Raj Pandit, NJA’s executive director; Bimal Poudel, registrar; and Rajan Kumar, program manager, as well as The Honorable Rajendra Kharel, judge of District Court of Lalitpur and The Honorable Devendra Gopal Shrestha, justice of the Supreme Court of Nepal.

On the first full day at EMU, the group attended a seminar with Stauffer, and were joined for a discussion by , who is co-director with Stauffer of the Zehr Institute of Restorative Justice. Zehr, who had visited Nepal years ago to speak about restorative justice, remarked that at that time, there was 鈥渓ittle knowledge and only marginal interest.鈥�

He found the delegation鈥檚 interest to be “inspiring,” he said. 鈥淭hey are strategically placed to encourage the implementation of restorative justice not only in Nepal but in the entire region 鈥β營t is exciting to see this level of interest and commitment now.鈥�

Truth and reconciliation discussed

Stauffer was one of the reasons the delegation visited EMU; he had visited Nepal in 2014 with San Francisco-based expert to present and participate at an Asian Foundation-hosted roundtable with judicial representatives from Nepal, India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh: this reciprocal visit was his chance to share in the hospitality and learning.

One aspect of Stauffer鈥檚 past professional experience 鈥� his 16 years working with transitional justice in Africa, including the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission 鈥� was of particular interest to the delegation.

After a decade of conflict between pro-democracy and Maoist supporters, Nepal has begun a peace process that included a transitional justice bill to bring accountability for historic harms. The government also established a Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Commission on Inquiry into Disappearances, which seeks to utilize restorative justice practices on behalf of victims and affected community members.

During an introductory circle process with Stauffer, several of the men related how learning about restorative justice had enriched and enlivened their professional engagement. Their goals, they related to Stauffer, were to learn more about how the principles could relate to their specific interests, such as juvenile justice, but also to the criminal justice system as a whole.

鈥淭here is not much room for dialogue in our system,鈥� said Poudel. 鈥淲e would like to know more about how to include that.鈥�

鈥楻J鈥� has broad applications

On the final day, the delegation met with various collaborators of Harrisonburg鈥檚 community restorative justice initiative at their various worksites. These practitioners included , of the Harrisonburg Police Department; Sue Praill, director of restorative justice at the ; and Josh Bacon, associate dean of students/student accountability and restorative practices at James Madison University.

A last tour stop was the , where program director Richi Yowell talked about how the therapeutic transitional home for formerly incarcerated men assists in easing the re-integration process back into society.

The delegation was especially interested to learn more about how government agencies collaborate with non-state entities, Tiwari said. Also of interest was the public perception of the restorative justice process, how referrals were made, and what role the facilitators took in the process, he added.

Interest was shown from both parties in the possibility of hosting Nepali judicial officials聽at EMU for further training in restorative justice practices.

Tiwari expressed appreciation at the hospitality shown to the group and called the 鈥渦nmatched opportunity鈥� to meet with experts such as Stauffer and Zehr a 鈥減rofessional and personal milestone.鈥�

鈥淭here can be no better place than EMU, especially the , when it comes to [learning about] restorative justice,鈥� he said.

After visits to Richmond, Baltimore and Washington D.C., the group spent several days in San Francisco before returning home.

Editor’s Note: The International Justice Resource Center provides an of the Nepali constitutional process.聽 To learn more about transition justice processes in Nepal and countries around the world, visit . Read more about the peace dialogues in this article about Sujan Rai, who came to EMU’s 2015 to build her skills and network with other international peacebuilders.

鈥淲e sought to bring together a cross-section of restorative justice practitioners, theorists and innovators,鈥� said , co-director of the Zehr Institute and the project鈥檚 leader. 鈥淪ome of the invitees were world-recognized in the restorative justice field, but others were invited to ensure that diverse and often-unheard voices would be represented.鈥�

One-third of the 36 participants were from populations that are under threat socially and economically in their regions of the world. The genders were equally represented. One person was under age 21, though two other young adults had been expected to attend.

Conversing about RJ’s ‘revolutionary intent’

The idea behind the unusual mixture of invitees was to foster provocative conversation about the possibilities for restorative justice (RJ), particularly for addressing structural injustices, said Stauffer.

In the prospectus for the three-year project submitted to the funder, , the organizers wrote: 鈥淥n the social margins, there is growing research and experimentation with RJ as a tool for addressing structural harms and injustices. This project will explore and document these emerging practices in order to recapture the revolutionary intent of RJ.鈥�

The organizers called attention in their prospectus to what they viewed as the danger of RJ settling into a 鈥渟ocial service practice鈥� centering on 鈥渞epair at the micro-interpersonal level.鈥� Instead, they wished to highlight the ways that RJ can 鈥減rovide a coherent framework for transforming macro-social structures that cause harm.鈥�

Aware that many of the 36 attendees at the first consultation would not have prior relationships with each other, the organizers devoted about half of the five days to exercises and facilitated conversations designed to establish trust and a common basis for exploring future possibilities. Senior graduate students at EMU鈥檚 served as facilitators for the process.

Tough questions

First, the attendees prepared a history line of RJ, then they explored identity, power and privilege in the field. On the third day, they embarked on a discussion of best practices.

鈥淲e accepted the challenge of bringing together a highly diverse group, especially given that many of the participants are international leaders in the field, [being] accomplished researchers, authors, practitioners and facilitators in their own right,鈥� Stauffer said.

鈥淭he challenge was heightened because the group grew beyond the original envisioned size of 20 to 25,鈥� he added. 鈥淲e needed to go well beyond 25 to have a true cross-section of voices, but it was difficult to develop coherence among three dozen people with strong opinions, especially in only five days.鈥�

Yet the participants were largely positive in their final evaluations, he said, indicating that they had not regretted investing a workweek in wrestling with each other over tough questions, such as the extent to which RJ should be viewed as a social movement, as opposed to simply a set of restorative practices.

Stauffer did not pretend to be neutral on this last point. In his opening remarks to the group, he referred to the U.S. penal reform movement having been 鈥渃o-opted.鈥� In contrast, he said he hopes RJ continues to grow into a social movement in North America, with the aim of 鈥渢ransforming deep structural conflicts and injustices.鈥� Toward this end, North Americans have much to learn from their international brothers and sisters about 鈥渓arge-scale applications鈥� of RJ, he said.

Agreement on RJ’s core values

For a social movement to be successful, Stauffer told the group, it requires political opportunity, resource mobilization, a framing message, and critical mass (or a 鈥渢ipping point鈥�).

On the last day, in a final small-group presentation, a participant observed that the 36 attendees had largely agreed during the week on RJ鈥檚 core values, but not necessarily on how to practice restorative justice.

This first consultation will be followed next year by a public conference attended by up to 120 people. Next time, Stauffer said, his organizing team will work to create a conference format that moves participants more quickly into discussions on the future of the field, with a view of moving into a research and writing phase in the final year of the project.

Participants in the consultation

The 36 participants were:

1. Aaron Lyons, Fraser Region Community, Justice Initiatives, Canada
2. Ali Gohar, Just Peace Initiatives, Pakistan
3. Barb Toews, University of Washington Tacoma / Designing Justice+Designing Spaces, USA
4. , Center for Justice and Peacebuilding, EMU
5. Brenda E. Morrison, Centre for Restorative Justice, Simon Fraser University, USA
6. Carl Stauffer, Center for Justice and Peacebuilding, EMU
7. Carolyn Boyes-Watson, Center for Restorative Justice, Suffolk University, USA
8. Catherine Bargen, Restorative Justice Coordinator Crime Prevention and Victim Services Division, Government of British Columbia, Canada
9. Dan Van Ness, Center for Justice and Reconciliation, Prison Fellowship International, USA

10. , Center for Justice and Peacebuilding, EMU and Atlanta (Ga.) consultant, USA
11. Fania Davis, executive director of Restorative Justice for Oakland (Calif.) Youth, USA
12. Cameron Simmons, youth worker with Restorative Justice for Oakland (Calif.) Youth, USA
13. Gerry Johnstone, University of Hull, UK
14. , Center for Justice and Peacebuilding, EMU
15. Jeanette Martinez, Circle of Justice LLC, New Mexico, USA
16. Jennifer Graville , Community Conferencing Program, KBF Center for Conflict Resolution (Md.), USA
17. Jodie-Ann (Jodie) Geddes, Center for Justice and Peacebuilding, EMU
18. Josh Bacon, James Madison University (Va.), USA
19. , 草莓社区
20. Katia Ornelas, Independent Consultant, Mexico
21. , (STAR), EMU
22. Kay Pranis, Circle Trainer, USA
23. Kim Workman, Stout Research Centre for New Zealand Studies, Victoria, University of Wellington, New Zealand
24. Linda Kligman, Vice President for Advancement, International Institute for Restorative Practices, USA
25. Lorenn Walker, Hawai鈥檌 Friends of Restorative Justice, USA
26. Lorraine Stutzman Amstutz, Mennonite Central Committee, USA
27. Mark Umbreit, Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking, University of Minnesota, School of Social Work, USA
28. Matthew Hartman, Clackamas County Juvenile Department, Restorative Justice Coalition of Oregon, NW Justice Forum, USA
29. Mulanda Jimmy Juma, Africa Peacebuilding Institute, St. Augustine College of South Africa
30. Najla El Mangoush, Center for Justice and Peacebuilding, EMU
31. Robert Yazzie, Chief Justice Emeritus of the Navajo Nation, USA
32. Seth Lennon Weiner, Porticus, New York, USA
33. sujatha baliga, Impact Justice, USA
34. Susan Sharpe, Advisor on Restorative Justice, Center for Social Concerns, University of Notre Dame, USA
35. Theo Gavrielides, The IARS International Institute and the Restorative Justice for All Institute, UK
36. , Strategies for Trauma Awareness and Resilience (STAR), EMU

The facilitators were led by project manager , and included CJP graduate students Janine Aberg, South Africa; Michael McAndrew, USA; Jordan Michelson, USA; Mikhala Lantz-Simmons, USA; and Ahmed Tarik, Iraq.

Among the 90 webinar viewers were the parents of the murder victim, Ann Grosmaire, who was shot on March 28, 2010. The parents of the boyfriend who shot Ann, Conor McBride, also tuned into the webinar. At the time of Ann鈥檚 death she was 19 and he was 20, and both sets of parents were fond of the other young person.

In addition to those from the United States, participants in the webinar logged in from Australia, Canada, Estonia, the United Kingdom, and Vatican City.

Baliga stressed repeatedly during the webinar that the Times headline 鈥溾�� mistakenly conflated forgiveness with restorative justice when actually, 鈥渇orgiveness is never a prerequisite for participation in a restorative process, nor is it an expected outcome of any restorative process, ever.鈥�

Baliga, a lawyer who directs the , noted, however, that the love, remorse, responsibility taken and forgiveness seen in this murder case made it highly unusual.

She came into the case after the mother of Conor, Julie McBride, did an Internet search for an expert on restorative justice, located Zehr at EMU and contacted him. Zehr recommended Baliga.

For a restorative justice conference desired by both sets of parents, Baliga convened, among others, the assistant state attorney in charge of prosecuting the crime, the defense attorney, the four parents, and Conor himself. The conference was held in the jail holding Conor.

The conference yielded something much different than the usual death penalty or life sentence in such cases in Florida. It resulted in a plea for a 20-year sentence, plus 10 years of probation, for Conor, which the court accepted. The conference proved to be a step towards healing and a sense of peace for the family members.

Typing into a chat forum, webinar viewers submitted comments and questions to Zehr, who read them to Baliga for answering. The Grosmaires commented, 鈥淐hristian forgiveness does not require reconciliation. It would be the ultimate goal but it requires both parties to participate. The offender must repent and work to not harm the other person. This isn鈥檛 possible in every case.鈥�

A prosecutor who said he works in South Africa typed that he has just been assigned to do restorative justice work, as did a second prosecuting attorney, presumably from the United States. Baliga and Zehr were clearly pleased at the idea that some prosecutors might be shifting to a restorative approach, with its focus on meeting the needs of those touched by a crime.

In the webinar, Baliga repeatedly credited Zehr for his behind-the-scenes role in advising her as she waded into this unprecedented case. She encouraged viewers to read 鈥渆verything Howard has ever written鈥� and to seek the best possible training in restorative justice, citing two women who regularly teach as guest instructors at : Lorraine Stutzman Amstutz, author of , and Kay Pranis, author of .

The Jan. 30 webinar was an initiative of the newly founded . Zehr, Baliga, and the Grosmaires will be appearing on a panel to discuss the case in Buies Creek, North Carolina.

The is available through the .

That person was Sujatha Baliga, a lawyer and restorative justice practitioner in California, who had taken an advanced restorative justice class at the 2009 of 草莓社区 (EMU), where Zehr carries the title of “Distinguished Professor.”

Baliga initially hesitated to take the case. 鈥滻 do a diversion program in Oakland, Calif., with kids who have committed burglaries and assaults,鈥� . 鈥淚 didn’t think we’d be able to pull this off in this case.”

After learning that the parents of the victim and offender were already interacting with each other on a cordial basis, Baliga agreed to do something almost without precedence. With Zehr playing a behind-the-scene advisory role, she facilitated a plea conference of all the main stakeholders in the murder situation, in which they discussed the sentence to be faced by the murderer.

On June 22, 2011, Baliga convened, among others, the assistant state attorney in charge of prosecuting the crime, the defense attorney, and the four parents left bereaved by the murder 鈥� the mother and father of the victim, 19-year-old Ann Grosmaire, and the mother and father of the young man, 20-year-old Conor McBride, who shot Ann at the end of days of highly emotional bickering.

The meeting arranged by Baliga eventually resulted in something much different than the usual death penalty or life sentence in such cases in Florida. It resulted in a 20-year sentence, plus 10 years of probation, for Conor, who participated in the face-to-face meeting. The session proved to be a step towards healing and a sense of peace for the family members.

More than a year after the Tallahassee Democrat article, the . , broadcasting an interview with both sets of parents.

Titled 鈥淐an Forgiveness Play a Role in Criminal Justice?鈥� the NY Times piece (and then Today) played up the forgiveness aspect of the case 鈥� the Grosmaires spoke of how their Christian faith and their sense of what Ann would have wanted led them to forgive Conor and even to visit him in prison. They have also maintained their friendship with his parents.

Yet, Zehr鈥檚 philosophy of restorative justice 鈥� shared by Baliga 鈥� does not put forgiveness at the center of the process. Instead it stresses the importance of addressing these questions: What harm was done and by whom? What needs have arisen as a result of that harm? Whose obligation is it to meet those needs?

Forgiveness may emerge as these questions are addressed, but it is not a necessary outcome for restorative justice to be effective, says Zehr.

Baliga, who directs the , and Zehr are joining forces on Jan, 30, 4:30-6 p.m. in U.S. Eastern Standard Time, to hold a about this case with restorative justice practitioners around the world. The registration fee for participants is $10. (, with a limit of 500 registrants)

They will be exploring: How did this case unfold? What can restorative justice practitioners learn from this pioneering case? What is the relationship between forgiveness and restorative justice? How do we relate to the media on these issues?

Viewers will be able to submit comments and questions through a chat forum. The event is the first official one of the newly formed .

Zehr says the webinar is intended for restorative justice practitioners but is open to anyone, though a basic knowledge of restorative justice is preferred. For those without that background, can provide a basic understanding.