Justice and Inclusion: Lessons for Boston from New York and Chicago

By: Daniel Daponte

Few doubt that our criminal justice system is in crisis. It is seen as overly punitive, ineffective, and racially biased^[1]. The Biden Administration has stated its goal to heal the scars of racist policies such as Redlining and the War on Drugs that cut deep in many communities of color. Meanwhile, New York City and Chicago are leading the way with courts in low-income and minority neighborhoods subjected to decades of mass incarceration, predatory policing, and rampant recidivism.

The Red Hook Community Justice Center (RHCJC) in the Red Hook neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York has been a flagship community court in the United States since 2000. The North Lawndale Restorative Justice Community Court (NLRJCC) opened in August of 2017, and was the first restorative justice court in Chicago, intended to reduce incarceration. The two courts offer competing visions of community justice, with Red Hook leading the way for institutional changes, made to accommodate every citizen and to divert them from both the traditional courts and prison. North Lawndale is an experimental approach, using restorative justice to transfer control to community members and targeting the age group most vulnerable to incarceration.

Red Hook Community Justice Center (RHCJC)
Brooklyn, NY

The RHCJC’s institutional approach focuses the power of the “traditional” courts and social services into communities with complex issues of poverty, crime, and historical racism. The court is unique because it hears four different classes of cases in one courtroom: adult misdemeanors, felony arraignments, family court for juvenile cases, and a housing court for disputes between public housing residents and the New York City Housing Authority. The multi-jurisdictional courtroom allows the court to dispense justice on a range of issues and improves how citizens interact with the criminal justice system. Furthermore, the multi-jurisdictional approach in Red Hook gives the RHCJC a much higher visibility in the community it serves.

The RHCJC incorporates the ideas of the Broken Windows theory of crime, which at its heart relies on and necessitates an active government presence in communities. The RHCJC can be described as “Broken Windows done right” because of its emphasis on addressing quality of life issues with alternative sanctions, treatment, and resource availability.  While certain violent or habitual defenders need to be sent to Downtown Brooklyn for arraignment in traditional courts, much of the discretion is left to the DA’s office and Judge Alex M. Calabrese in determining which sanctions to pursue and impose. The idea is that Judge Calabrese will be able to better assess the needs of defendants and connect them to resources, such as abuse counseling or anger management classes, more effectively than the central courts.

Equally as important to how community courts like the RHCJC reduce incarceration is how the RHCJC sanctions defendants. In New York City, misdemeanor defendants are often released after arraignment either with an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal (ACD) or sentenced with a Conditional Discharge (CD) with the only requirement being to avoid re-arrest for a specified period. In New York City, ACDs and CDs are not standardized, and court mandates for counseling or community service obligations are applied ad hoc with compliance often not monitored or enforced^[2]. At the RHCJC, social services and community service sanctions are imposed frequently, and compliance is monitored rigorously. For misdemeanor offenses, 69% of ACDs at Red Hook included community service or mandated social services^[3]. This sentencing regimen is in stark contrast to the status quo. Accompanying this shift in sanctions, the Justice Center’s Alternative Sanctions Office monitors compliance with court orders^[4]. In changing how defendants are punished and the conditions under which they are released, the RHCJC has redefined the scope of the criminal justice system in Red Hook by reducing defendants’ rate of incarceration in favor of alternative sentencing. Perhaps just as important, interviews and surveys conducted by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) found that the RHCJC has gone a long way to change how residents of Red Hook perceive fairness in the criminal justice system^[5].

North Lawndale Restorative Justice Community Court (NLRJCC)
Chicago, IL

In Chicago, the NLRJCC offers an entirely different approach to criminal justice, not redistributing the already present capabilities of the system, but rather reforming how the system behaves entirely by removing the threat of incarceration in exchange for the perpetrator accepting responsibility and demonstrating restorative behavior.

As its name suggests, the North Lawndale court implements the idea of Restorative Justice, a relatively niche aspect in the United States criminal justice system. Restorative Justice attempts to shift what Dr. George Walters-Sleyon refers to as the “Legitimacy of Accountability” away from the state and towards the three stakeholders impacted by crime: the victim, the perpetrator, and the community^[6]. The “Legitimacy of Accountability” describes who has both the legal and moral authority to hold offenders to account. In the United States, the Legitimacy of Accountability lies firmly with the government as they prosecute cases against perpetrators to hold them responsible for their actions and attempt to repair the harm caused by crime either through restitution (fines) or incarceration.

The NLRJCC removes the state’s monopoly of authority over crimes. For a case to be heard at the NLRJCC, it requires the consent of the victim to proceed, and the court places an emphasis on personal responsibility as well as communication with the victim through peace circles. These peace circles are confidential discussions between the perpetrator, victim, and invited guests of either party. Notably, the judge, law enforcement, and lawyers are not allowed to participate in the peace circle. The circle is moderated by trained staff from the community^[7].  The judge is still important to the court, but their power of adjudication and sentencing are diffused to the community by letting the victim and perpetrator craft a written Repair of Harm Agreement in the peace circle that needs only be approved by the judge. Similar to the ACDs at the RHCJC, once the defendant completes the conditions of the Repair of Harm Agreement, their charges will be dropped, and their case dismissed. The choice to exclude members of the criminal justice system, including the judge, from the peace circles emphasizes the reimagining of the criminal justice system the NLRJCC is practicing.

The NLRJCC’s methodology reflects the deep distrust of the system held by community members and aligns with definitions of restorative justice that put the responsibility of conflict resolution and sanctioning on the three equal parts of restorative justice: victim, perpetrator, and community. Ensuring the needs of all three of these parties are met with the state as more of a guiding force underscores the uniqueness of the NLRJCC and its efforts to fold restorative justice into the criminal justice system. By transferring the Legitimacy of Accountability to the community, the NLRJCC is lives up to its name as a community court – one that both serves the community and keeps its members in the community instead of prison.

The NLRJCC’s focus on decarceration is important when placed in the context of Chicago’s struggle with gang violence and recidivism. For example, the NLRJCC arguably diverts weapon offenders from prison. The court’s intervention means that defendants can have their Unlawful Use of a Weapon (UUW) charges dropped. Seven percent of the cases heard at the NLRJCC were UUW or Aggravated UUW^[8]. This is significant because a 2018 analysis of recidivism rates of firearm offenders in Illinois found that one arrest for a firearm involved charge correlated to a 67% chance of being re-arrested in a 10-year period. Additionally, the NLRJCC targets the most at-risk population for incarceration by limiting the eligibility for the court to defendants who are between the ages of 18 and 26, which maps nearly perfectly on to the age demographic that dominates the Cook County Jail. According to Cook County Judge Patricia Spratt, who presides over the court, of the 63 defendants who have completed their Repair of Harm Agreement and had their cases dismissed, not one has been arrested again^[9].

Can These Reforms Be Adopted in More American Cities?

The RHCJC in New York City and the NLRJCC in Chicago illustrate how cities have led the way in criminal justice reform by building institutions that reduce incarceration and address the conflicts and social problems that create crime. Whether it’s realizing the potential of already existing structures in Red Hook or the departure from the norm underway in North Lawndale, cities are adopting strategies to address disparate rates of incarceration between races.

The next important question to address is: can these reforms be adopted in more American cities? If so, will their approach look like the Red Hook Community Justice Center or North Lawndale’s Restorative Justice Community Court? Boston provides an interesting case study. Section 267B the 2018 Massachusetts Criminal Justice Reform Bill outlined the creation of restorative justice courts for both juvenile and adult defendants. Rachel Rollins, the DA of Suffolk County (including Boston) elected in 2018, campaigned on restorative justice and supported the Restorative Justice provision in the 2018 Bill. This suggests that Rollins is a proponent of courts with methods similar to courts like North Lawndale’s.

Boston Mayoral Candidate Michelle Wu has stated that “public safety should be built around restorative justice.” Andrea Campbell, also vying for Mayor, emphasizes the need to “reimagine public safety and criminal justice to address root causes of violence and crime.” Campbell’s language focusing on the root causes of crime is similar to the original rationale behind the Red Hook Community Justice Center^[10]. While the candidates agree on the urgency of reform, they support different approaches. Michelle Wu’s emphasis on restorative justice suggests a change in how courts function whereas Andrea Campbell supports the community justice approach that views crime as a social problem. These differences are sure to play out as the race for mayor heats up, and the future of criminal justice in Boston may depend on which vision wins out.

Daniel Daponte (CAS ’22) is IOC’s 2020-2021 National League of Cities (NLC) Menino Fellow. Daniel is pursuing a BA in Environmental Analysis and Policy with a minor in Urban Studies. Through this Fellowship, Daniel spent the fall semester with IOC Director and Professor Graham Wilson in a Directed Study program. Daniel’s research project focused on restorative justice initiatives, analyzing the policy landscape and conducting case studies of the Red Hook Community Justice Center in New York City and Chicago’s Community Justice Program. Daniel is currently spending the spring semester working with the NLC’s Institute for Youth, Education and Families (YEF). Contact Daniel here for more information on this research project.

Notes

[1] The United States is a world leader in incarceration, and income and race are key determining factors in how a person is treated by the criminal justice system (1). For example, African Americans were 3.7 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites despite similar usage rates and African Americans were held in jail before convicted at trial 3.5 times more than non-Hispanic whites.
[2] Lee et al., 77
[3] Lee et al. 78
[4] Lee et al., 81
[5] Lee et al., 140
[6] Dr. Walters-Sleyon is an expert in Restorative Justice. He defined the Legitimacy of Accountability in a phone interview in September of 2020.
[7] Harriman, 51
[8] Data obtained from the Office of the Chief Judge of Cook County.
[9] Data obtained from the Office of the Chief Judge of Cook County.
[10] Lee et al. 25