Huffington Post Denies Discourse on Restorative Justice

Yesterday a blogger posted an article regarding a proposed new law in Massachusetts supporting Restorative Justice. My post, while substantively different from those I posted on Molly Rowan’s celebration of Restorative Justice, was blocked for being too similar to my response to Molly.

You read the articles and decide. Here is a link to HuffPo’s article.

Here is my response:

This article highlights some of the great risks that arise with the implementation of restorative justice in our community. Should our secular justice system be implementing a system based around theological concepts such as sin, forgiveness and redemption? In much of the restorative justice literature reference is made to philosophers such as Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas, men who developed the concept of “theodicy,” the defense of God’s goodness in the face of great wrongdoing. In some of these philosophies the idea that wrongdoing exists to provide meaning and redemption for the faithful. This is what I see in statements like Mrs. Connors’ claim that RJ gave meaning to her son’s death.

My own experience of Restorative Justice goes back to the dawn of the philosophy, in 1977 when a group in Iowa freed a property felon and placed him in my family home through their housing mission. I was offended against sexually, and when the crime was reported by my parents to the community justice and rj justice organization and its affiliates, the offense was suppressed. Though I have repeatedly requested the founders of the RJ group to meet with me they continue to reject that they mismanaged the case. What does it say for restorative justice that its advocates will not admit wrong or come to the table? I suggest it means that RJ is based in faith – the faithful are right and have just cause to control their community. (Read more HERE.)

Here is a LINK to Molly’s article.

Scroll down to the comments and expand the collapsed threads. Molly never came back to respond to my comments. Is it unreasonable to go to a new author, highlight how he is promoting the same risks and to ask him to answer what Molly could not? Let me know.