Re-envisioning Justice in Jamaica: From
Retribution to Restoration – Challenges and Opportunities for Implementing
Restorative Justice
Inga N.
Laurent, Gonzaga University School of Law
Jamaica has an inordinately high homicide rate, placing it
among the top-five highest in the world. Crime is tied to many factors
including poverty, retribution, drugs, and politics. Police only make arrests
in 54% of homicide cases annually and courts only convict in about 7% of those.
The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) has embarked on an ambitious agenda to address
crime, and one of the major tenants of their plan is to develop a robust Restorative
Justice (RJ) program. This context creates both incredible opportunities and
challenges. It is laudable for the Government of Jamaica to embrace a
compassionate, innovative, and healing approach to justice that centers on
rebuilding community and empowering citizens. However, if that empowerment
comes with a lack of accountability, will it be successful? Can a government,
with a top-down approach, implement a community-oriented system? Can the
government shift the retributive culture of an entire nation?
In 2016-17, I had the opportunity to live and research in
Kingston as a Fulbright Scholar. This article explores RJ theory, Jamaica’s
legal system, and some of the major challenges and opportunities embedded
within those difficulties.
What’s the Harm in
Considering the Harm of Removal?
Shanta
Trivedi, University of Baltimore School of Law
The child
welfare system is intended to protect children from parental abuse and
neglect. Yet, the very system designed
to shield children from harm fails to consider the very real harm associated
with removal from one’s family. When a
parent is accused of abuse or neglect, a court must decide whether remaining in
the parent’s care is contrary to the child’s welfare and whether the child is
at imminent risk of harm if left at home. In forty-nine jurisdictions, however, while the court must assess
whether the state made reasonable efforts to prevent removal, courts are not
required to specifically consider the inevitable trauma that will occur when
that child is taken from her family. Research shows that removal from one’s parents has detrimental emotional
and psychological consequences due to child grief and the unstable nature of,
and high rates of abuse in, foster care. This paper analyzes the goals of the child welfare system and whether
they would be better served if courts were required to consider the detrimental
impact of removal on children; if legislators codified the consideration of
harm of removal; and if practitioners argued harm of removal in every
case.