Monday, May 12, 2008
Saturday, December 11, 2004
paper backup2
Introduction
America purports, internationally and to its own citizens, to champion equality as a bedrock of its society. Today’s increasingly stratified and diverse culture, however, is creating facts that very much problematize this claim of equal opportunity. For example, how is it that African-Americans constitute 65% of the prison population (while the represent less than a third of total population) while women constitute only 5.7% of the prison population (even though they represent more than 50% of the total population)? In America’s highly individualistic society, the comfortable response is that there is something intrinsic to these segments of the population that result in their disproportionate incarceration rates (i.e. African-Americans are inherently violent and women are inherently peaceful). This response has guided many United States crime enforcement policies as well as the social structure of entire societies (such as Greece or Rome). Although it is comfortable, it is also dangerous (resulting in discrimination and hate), untrue (one need only remember Lizzie Borden, Joan of Arc, Martin Luther King understand that fact), and self-fulfilling (by assuming that woman are inherently peaceful and African American’s inherently violent the criminal justice system will suspect and seek out the latter rather then the former when resolving a crime and skew arrest rates). These, largely, are the conclusions of sociology concerning disproportionate prison populations.
What is Sociology?
Sociology is the study of human behavior with a special emphasis on “social structures, institutions, classes, groups, and the social consequences of that behavior”. These institutions included in the definition of sociology are “organized entities that are established to meet specific needs for the overall society”. These entities include societal services like religion (which grants common purpose), education (which trains future members of society) and health services (that ensures that future members of society even exist). It is clear that these institutions affect in a significant way human behavior. Western religion has been used to justify certain laws and family structures. What is included in public schooling prescripts the way in which many individuals will approach and understand the world. This paper will focus on the way in which patriarchy (“the manifestation and institutionalization of male dominance”) relates to the institution of criminal justice and its effects of the behavior of society as a whole. It’s also important to note, however, that a society’s relationship to these sort of institutions is a two way street. Although it is true that patriarchal institutions will create a society that fosters and justifies (through biased education practices etc.) male dominance, if those in the society are sexist patriarchal institutions will arise. Put another way, although the individuals in a society (are in some ways) constituted by the institutions with which they interact, individuals also constitute (very literally) those institutions with their mindsets and actions. This is important because it means that sociology is more than analyzing how individuals are (in a sense) ‘controlled’ by larger societal structures, it allows individuals (with that knowledge) to change those institutions. The change most often advocated by sociologists, since the French revolution, has been one towards social justice. A socially just society is one in which “all groups are able to take part in the shaping of the society that will ultimately be equitable and in which all members are physically and psychologically safe and secure”.
The Need for a Sociology Perspective and Social Justice today
Sociology is largely a matter of how one interprets history and current events. For example, instead of assuming that women are inherently peaceful to explain their disproportionate incarceration rates, a sociologist will analyze larger social institutions that prevent women from committing crime or encourage law enforcement to ignore female crime. As another example, instead of assuming that an unemployed individual has a personal problem (like they aren’t working hard enough or aren’t intelligent enough to hold down a job), a sociologist will look to the economy (a larger social institution) which may not be creating enough jobs (so no matter how hard that individual works s/he will not succeed). This way of viewing a situation has been termed the “sociological perspective”.
The sociological perspective is especially important when analyzing certain groups (such as women) who have an uncommon correlation with crime because by assuming that something is inherently different about the group (that women are peaceful) the criminal justice system is given justification for discriminatory enforcement policies (like assuming that a woman did not commit a particular crime or that an African American did). What’s more is that discriminatory enforcement policies create statistics (such as the 5% female incarceration rate) that justify the view in the first place. This cycle has been disempowering women though out history because it has created the common assumption that women do not choose to commit or not commit crime, rather it is something in their nature (which revokes much of their autonomy and justified much discrimination). In this way, the law, courts, prisons, and systems of criminal justice have (through discriminatory policies and worldviews) historically served and currently work to reinforce women’s traditional gender roles as dependant, passive, and irrational individuals. Only through a sociological perspective can these forces be elucidated and eventually changed. Until this perspective is taken into account all sex-equality movements will be stunted by a system of justice and other patriarchal institutions that re-enforce stereotypes and assumptions that prevent that movement from being taken seriously.
History
Throughout world history the dominant ideology concerning women has been based in a variety of biased assumptions (that women are “the pawn of biology, passive and weak, impulsive, impressionable, and ultimately non-masculine). This concept has determined how systems of punishment have been developed for women.
One of the first examples of a structured system of criminal justice (and not surprisingly one of the first to favor men over women) comes from Ancient Greece and Rome. In both of these societies only men were considered citizens and only men were allowed to act publicly. Women were treated much like property and almost all female discipline was enacted in the home (it was not considered a suitable case to bring to public trial, you wouldn’t bring your dog to court for misbehaving would you?). The only exception to this rule is if a woman were to commit adultery or kill her husband (it’s important to not that if a man were to kill his wife the sentence would be quite lenient). These offences were not only dealt with publicly but almost certainly meant death for the accused. These societies established two important precedents for criminal justice concerning women. The first is that female misbehavior should be dealt with in the home (this will be seen later in history with the privitization of female criminality). The second is how notions of what is criminal can be used to enforce a discriminatory world view. Women, in these societies and today, had a decidedly passive gender role. As long as they maintained that role, did not even enter into the court process. But, when they became sexually or physically aggressive (breaking their gender role) punishment was especially death. This is one way in which society very literally eliminate those that did not fit into accepts ways of being.
This process continued into the Middle Ages during which women that committed adultery or killed their husbands were still sentenced to death (although their husbands, if they had committed the same crimes, were not). But, a new form of punishment and social control saw a rise. This was the process of institutionalizing the criminal. Women, even if they did not commit any crime in particular, not married at a late age or rejected by their husbands were sent to cloisters with the “mentally defective”. Women that were not in their assumed sexual roles (married and with child) were now considered mentally ill. This is the basis for the medicalization of female behavior and a byproduct of a view of the “irrational women” (if women have something in their nature that makes them good/peaceful then when they do not fit that corporal punishment did not make any sense – something at a deeper “spiritual” level was considered wrong, necessitating institutionalization to resolve it).
But, perhaps the paramount example a system of criminality enforcing gender roles is the process of witch hunting in 16th and 17th century Europe. Almost all of those that were killed during the “witch hunts” (80%) were women and, not surprisingly, they were almost exclusively outside of their assumed gender roles. Those that were at risk for being accused of being a witch were women that were not married, assertive in public spaces, especially old, or those with money (and therefore didn’t need a man to support her). Each of these characteristics directly countered the view of a passive and dependant woman and thus had to be eliminated. That elimination occurred through the system of criminal justice.
America purports, internationally and to its own citizens, to champion equality as a bedrock of its society. Today’s increasingly stratified and diverse culture, however, is creating facts that very much problematize this claim of equal opportunity. For example, how is it that African-Americans constitute 65% of the prison population (while the represent less than a third of total population) while women constitute only 5.7% of the prison population (even though they represent more than 50% of the total population)? In America’s highly individualistic society, the comfortable response is that there is something intrinsic to these segments of the population that result in their disproportionate incarceration rates (i.e. African-Americans are inherently violent and women are inherently peaceful). This response has guided many United States crime enforcement policies as well as the social structure of entire societies (such as Greece or Rome). Although it is comfortable, it is also dangerous (resulting in discrimination and hate), untrue (one need only remember Lizzie Borden, Joan of Arc, Martin Luther King understand that fact), and self-fulfilling (by assuming that woman are inherently peaceful and African American’s inherently violent the criminal justice system will suspect and seek out the latter rather then the former when resolving a crime and skew arrest rates). These, largely, are the conclusions of sociology concerning disproportionate prison populations.
What is Sociology?
Sociology is the study of human behavior with a special emphasis on “social structures, institutions, classes, groups, and the social consequences of that behavior”. These institutions included in the definition of sociology are “organized entities that are established to meet specific needs for the overall society”. These entities include societal services like religion (which grants common purpose), education (which trains future members of society) and health services (that ensures that future members of society even exist). It is clear that these institutions affect in a significant way human behavior. Western religion has been used to justify certain laws and family structures. What is included in public schooling prescripts the way in which many individuals will approach and understand the world. This paper will focus on the way in which patriarchy (“the manifestation and institutionalization of male dominance”) relates to the institution of criminal justice and its effects of the behavior of society as a whole. It’s also important to note, however, that a society’s relationship to these sort of institutions is a two way street. Although it is true that patriarchal institutions will create a society that fosters and justifies (through biased education practices etc.) male dominance, if those in the society are sexist patriarchal institutions will arise. Put another way, although the individuals in a society (are in some ways) constituted by the institutions with which they interact, individuals also constitute (very literally) those institutions with their mindsets and actions. This is important because it means that sociology is more than analyzing how individuals are (in a sense) ‘controlled’ by larger societal structures, it allows individuals (with that knowledge) to change those institutions. The change most often advocated by sociologists, since the French revolution, has been one towards social justice. A socially just society is one in which “all groups are able to take part in the shaping of the society that will ultimately be equitable and in which all members are physically and psychologically safe and secure”.
The Need for a Sociology Perspective and Social Justice today
Sociology is largely a matter of how one interprets history and current events. For example, instead of assuming that women are inherently peaceful to explain their disproportionate incarceration rates, a sociologist will analyze larger social institutions that prevent women from committing crime or encourage law enforcement to ignore female crime. As another example, instead of assuming that an unemployed individual has a personal problem (like they aren’t working hard enough or aren’t intelligent enough to hold down a job), a sociologist will look to the economy (a larger social institution) which may not be creating enough jobs (so no matter how hard that individual works s/he will not succeed). This way of viewing a situation has been termed the “sociological perspective”.
The sociological perspective is especially important when analyzing certain groups (such as women) who have an uncommon correlation with crime because by assuming that something is inherently different about the group (that women are peaceful) the criminal justice system is given justification for discriminatory enforcement policies (like assuming that a woman did not commit a particular crime or that an African American did). What’s more is that discriminatory enforcement policies create statistics (such as the 5% female incarceration rate) that justify the view in the first place. This cycle has been disempowering women though out history because it has created the common assumption that women do not choose to commit or not commit crime, rather it is something in their nature (which revokes much of their autonomy and justified much discrimination). In this way, the law, courts, prisons, and systems of criminal justice have (through discriminatory policies and worldviews) historically served and currently work to reinforce women’s traditional gender roles as dependant, passive, and irrational individuals. Only through a sociological perspective can these forces be elucidated and eventually changed. Until this perspective is taken into account all sex-equality movements will be stunted by a system of justice and other patriarchal institutions that re-enforce stereotypes and assumptions that prevent that movement from being taken seriously.
History
Throughout world history the dominant ideology concerning women has been based in a variety of biased assumptions (that women are “the pawn of biology, passive and weak, impulsive, impressionable, and ultimately non-masculine). This concept has determined how systems of punishment have been developed for women.
One of the first examples of a structured system of criminal justice (and not surprisingly one of the first to favor men over women) comes from Ancient Greece and Rome. In both of these societies only men were considered citizens and only men were allowed to act publicly. Women were treated much like property and almost all female discipline was enacted in the home (it was not considered a suitable case to bring to public trial, you wouldn’t bring your dog to court for misbehaving would you?). The only exception to this rule is if a woman were to commit adultery or kill her husband (it’s important to not that if a man were to kill his wife the sentence would be quite lenient). These offences were not only dealt with publicly but almost certainly meant death for the accused. These societies established two important precedents for criminal justice concerning women. The first is that female misbehavior should be dealt with in the home (this will be seen later in history with the privitization of female criminality). The second is how notions of what is criminal can be used to enforce a discriminatory world view. Women, in these societies and today, had a decidedly passive gender role. As long as they maintained that role, did not even enter into the court process. But, when they became sexually or physically aggressive (breaking their gender role) punishment was especially death. This is one way in which society very literally eliminate those that did not fit into accepts ways of being.
This process continued into the Middle Ages during which women that committed adultery or killed their husbands were still sentenced to death (although their husbands, if they had committed the same crimes, were not). But, a new form of punishment and social control saw a rise. This was the process of institutionalizing the criminal. Women, even if they did not commit any crime in particular, not married at a late age or rejected by their husbands were sent to cloisters with the “mentally defective”. Women that were not in their assumed sexual roles (married and with child) were now considered mentally ill. This is the basis for the medicalization of female behavior and a byproduct of a view of the “irrational women” (if women have something in their nature that makes them good/peaceful then when they do not fit that corporal punishment did not make any sense – something at a deeper “spiritual” level was considered wrong, necessitating institutionalization to resolve it).
But, perhaps the paramount example a system of criminality enforcing gender roles is the process of witch hunting in 16th and 17th century Europe. Almost all of those that were killed during the “witch hunts” (80%) were women and, not surprisingly, they were almost exclusively outside of their assumed gender roles. Those that were at risk for being accused of being a witch were women that were not married, assertive in public spaces, especially old, or those with money (and therefore didn’t need a man to support her). Each of these characteristics directly countered the view of a passive and dependant woman and thus had to be eliminated. That elimination occurred through the system of criminal justice.
paper-backup-just in case
Introduction
America purports, internationally and to its own citizens, to champion equality as a bedrock of its society. Today’s increasingly stratified and diverse culture, however, is creating facts that very much problematize this claim of equal opportunity. For example, how is it that African-Americans constitute 65% of the prison population (while the represent less than a third of total population) while women constitute only 5.7% of the prison population (even though they represent more than 50% of the total population)? In America’s highly individualistic society, the comfortable response is that there is something intrinsic to these segments of the population that result in their disproportionate incarceration rates (i.e. African-Americans are inherently violent and women are inherently peaceful). This response has guided many United States crime enforcement policies as well as the social structure of entire societies (such as Greece or Rome). Although it is comfortable, it is also dangerous (resulting in discrimination and hate), untrue (one need only remember Lizzie Borden, Joan of Arc, or a particularly aggressive everyday woman to understand that fact), and self-fulfilling (by assuming that woman are inherently peaceful and African American’s inherently violent the criminal justice system will suspect and seek out the latter rather then the former when resolving a crime and skew arrest rates). These, largely, are the conclusions of sociology concerning disproportionate prison populations.
What is Sociology?
Sociology is the study of human behavior with a special emphasis on “social structures, institutions, classes, groups, and the social consequences of that behavior”. These institutions included in the definition of sociology are “organized entities that are established to meet specific needs for the overall society”. These entities include societal services like religion (which grants common purpose), education (which trains future members of society) and health services (that ensures that future members of society even exist). It is clear that these institutions affect in a significant way human behavior. Western religion has been used to justify certain laws and family structures. What is included in public schooling prescripts the way in which many individuals will approach and understand the world. This paper will focus on the way in which patriarchy (“the manifestation and institutionalization of male dominance”) relates to the institution of criminal justice and its effects of the behavior of society as a whole. It’s also important to note, however, that a society’s relationship to these sort of institutions is a two way street. Although it is true that patriarchal institutions will create a society that fosters and justifies (through biased education practices etc.) male dominance, if those in the society are sexist patriarchal institutions will arise. Put another way, although the individuals in a society (are in some ways) constituted by the institutions with which they interact, individuals also constitute (very literally) those institutions with their mindsets and actions. This is important because it means that sociology is more than analyzing how individuals are (in a sense) ‘controlled’ by larger societal structures, it allows individuals (with that knowledge) to change those institutions. The change most often advocated by sociologists, since the French revolution, has been one towards social justice. A socially just society is one in which
America purports, internationally and to its own citizens, to champion equality as a bedrock of its society. Today’s increasingly stratified and diverse culture, however, is creating facts that very much problematize this claim of equal opportunity. For example, how is it that African-Americans constitute 65% of the prison population (while the represent less than a third of total population) while women constitute only 5.7% of the prison population (even though they represent more than 50% of the total population)? In America’s highly individualistic society, the comfortable response is that there is something intrinsic to these segments of the population that result in their disproportionate incarceration rates (i.e. African-Americans are inherently violent and women are inherently peaceful). This response has guided many United States crime enforcement policies as well as the social structure of entire societies (such as Greece or Rome). Although it is comfortable, it is also dangerous (resulting in discrimination and hate), untrue (one need only remember Lizzie Borden, Joan of Arc, or a particularly aggressive everyday woman to understand that fact), and self-fulfilling (by assuming that woman are inherently peaceful and African American’s inherently violent the criminal justice system will suspect and seek out the latter rather then the former when resolving a crime and skew arrest rates). These, largely, are the conclusions of sociology concerning disproportionate prison populations.
What is Sociology?
Sociology is the study of human behavior with a special emphasis on “social structures, institutions, classes, groups, and the social consequences of that behavior”. These institutions included in the definition of sociology are “organized entities that are established to meet specific needs for the overall society”. These entities include societal services like religion (which grants common purpose), education (which trains future members of society) and health services (that ensures that future members of society even exist). It is clear that these institutions affect in a significant way human behavior. Western religion has been used to justify certain laws and family structures. What is included in public schooling prescripts the way in which many individuals will approach and understand the world. This paper will focus on the way in which patriarchy (“the manifestation and institutionalization of male dominance”) relates to the institution of criminal justice and its effects of the behavior of society as a whole. It’s also important to note, however, that a society’s relationship to these sort of institutions is a two way street. Although it is true that patriarchal institutions will create a society that fosters and justifies (through biased education practices etc.) male dominance, if those in the society are sexist patriarchal institutions will arise. Put another way, although the individuals in a society (are in some ways) constituted by the institutions with which they interact, individuals also constitute (very literally) those institutions with their mindsets and actions. This is important because it means that sociology is more than analyzing how individuals are (in a sense) ‘controlled’ by larger societal structures, it allows individuals (with that knowledge) to change those institutions. The change most often advocated by sociologists, since the French revolution, has been one towards social justice. A socially just society is one in which
Monday, December 06, 2004
Upon the shrine at Delphi (where Plato argues he found true knowledge) only one phrase was inscribed: “know thyself”. These words, for Plato and ancient philosophers, became an all-important and all encompassing goal. That goal has echoed throughout history as great thinkers have searched for knowledge in explorations of the self, the Other, and the world that they inhabit as a means to achieve a more perfect existence. With the rise of Christianity, however, that goal seemed insufficient. Just as Christian tenets forced many to re-evaluate their morality, it also problematized the existing overriding goal of philosophy, in that, the ‘self’ was re-conceptualized to be, largely, meaningless.
Christianity, in Late Antiquity, had come stress three important concepts. The first is that of original sin (the idea that every person inherited a state of guilt from the first man). The second is the privileging of the spiritual over the physical. St. Julian wrote that any “desire of the flesh” pales in comparison to “the desire to be united with out Lord”. Finally, it argued that each believer should strive to live life as Christ (their savior) did. Each of these goals seem to indicate that knowledge of the self is meaningless (because it is inherently corrupt) and that the only way to gain perfection is to abandon the self (to be subsumed into God or to exist only as an emulation of Christ). It is at confrontation of these two intellectual trends that St. Augustine finds himself as he begins to write his Confessions.
Although Christianity clearly seems to privilege self-abandonment over self-knowledge, self-abandonment (In general) is a dangerous task to undertake. For example, St. Juian found, after intellectual reflection, that martyrdom was the only true way to escape to corrupt nature of the self (he cites Jesus as exemplary of this). Augustine finds himself at a similar conclusion near the beginning of his biography. He writes that if he were so allows he would “terrify by …sin…take flight…[and] live in solitude…but you [god] forbade me” (Augustine 70). So, it appears, that utter abandonment of the self is not an option either as it is forbidden by god both through commandments forbidding suicide and Augustine’s realization that “Christ died....so that those who live should …live …for him who died for them”(Augustine 70). Such a realization leave at least some space for the self to exist (as far as it is oriented toward Christ).
In an attempt to resolve the contradiction that he finds in his life concerning the value of self knowledge that he gained through philosophy and the Christian ideals that promote self-abandonment, Augustine finds a third way of being : a knowledge of self-humility takes pride in the self only insomuch as the self stands in relationship to God and a realization of his/her/its grace.
Augustine comes to accept this mode of being throughout his life. He begins with a recognition of God’s glory, which leads him to understand the worthlessness of the self as an end. He argues that “you [god] are radiant and give delight and are so an object of love and longing that I am ashamed of myself and reject myself” (Augustine 2). Augustine has, at this point, subsumed his idenity into that of God’s to the point that “you hear nothing from my lips which you have not first told me” (Augustine 2). Augstiine has rejected that which gives him the ability to act autonomously
Christianity, in Late Antiquity, had come stress three important concepts. The first is that of original sin (the idea that every person inherited a state of guilt from the first man). The second is the privileging of the spiritual over the physical. St. Julian wrote that any “desire of the flesh” pales in comparison to “the desire to be united with out Lord”. Finally, it argued that each believer should strive to live life as Christ (their savior) did. Each of these goals seem to indicate that knowledge of the self is meaningless (because it is inherently corrupt) and that the only way to gain perfection is to abandon the self (to be subsumed into God or to exist only as an emulation of Christ). It is at confrontation of these two intellectual trends that St. Augustine finds himself as he begins to write his Confessions.
Although Christianity clearly seems to privilege self-abandonment over self-knowledge, self-abandonment (In general) is a dangerous task to undertake. For example, St. Juian found, after intellectual reflection, that martyrdom was the only true way to escape to corrupt nature of the self (he cites Jesus as exemplary of this). Augustine finds himself at a similar conclusion near the beginning of his biography. He writes that if he were so allows he would “terrify by …sin…take flight…[and] live in solitude…but you [god] forbade me” (Augustine 70). So, it appears, that utter abandonment of the self is not an option either as it is forbidden by god both through commandments forbidding suicide and Augustine’s realization that “Christ died....so that those who live should …live …for him who died for them”(Augustine 70). Such a realization leave at least some space for the self to exist (as far as it is oriented toward Christ).
In an attempt to resolve the contradiction that he finds in his life concerning the value of self knowledge that he gained through philosophy and the Christian ideals that promote self-abandonment, Augustine finds a third way of being : a knowledge of self-humility takes pride in the self only insomuch as the self stands in relationship to God and a realization of his/her/its grace.
Augustine comes to accept this mode of being throughout his life. He begins with a recognition of God’s glory, which leads him to understand the worthlessness of the self as an end. He argues that “you [god] are radiant and give delight and are so an object of love and longing that I am ashamed of myself and reject myself” (Augustine 2). Augustine has, at this point, subsumed his idenity into that of God’s to the point that “you hear nothing from my lips which you have not first told me” (Augustine 2). Augstiine has rejected that which gives him the ability to act autonomously
Saturday, December 04, 2004
the website
a2 : net widening
Research conducted on the Restorative Resolutions Project in Manitoba found that most
offenders referred would have received a prison sentence through the traditional system
(Bonta, Wallace-Capretta & Rooney, 1998). The authors concluded, therefore, that netwidening
was not an issue.
offenders referred would have received a prison sentence through the traditional system
(Bonta, Wallace-Capretta & Rooney, 1998). The authors concluded, therefore, that netwidening
was not an issue.
complete the transacation
In a preliminary evaluation of victim mediation programs in California, researchers found
that of all cases in which an agreement was reached, 97% of the contracts were completed
or currently still active. The small number of failures were exclusively from cases dealing
with property offences rather than more serious crimes against the person (Niemeyer &
Shichor, 1996).
that of all cases in which an agreement was reached, 97% of the contracts were completed
or currently still active. The small number of failures were exclusively from cases dealing
with property offences rather than more serious crimes against the person (Niemeyer &
Shichor, 1996).
community efforts
While restorative justice theory consistently describes a process of engaging the victim, the
offender and the community, very little information exists regarding the community
component of this triad. There were data in the literature on the positive effects of restorative
justice for the parents of young offenders and for participating police officers and school
officials. There were also indications that the restorative justice experience facilitated closer
relationships among participants and created a stronger sense of control and safety within
communities. It is clear, nonetheless, that this is a crucial gap in research. Very little is
actually known about the short- and long-term effects of restorative justice programs on
community participants, including their sense of security, perceptions of the criminal justice
system, or fear of crime.
• Roberts (1995) found that victims improved their relationships with friends and family
members following a victim-offender mediation. The study also found that all participants
reported positive changes in their views on crime and victimisation.
• Following the Bethlehem Pennsylvania Police Family Group Conferencing project, police
officers’ attitudes towards crime remained the same, but the officers did report a more
community-oriented and problem solving focus in their work (McCold & Wachtel, 1998).
Cameron and Thorsborne (1998) reported that the majority of conference participants in
an educational setting had closer relationships with other participants after the program.
In addition, the school administrators felt that conferencing reinforced school values,
created positive perceptions of the school among the participants’ families and
transformed their disciplinary practices from a punitive to a more restorative approach.
• Supporters of both victim and offender conference participants reported that the
restorative justice programs created a greater sense of control and security in their
community as well as restored harmony (Chaterjee, 1999).
offender and the community, very little information exists regarding the community
component of this triad. There were data in the literature on the positive effects of restorative
justice for the parents of young offenders and for participating police officers and school
officials. There were also indications that the restorative justice experience facilitated closer
relationships among participants and created a stronger sense of control and safety within
communities. It is clear, nonetheless, that this is a crucial gap in research. Very little is
actually known about the short- and long-term effects of restorative justice programs on
community participants, including their sense of security, perceptions of the criminal justice
system, or fear of crime.
• Roberts (1995) found that victims improved their relationships with friends and family
members following a victim-offender mediation. The study also found that all participants
reported positive changes in their views on crime and victimisation.
• Following the Bethlehem Pennsylvania Police Family Group Conferencing project, police
officers’ attitudes towards crime remained the same, but the officers did report a more
community-oriented and problem solving focus in their work (McCold & Wachtel, 1998).
Cameron and Thorsborne (1998) reported that the majority of conference participants in
an educational setting had closer relationships with other participants after the program.
In addition, the school administrators felt that conferencing reinforced school values,
created positive perceptions of the school among the participants’ families and
transformed their disciplinary practices from a punitive to a more restorative approach.
• Supporters of both victim and offender conference participants reported that the
restorative justice programs created a greater sense of control and security in their
community as well as restored harmony (Chaterjee, 1999).
satisfied offenders
A study conducted at two mediation program sites in England, by Umbreit, Warner,
Kalanj, and Lipkin (1996), reported that the mediated group of offenders were more likely
to be satisfied by the criminal justice system (79% vs. 55%)
Kalanj, and Lipkin (1996), reported that the mediated group of offenders were more likely
to be satisfied by the criminal justice system (79% vs. 55%)
satsifaction
Umbreit, Coates and Kalanj (1994) found that 79% of mediated victims were satisfied with
the processing of their case compared to 57% of the victims within a court sample. The
mediated victims were also more likely to perceive their case to be handled fairly by the
justice system (83% vs. 62%).
• In their interim report on a victim-offender conferencing program for young offenders in
Washington County Minnesota, Umbreit and Fercello (1997a) found that all the victims
were satisfied with the handling and the outcome of their cases. Moreover, 100% of the
victims felt that the restitution agreement was fair for them and 80% felt the agreement was
fair for offenders.
the processing of their case compared to 57% of the victims within a court sample. The
mediated victims were also more likely to perceive their case to be handled fairly by the
justice system (83% vs. 62%).
• In their interim report on a victim-offender conferencing program for young offenders in
Washington County Minnesota, Umbreit and Fercello (1997a) found that all the victims
were satisfied with the handling and the outcome of their cases. Moreover, 100% of the
victims felt that the restitution agreement was fair for them and 80% felt the agreement was
fair for offenders.
less recidivism
http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/rs/rep/rr00-16a-e.pdf
McCold and Wachtel (1998) evaluated a police led family group conference project with
young offenders using random assignment and found that the recidivism rates of project
participants after 12 months was 20% while those who refused to participate demonstrated
a 48% recidivism rate.
McCold and Wachtel (1998) evaluated a police led family group conference project with
young offenders using random assignment and found that the recidivism rates of project
participants after 12 months was 20% while those who refused to participate demonstrated
a 48% recidivism rate.
Restorative Justice – What is it and how is it relevant to family work at our juvenile facilities?
By Marlyce Nuzum
Comments can be sent to mnuzum@hotmail.com
For more information, see Balanced and Restorative Justice Initiative in Michigan
[ Up ] [ RJ Overview ] [ RJ Legislation - detail ] [ RJ Legislation - summary ] [ Faith Based ] [ Mediation and Violence Prevention ]
In January 1998, the Office of Juvenile Justice adopted Balanced and Restorative Justice as a philosophy and the framework for delinquency services throughout the state. Restorative justice is a different way of thinking about crime and justice. It provides a three-dimensional focus on meeting the needs of victims, offenders and communities and involving each in the justice process.
Partnering with families to address obligations and to repair relationships, which have been damaged in a variety of ways, fits well within the philosophy of Restorative Justice. The primary defining feature of restorative justice is its emphasis on repairing the harm caused by crime. Harm refers not only to physical injury or monetary loss, but also includes psychological consequences, damage to relationships and any other loss suffered as a result of the offense. Crime occurs within the context of relationships – family, peers, school, co-workers, communities, etc. – and justice is achieved through the reparation of each of those relationships. The desired goal is taking responsibility (includes actively working to repay for the harm done), expressing sadness and regret, committing not to repeat the harmful behavior and learning healthier ways to relate.
The three stakeholder groups in a restorative justice system are the victim, the offender and the community. The process should provide a framework that promotes the work of recovery and healing for all the stakeholders. The process belongs to the community and requires that community members be actively involved in the work of reparation and reconciliation.
Families are the first community an individual belongs to and the work of recovery and healing must include efforts of reparation and reconciliation at this level also. By drawing from the resources of the family, the unit itself will be strengthened. All the family members will have a greater investment in the well being of the family as a whole and, as a result, the safety of the larger community will also be enhanced. The family has a responsibility for the conditions that promote both harm and peace within its boundaries just as all other communities do.
The values of restorative justice are reflected in its goals of accountability, competency development and community safety. A strength based family work approach which places value on diversity and demonstrates respect in its interactions with all family members is most likely to achieve these same goals (accountability, competency development and safety) both within the family unit and the larger community. This requires that we, as juvenile justice professionals, stretch our traditional definitions of family and community to reflect the perspectives of the participants in the process. Many of our youth do not have "families" as traditionally defined, but do have an identified network of contacts, which fulfill family roles. The professional focus should be on creative problem solving and relationship building. This requires an enhanced understanding of the victim experience, conflict resolution / mediation skills, and the ability to identify, access and reinforce existing resources – both internal and external. Currently there are a number of promising practices being implemented that adhere to the values of restorative justice and that lend themselves to the arena of family work in cases of juvenile delinquency.
Family group conferencing involves bringing together family members and their key supporters to discuss harms that have occurred and how they might be repaired. People are provided with the opportunity to express their feelings regarding the impact of harmful behaviors, to ask questions and to identify desired changes. All participants may contribute to the process and the desired end result is an agreement between participants which outlines both expectations and commitments. Family group conferencing provides for victim involvement, enhanced empathy on the part of the offender and strengthened connections to community support systems.
Parent/child or victim/offender mediation provides opportunities for family members to meet in a structured setting to discuss the impact of harmful behaviors. With the assistance of a trained mediator, the effects of harmful behavior can be safely discussed, questions asked and opportunities provided to develop mutually acceptable plans for reparation and reconciliation.
Keeping in mind our definition of family as a community, Judge Barry Stuart provides the defining value in partnering with the families of the youth in the care of the juvenile justice system:
"When citizens fail to assume responsibility for decisions affecting the community, community life will be characterized by the absence of a collective sense of caring, a lack of respect for diverse values and ultimately a lack of any sense of belonging. On the other hand, conflict, if resolved through a process that constructively engages the parties involved, can be a fundamental building ingredient in any relationship."
Whatever approach is utilized, the measure of the intervention is the degree of restoration or reparation achieved
By Marlyce Nuzum
Comments can be sent to mnuzum@hotmail.com
For more information, see Balanced and Restorative Justice Initiative in Michigan
[ Up ] [ RJ Overview ] [ RJ Legislation - detail ] [ RJ Legislation - summary ] [ Faith Based ] [ Mediation and Violence Prevention ]
In January 1998, the Office of Juvenile Justice adopted Balanced and Restorative Justice as a philosophy and the framework for delinquency services throughout the state. Restorative justice is a different way of thinking about crime and justice. It provides a three-dimensional focus on meeting the needs of victims, offenders and communities and involving each in the justice process.
Partnering with families to address obligations and to repair relationships, which have been damaged in a variety of ways, fits well within the philosophy of Restorative Justice. The primary defining feature of restorative justice is its emphasis on repairing the harm caused by crime. Harm refers not only to physical injury or monetary loss, but also includes psychological consequences, damage to relationships and any other loss suffered as a result of the offense. Crime occurs within the context of relationships – family, peers, school, co-workers, communities, etc. – and justice is achieved through the reparation of each of those relationships. The desired goal is taking responsibility (includes actively working to repay for the harm done), expressing sadness and regret, committing not to repeat the harmful behavior and learning healthier ways to relate.
The three stakeholder groups in a restorative justice system are the victim, the offender and the community. The process should provide a framework that promotes the work of recovery and healing for all the stakeholders. The process belongs to the community and requires that community members be actively involved in the work of reparation and reconciliation.
Families are the first community an individual belongs to and the work of recovery and healing must include efforts of reparation and reconciliation at this level also. By drawing from the resources of the family, the unit itself will be strengthened. All the family members will have a greater investment in the well being of the family as a whole and, as a result, the safety of the larger community will also be enhanced. The family has a responsibility for the conditions that promote both harm and peace within its boundaries just as all other communities do.
The values of restorative justice are reflected in its goals of accountability, competency development and community safety. A strength based family work approach which places value on diversity and demonstrates respect in its interactions with all family members is most likely to achieve these same goals (accountability, competency development and safety) both within the family unit and the larger community. This requires that we, as juvenile justice professionals, stretch our traditional definitions of family and community to reflect the perspectives of the participants in the process. Many of our youth do not have "families" as traditionally defined, but do have an identified network of contacts, which fulfill family roles. The professional focus should be on creative problem solving and relationship building. This requires an enhanced understanding of the victim experience, conflict resolution / mediation skills, and the ability to identify, access and reinforce existing resources – both internal and external. Currently there are a number of promising practices being implemented that adhere to the values of restorative justice and that lend themselves to the arena of family work in cases of juvenile delinquency.
Family group conferencing involves bringing together family members and their key supporters to discuss harms that have occurred and how they might be repaired. People are provided with the opportunity to express their feelings regarding the impact of harmful behaviors, to ask questions and to identify desired changes. All participants may contribute to the process and the desired end result is an agreement between participants which outlines both expectations and commitments. Family group conferencing provides for victim involvement, enhanced empathy on the part of the offender and strengthened connections to community support systems.
Parent/child or victim/offender mediation provides opportunities for family members to meet in a structured setting to discuss the impact of harmful behaviors. With the assistance of a trained mediator, the effects of harmful behavior can be safely discussed, questions asked and opportunities provided to develop mutually acceptable plans for reparation and reconciliation.
Keeping in mind our definition of family as a community, Judge Barry Stuart provides the defining value in partnering with the families of the youth in the care of the juvenile justice system:
"When citizens fail to assume responsibility for decisions affecting the community, community life will be characterized by the absence of a collective sense of caring, a lack of respect for diverse values and ultimately a lack of any sense of belonging. On the other hand, conflict, if resolved through a process that constructively engages the parties involved, can be a fundamental building ingredient in any relationship."
Whatever approach is utilized, the measure of the intervention is the degree of restoration or reparation achieved
A2; Harsher Punishments
Aidan Wilcox, Richard Young and Carolyn Hoyle. Home Office (UK) online report, 2004
This study reports the results of a 24-month resanctioning study of restorative and traditional
cautions. The work follows on from a previous study of restorative cautions in Thames Valley
(Hoyle et al., 2002) which found that around one-quarter of offenders reported that they had
either desisted from crime or reduced their offending at least in part because of the restorative
caution. The aim of the current study was to investigate this finding further through a large-scale
resanctioning study.
The first part of the analysis compared the resanctioning rates of over 29,000 offenders in
Thames Valley and the two comparison forces controlling for relevant offender characteristics.
The second analysis compared the different types of caution within Thames Valley, again
controlling for offender characteristics. The impact of restorative cautioning on various subgroups
of offenders was also considered, as well as the frequency and seriousness of subsequent
offending. Taking the results of the analyses together, there was no evidence to suggest that
restorative cautioning had resulted in a statistically significant reduction in either the overall
resanctioning rate or the frequency or seriousness of offending. Importantly, there was also no
evidence that restorative justice had increased resanctioning rates. Although reliable cost data
were not available, the cost per caution in Thames Valley is likely to have been less than in
comparable schemes. It is also important to note that Hoyle et al. had demonstrated the many
other benefits of the initiative for both victims and offenders.
Aidan Wilcox, Richard Young and Carolyn Hoyle. Home Office (UK) online report, 2004
This study reports the results of a 24-month resanctioning study of restorative and traditional
cautions. The work follows on from a previous study of restorative cautions in Thames Valley
(Hoyle et al., 2002) which found that around one-quarter of offenders reported that they had
either desisted from crime or reduced their offending at least in part because of the restorative
caution. The aim of the current study was to investigate this finding further through a large-scale
resanctioning study.
The first part of the analysis compared the resanctioning rates of over 29,000 offenders in
Thames Valley and the two comparison forces controlling for relevant offender characteristics.
The second analysis compared the different types of caution within Thames Valley, again
controlling for offender characteristics. The impact of restorative cautioning on various subgroups
of offenders was also considered, as well as the frequency and seriousness of subsequent
offending. Taking the results of the analyses together, there was no evidence to suggest that
restorative cautioning had resulted in a statistically significant reduction in either the overall
resanctioning rate or the frequency or seriousness of offending. Importantly, there was also no
evidence that restorative justice had increased resanctioning rates. Although reliable cost data
were not available, the cost per caution in Thames Valley is likely to have been less than in
comparable schemes. It is also important to note that Hoyle et al. had demonstrated the many
other benefits of the initiative for both victims and offenders.
Friday, June 04, 2004
OPEC - Attempts to Lower Prices
BEIRUT, June 3 - The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries agreed on Thursday to increase its production quotas by two million barrels a day, or 8.5 percent, effective July 1. Industry experts gathered here for OPEC's meeting said that the decision sent a tepid message to oil markets about the group's commitment to lowering prices, which have been around $40 a barrel.
Traders responded to the news by bidding up the futures price of oil almost 70 cents a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, but prices dropped later in the day when new Energy Department statistics showed growing supplies of oil, gasoline and other distilled fuels in the United States. Crude oil for July delivery settled in New York at $39.28 a barrel, down 68 cents from Wednesday.
Analysts said the problem with OPEC's move was that it would not add any new oil to the market. As a group, OPEC is already overproducing its declared ceiling of 23.5 million barrels a day, set in March, by at least 2 million barrels. Increasing the quota merely legitimizes what is already happening, they said.
The 10 voting members of OPEC - voting rights of Iraq, the 11th member, have not been restored yet - said they would raise daily quotas by an additional 500,000 barrels on Aug. 1. The group is scheduled to meet again on July 21 in Vienna to review market conditions."They're not doing anything," said Roger Diwan, managing director of PFC Energy, a Washington consulting firm. "There's no sense of urgency." Referring to the probable effect on prices, he added, "It's a bullish signal to the market; if you were expecting a change of policy in Beirut, come again." The thinking within OPEC may have been best summed up by the Algerian oil minister, Chakib Khelil. In an interview, Mr. Khelil said that there was already enough crude oil in the world, and that other factors besides the supply were responsible for the high prices. But OPEC, he said, nevertheless needed to send a message to the market that it, too, was concerned about the run-up. "Consumers have been asking for it," he said of the quota increase. "What do you think would have happened if we had not done this?" Even so, said Michael Fitzpatrick, vice president for energy risk management at Fimat USA, a New York brokerage house, "the OPEC decision is a little disappointing" because it will have little practical effect on supplies. Mr. Fitzpatrick said prices fell on Thursday afternoon because "people were looking past the meeting" and focusing on the strong inventory figures in the United States, which were attributed in part to the largest oil and gasoline imports in nearly two years. That inventory growth may be the first tangible sign of increased output, outside official OPEC quotas, from Saudi Arabia, the only producer with significant spare capacity. Almost all other countries are already pumping at capacity. The Saudis said on May 23 at an industry conference in Amsterdam that they would step up their production, at the same time calling for OPEC to increase its quotas by 2.5 million barrels a day. To them and some other members of the group, a sustained price of $40 a barrel or more poses the threat of slowing global economic growth and weakening the demand for oil.
Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham expressed a similar view in a statement Thursday welcoming the OPEC decision and saying that "oil-producing and consuming countries have shared interests and mutual responsibilities in fostering economic growth." According to Vera de Ladoucette, senior director for Middle East Research with Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a consulting group, Saudi Arabia could pump as much as 9.1 million barrels a day in June, compared with 8.3 million barrels last month, adding that this could go even higher later in the year. But analysts said the market might have been looking for a stronger stand from OPEC as a group, and not just the Saudis. "The market is looking for solidarity," said Falah Aljibury, an independent oil analyst. "It's a compromise that's not fully behind the Saudi proposal. The Saudis are concerned about high prices; others are concerned, but I'm not sure if some other members understand the gravity of the situation."
Mr. Aljibury and others said Iran might have dug in its heels against endorsing the full increase of 2.5 million barrels a day proposed by the Saudis. Iran, which usually advocates high prices, has no spare capacity, analysts said, so it stands to gain nothing from an increase in quotas. OPEC is also hesitant to open the taps all the way because of the view that the recent run-up in prices had relatively little to do with production levels. Rather, many members say, worries about political turbulence in Iraq, Nigeria and Venezuela and terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia, like the one in Khobar last weekend, have added $6 to $8 a barrel to the wholesale price of crude oil. Analysts said a number of OPEC countries also feared that increasing production could create a glut once these worries subsided, leading to a sharp price decline. Whether Thursday's decision will have any lasting effect on oil prices will not become clear for several weeks, given Saudi Arabia's decision to step up output and the time lag between production and delivery.
The outcome of the meeting does indicate that all OPEC members, including Saudi Arabia, are much more comfortable with high oil prices than their customers are. "No one ever got fired for making too much money," an oil trader, who spoke about OPEC on condition of anonymity, aid. "Their budgets are doing great. You see it everywhere in these countries, with all the new building going on" in the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.
Thursday, June 03, 2004
Bush - Troop Movement (European Power Vacuum)
WASHINGTON, June 3 — The Pentagon has proposed a plan to withdraw its two Army divisions from Germany and undertake an array of other changes in its European-based forces, in the most significant rearrangement of the American military around the world since the beginning of the cold war, according to American and allied officials.
Pentagon policy makers said the aim is to afford maximum flexibility in sending forces to the Middle East, Central Asia and other potential battlegrounds. But some experts and allied officials are concerned that the shift will reduce Washington's influence in NATO and weaken its diplomatic links with its allies, all at a time of rising anti-American sentiment around the world. The proposal to withdraw the divisions comes at a time when the Army is stretched thin by deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Pentagon officials said the move, which has been under consideration for some time and involves forces in Asia as well as in Europe, is unrelated to the current fighting.Under the Pentagon plan, the Germany-based First Armored Division and First Infantry Division would be returned to the United States. A brigade equipped with Stryker light armored vehicles would be deployed in Germany. A typical division consists of three brigades and can number 20,000 troops if logistical units are included, though these two divisions have only two brigades each in Germany, with the other brigade in the United States.
In addition, a wing of F-16 fighters may be shifted from their base in Spangdahlem, Germany, to the Incirlik base in Turkey, which would move the aircraft closer to the volatile Middle East; a wing generally consists of 72 aircraft. Under the Pentagon plan, the shift would be carried out only if the Turks gave the United States broad latitude for using them, something that some officials see as unlikely. The Navy's headquarters in Europe would be transferred from Britain to Italy. Administration officials are also discussing plans to remove some F-15 fighters from Britain and to withdraw the handful of F-15 fighters that are normally deployed in Iceland, though final decisions have not been made.Administration officials said Douglas Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy, recently briefed German officials on the plan. The Germans were told that the withdrawal plan had yet to be formally approved by President Bush and that the United States would listen to their concerns, an American official said.Officials said they expected the major decisions on the rearrangement to be made in a month or two. But the main direction of the Pentagon plan appears to be set. "Everything is going to move everywhere," Mr. Feith said a year ago, as the Bush administration was beginning to develop the details of its plan. "There is not going to be a place in the world where it's going to be the same as it used to be."
For Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, the reasons for the reshuffling seem clear and compelling: that the purpose of military units is to fight and win the nation's wars, and they should be stationed in locations that enable the United States to use them most efficiently and with minimal political restrictions."It's time to adjust those locations from static defense to a more agile and a more capable and a more 21st-century posture," Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters on Thursday on a flight to Singapore.Proponents of Mr. Rumsfeld's plan see little merit in keeping a large number of forces in Germany now that the cold war is over. They argue that the United States would be better off withdrawing most of them and establishing new bases in Southeastern Europe, from which forces could be rushed if there was a crisis in the Caucasus or the Middle East."From a strategic point of view, there is more sense in moving things out of Germany and having something in Bulgaria and Romania," said Joseph Ralston, a retired general and a former NATO commander. But some experts and allied officials are concerned that a substantial reduction in the United States military presence in Europe would reduce American influence there, reinforce the notion that the Bush administration prefers to act unilaterally and inadvertently lend support to the French contention that Europe must rely on itself for its security. Montgomery Meigs, a retired general and the former head of Army forces in Europe, said substantial reductions in American troops in Europe could limit the opportunities to train with NATO's new East European members and other allies. While American forces can still be sent for exercises from the United States, he said, it will be more difficult and costly to do so. "You will never sustain the level of engagement from the United States that you can from Europe," he said. "We will not go to as many NATO exercises or have as many training events." Other specialists have warned that the greatest risk is the possible damage to allied relations."The most serious potential consequences of the contemplated shifts would not be military but political and diplomatic," Kurt Campbell and Celeste Johnson Ward of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies wrote in an article published last year in the journal Foreign Affairs, well before the extent of the changes now planned became known."Unless the changes are paired with a sustained and effective diplomatic campaign, therefore, they could well increase foreign anxiety about and distrust of the United States." Gen. James Jones, the American commander of NATO, has supported the withdrawal of the two divisions from Europe on the understanding that American ground units would rotate regularly through Europe, allied officials say. But some allied officials believe it is less clear that the Pentagon will finance and organize the regular rotation of forces that are central to General Jones's vision, especially since so much of the United States' energy and effort is focused on Iraq.Already, administration officials have said a brigade of troops is to be shifted from Korea to Iraq. That reflects both the demand for additional forces in Iraq and the new thinking about positioning forces in Asia. Pentagon officials insist they are effectively managing relations with key allies. "What we have been hearing from the allies privately and publicly is that they understand the U.S. is changing and want to stay connected," said Andy Hoehn, deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy. "The real message is that we have been consulting with the allies and the result has been pretty positive."The Pentagon plan was discussed at a May 20 meeting of top United States officials. Administration officials declined to comment on the record about the session. A State Department official said that the meeting was a "snapshot at a given time," and that some ideas have continued to be refined since then. In the meeting, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who was once the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he thought it was unlikely that the Turks would agree to allow the United States to operate freely from Turkish bases. Gen. Richard B. Myers, the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also said securing Turkey's agreement was a long shot and indicated that he favored keeping the F-16's in Germany, according to an account of the session that was provided. No United States forces are to be removed from Italy. The Navy's European headquarters, however, is scheduled to move from London to Naples. Earlier plans to move that headquarters to Spain have been dropped. While skeptics have wondered if the switch from Spain to Italy is related to the decision by Spain's new Socialist government to withdraw its troops from Iraq, Defense Department officials insist that it is being made on cost grounds. Regarding Britain, administration officials are discussing a plan to remove some F-15 fighters. Some Defense Department officials have suggested moving an air command center to Britain from Germany as compensation if F-15's are removed. But General Myers indicated that he thought the F-15's should remain in Britain, according to an account of the meeting.Iceland has long been a sensitive matter, with civilian officials at the Pentagon pushing to remove the small number of F-15's that are regularly rotated through Iceland under a bilateral agreement reached during the cold war. That could upset a government that has been generally supportive of American policy and which relies on the F-15's for its air defense. Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, said at the May 20 meeting that Mr. Bush would not support the withdrawal of the aircraft until a way was found to mollify the Icelanders. One possibility is to make Iceland a "cooperative security location," Defense Department jargon for a base to which forces could rapidly deploy in a crisis. The Caucasus has also figured into the Pentagon's calculations. Here the issue is not about moving out, but whether to move in. At the May 20 meeting, senior officials agreed that stationing troops in Georgia could be destabilizing, especially since Russia still has not withdrawn all its forces from that country, a former republic of the Soviet Union. The idea was dropped. Civilian officials at the Defense Department have pressed for a presidential speech or announcement in mid-June about the new military posture. But State Department officials have argued that this would not leave sufficient time for consultations with the allies and would make the new policy appear to be a fait accompli. Some officials have noted that the stationing of forces in past decades has entailed more flexibility on all sides than many people realize. During the May 20 meeting, Mr. Powell is reported to have observed that Army troops like being stationed in Europe and noted that the Germans had never stood in the way when the United States wanted to send its German-based forces on other missions. The United States sent Army units in Germany to fight in the Persian Gulf conflict in 1991 and in the Iraq war in 2003.
Bush - Deep Cuts
WASHINGTON, June 3 - The United States will reduce its stockpile of nuclear weapons by nearly half over the next eight years, the Energy Department said Thursday. The Bush administration made the decision last month and informed Congress on Tuesday in a classified report.Linton F. Brooks, administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, which is part of the Energy Department, said in a conference call with reporters that the reductions would leave the nation with "the smallest nuclear-weapons stockpile we've had in several decades." He called the decision historic.
Mr. Brooks would not discuss specific numbers for the cuts. "The numbers I'm prepared to use are 'almost in half' and 'smallest in several decades,' " he said. The decision by the administration followed an announcement by President Bush in November 2001 that the nation would reduce the number of "operationally deployed" strategic warheads by about two-thirds by 2012, leaving 1,700 to 2,200 warheads. But that announcement did not commit the United States to reduce the total number of weapons in its inventory, only the number of strategic weapons that were ready to use immediately.The new decision includes additional categories of weapons, including short-range weapons that are not considered strategic, weapons held in reserve and weapons in places like nuclear submarines that are in overhaul and "logistical spares," which are used to swap with weapons being recalled for overhaul.When Mr. Bush promised in 2001 to cut the number of actively deployed strategic weapons to no more than 2,200, the United States had 6,100, according to Tom Cochran, an expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a group that specializes in nuclear weapons, among other environmental issues. The United States had 10,000 nuclear weapons in all categories, and the announcement made Thursday will cut that to 6,100, Mr. Cochran said, suggesting that the overall reduction would be somewhat less than Mr. Brooks's figure. Some of the weapons to be removed from the active category will be dismantled, and some will go into the reserve category, meaning that they could be returned to readiness quickly; some of the weapons now in the reserve will be decommissioned, Mr. Cochran said.
In practice, the weapons to be retired will join a long queue at an Energy Department plant in Amarillo, Tex., called Pantex, which is now busy with "life extension" of existing weapons, Mr. Brooks said. He said that President George Bush, who left office in 1993, decided to retire the nation's stock of nuclear artillery shells, "and we just finished dismantling the last one last year."
Mr. Brooks said in a letter to members of Congress that making the stockpile smaller would require more work on the remaining weapons. "We must continue the administration's efforts to restore the nuclear weapons infrastructure," he said in an unclassified cover letter to the memo describing the schedule for reducing arms from now to 2012. In the conference call, Mr. Brooks said that the decision to reduce the stockpile meant that a new bomb plant that the administration wants to build, the Modern Pit Facility, could be smaller than it might have otherwise been, but that it would still be needed. Pits are the hearts of plutonium weapons, and the Energy Department lost most of its capacity to make pits when it closed the Rocky Flats, Colo., plant, near Denver, in the 1990's, because of environmental and production problems.The plutonium in the pits in existing weapons is breaking down over time, Mr. Brooks said, and at some point the department will have to melt down and recast the pits. One reason for that the memo was issued Tuesday was to convince members of Congress that a new pit plant is needed, he said."We've not yet been able to convince some of our Congressional colleagues that the Modern Pit Facility is unrelated to any notion of future weapons development or future weapons growth," Mr. Brooks said.In fact, the administration has shown intermittent interest in a new class of small nuclear weapons, an idea bitterly opposed by some members of Congress. Mr. Brooks said the reduction was the largest in history in percentage terms. Mr. Cochran, at the Natural Resources Defense Council, agreed that the reduction was significant. But he said: "These cuts are over eight years. That's two presidential administrations. This is not a fast-paced reduction."
