Restorative justice is defined by the Centre for Justice and Reconciliation as, “a theory of justice that emphasizes repairing the harm caused or revealed by criminal behavior. It is best accomplished through cooperative processes that include all stakeholders. Restorative justice is different from contemporary criminal justice in several ways. First, it views criminal acts more comprehensively -- rather than defining crime as simply lawbreaking, it recognizes that offenders harm victims, communities and even themselves. Second, it involves more parties in responding to crime -- rather than giving key roles only to government and the offender, it includes victims and communities as well. Finally, it measures success differently -- rather than measuring how much punishment is inflicted, it measures how much harm is repaired or prevented.”
Restorative justice costs less and benefits society more than traditional punishments. It recognizes not just the infraction, but the people harmed in the process. Restorative justice gives members of the community a voice when they are harmed.
Santa Fe Obelisk
In 2020, protesters tore down the 512 year-old Soldiers’ Monument on Indigenous Peoples Day after occupying the Plaza for three days, stating the statue represented violence toward Indigenous people and was a symbol of oppression. Since then, the remainder of the obelisk is in a box in the center of the plaza.
Statement from DA Mary Carmack-Altwies
The case of the destruction of the Obelisk on the Santa Fe Plaza came to a restorative close at the First Judicial District Attorney’s Office. One of the nine defendants in this case entered a plea agreement while the other eight actively completed the requirements of the pre-prosecution diversion program. The defendants who participated in the pre-prosecution program were required to do a minimum of 40 hours of community service and participate in the restorative justice program.
In March of 2021, Common Ground Mediation Services (Common Ground) began the process of facilitating the restorative justice program. Through an application process, Common Ground identified certain harmed parties who participated in the program. Amongst the harmed parties were representatives from Hispanic and Indigenous communities. Some of the harmed parties agreed to be identified, while others asked Common Ground to protect their identity. In its final report, Common Ground summarized the restorative justice process stating that there was an “…understanding, mutual empathy and many apologies all around.…”. From the summation, the defendants better understood the frustration of the community and the harmed parties. The defendants also understood that their October 2020 actions undermined the hard work put forth over the years to amicably and peacefully resolve issues that have long divided the community. Without excusing the criminal activity, the harmed parties acknowledged that they were also able to better understand the motivations and perspectives of the defendants and the events that took place on or around the Indigenous People’s Day 2020.
The Common Ground report highlights the climate of our community at the time of the incident and how historical traumas were being confronted nationwide during this time. The restorative justice program was a plunge into not only the destruction of the Obelisk but also the disputable parts of collective history. The defendants apologized to the greater community, including the local Hispanic and Indigenous groups, whose efforts around the reconciliation of history and historical traumas were disrupted or affected by the destructive event.
Many district attorneys have explored using restorative justice principles to resolve tensions and crimes as an alternative to a formal court process, and my decision to use diversion and restorative justice in this case was met with both praise and scrutiny. This was the first time that the First Judicial District Attorney’s Office used any form of restorative justice in conjunction with pre-prosecution diversion. I acknowledge that there are lessons learned about how the restorative justice process works. I had hoped the restorative justice process would have resulted in a more active reconciliation on behalf of the defendants and that the process would not have been veiled by confidentiality. With that being said, I would encourage restorative justice practitioners to explore a model that can honor both the fidelity of the program and transparency for the public. I believe that restorative justice has a place in the criminal justice system and should be an option with appropriate offenders when community healing is necessary.
