Prosecutorial Considerations in the Use of Restorative Justice for Hate Crimes

• In Event: Restorative Justice in Principle and Practice: Criminal Legal Stakeholders’ Thoughts on Eligibility, Implementation, and Impact

Abstract

Restorative justice (RJ) and other alternatives to traditional prosecution are increasingly common. We conducted interviews with approximately 100 prosecutors nationwide to examine their perspectives and experiences with RJ in response to hate crimes specifically, including the circumstances under which they consider RJ as an appropriate response. Although RJ can increase public safety, its practice as a response to hate crimes depends on case specifics. Findings suggest that victim cooperation is paramount. Most prosecutors prioritized the views of the immediate victim and would not pursue RJ without victim cooperation, though some suggested that surrogate victims could stand in given the impact of hate crimes on broader communities. In terms of case severity, most considered RJ more appropriate for lower level offenses without bodily harm. Perhaps counterintuitively, given the potential harm to a broader community, some prosecutors identified hate crimes as especially suited to RJ due to its potential for rehabilitation, reconciliation and dialogue, particularly in contrast to incarcerative settings that might only reinforce existing worldviews; prosecutors especially considered RJ as a possibility for younger defendants. We also discuss differences in perspectives with regard to political affiliation, jurisdiction size, and other factors. We offer recommendations for use of RJ in hate crimes.

Authors

• Neal Palmer, CUNY Institute for State & Local Governance

• Aimee McPhail, CUNY Institute for State & Local Governance

• Besiki Luka Kutateladze, Florida International University

• Melba Pearson, Florida International University