When a community finds itself in chaos from the actions of disruptive members, what can it do? Does the community punish or remove those members for acting outside the norm? Are these the best solutions? Does punishment work? Does removal create a long term solution? Some might say, punishment sets an example for others. Others might counter, punishment can create more harm. Result: a lack of harmony, and an advancement in the dissonance. So, what about removal? Sometimes removal is required to protect the community from further harmful actions, especially when they cannot be altered. But, consider: is it not better to attempt a return to a state of harmony, for both the community and the disruptive members? True, not all outside actions can be returned to harmony. When it is possible, the community has a part in and a responsibility for assisting that return.
Members who have acted outside the norm, may have specific and legitimate reasons, concerns, disputes, or oppositions to the norms. Those members need to be heard by the community. Those members also need to hear from the community the reasons for the existence of those norms, and the community’s concerns when someone acts against those norms. This now becomes a dialogue. Dialogue is not punishment. It is a quest for a return to harmony. It is a healing of the harm that caused the break in the community’s rhythm. Through dialogue comes understanding, and a resolution to assist those disruptive members in removing the harm of their actions. The cycle of harmony then can be restored. It is a restoration that is formed by discussion, consensus and agreement by all parties concerned – the individual members and the community of members. This is a restorative solution. It is a method used for centuries. Somehow, the twentieth century lost that ability. There is no reason it cannot be brought back in the twenty-first.
From a law enforcement perspective, I have seen your point about losing the ability of the community to deal with problems every day. We have gone from talking to our neighbors about minor issues to calling the police for complaints about noisy televisions and barking dogs. There has become the expectation of anonymity between neighbors and a complete breakdown of communication to the point where we feel uncomfortable talking about things people do who bother us. It is much simpler to pick up the phone and dial 911. Any effort at satisfying justice outside the court system must begin with a foundation of communication between neighbors and community members. Until we are comfortable talking about minor issues with each other, we are unlikely to be effective in any justice seeking activity.
When a community finds itself in chaos from the actions of disruptive members, what can it do? Does the community punish or remove those members for acting outside the norm? Are these the best solutions? Does punishment work? Does removal create a long term solution? Some might say, punishment sets an example for others. Others might counter, punishment can create more harm. Result: a lack of harmony, and an advancement in the dissonance. So, what about removal? Sometimes removal is required to protect the community from further harmful actions, especially when they cannot be altered. But, consider: is it not better to attempt a return to a state of harmony, for both the community and the disruptive members? True, not all outside actions can be returned to harmony. When it is possible, the community has a part in and a responsibility for assisting that return.
Members who have acted outside the norm, may have specific and legitimate reasons, concerns, disputes, or oppositions to the norms. Those members need to be heard by the community. Those members also need to hear from the community the reasons for the existence of those norms, and the community’s concerns when someone acts against those norms. This now becomes a dialogue. Dialogue is not punishment. It is a quest for a return to harmony. It is a healing of the harm that caused the break in the community’s rhythm. Through dialogue comes understanding, and a resolution to assist those disruptive members in removing the harm of their actions. The cycle of harmony then can be restored. It is a restoration that is formed by discussion, consensus and agreement by all parties concerned – the individual members and the community of members. This is a restorative solution. It is a method used for centuries. Somehow, the twentieth century lost that ability. There is no reason it cannot be brought back in the twenty-first.
From a law enforcement perspective, I have seen your point about losing the ability of the community to deal with problems every day. We have gone from talking to our neighbors about minor issues to calling the police for complaints about noisy televisions and barking dogs. There has become the expectation of anonymity between neighbors and a complete breakdown of communication to the point where we feel uncomfortable talking about things people do who bother us. It is much simpler to pick up the phone and dial 911. Any effort at satisfying justice outside the court system must begin with a foundation of communication between neighbors and community members. Until we are comfortable talking about minor issues with each other, we are unlikely to be effective in any justice seeking activity.