WASHINGTON, April 21 (UPI) -- The UPI think tank wrap-up is a daily digest covering opinion pieces, reactions to recent news events and position statements released by various think tanks. This is the first of two wrap-ups for April 21.
The Heartland Institute
(HI is a libertarian think tank that aims to promote social movements in support of ideas such as parental choice in education, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services and deregulation following the principle that property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies. Supported by
private contributions, HI does not accept government funds or conduct "contract" research for special interest groups.)
Restorative justice works
By Morgan Reynolds
CHICAGO -- Adjectives in front of the word "justice" are suspicious things. Expressions like "social justice" or "restorative justice" smack of European socialism and gooey government programs led by woolly headed do-gooders. Justice, plain and simple, is what most people really want.
Occasionally, though, a "good intentions" program comes along that actually works, giving us something besides jails to control crime. Ed McGarrell, criminology professor at Indiana University in Bloomington, has teamed up with the Hudson Institute and the city of Indianapolis to try an experiment in restorative justice with youthful, first-time offenders. The program is based on sound principles, not wishful thinking, so it's proving successful.
The three principles of restorative justice are first, restoration to the victim; second, offender accountability; and third, reintegration of the offender into the community.
The focus on victims is key, in sharp contrast to the conventional system where victims play little or no role.
Once a youth is arrested, a restorative justice coordinator arranges a conference among the violator, the victim, and their respective families and supporters. A trained police officer facilitates at this conference, which gives the victim an opportunity to confront the perpetrator, explain how he or she was harmed, and ask questions of the offender.
The goal is to arrive at a reparation agreement in which everyone agrees that the young offender needs to take certain actions to set things straight with both the victim and the wider community. Typical agreements include contrition, service to the victim and community service.
"Offenders often fear setting up the conference because they'll have to appear before the eyes of someone they've harmed," says McGarrell. "In contrast to facing the cops, prosecutors and family courts, it's hard to look good in front of the victim, her family and your own family."
Sometimes a family member changes the dynamics of a conference dramatically. "Our mother took a second job during the summer to earn extra money to take us clothes shopping for the new school year," an older sister of one victim explained to the offender. "Here it was, the first week of school, and you stole my brother's new jacket. You'll never know how much you hurt my Mom and our family."
Indianapolis has been using restorative justice conferences since 1997. The city has allowed researchers to randomly assign eligible cases -- first-time offenders age 14 and younger, excluding those held for serious violent crimes -- to the traditional system (the control group) or restorative justice program (the experimental group), yielding equivalent groups of youths and victims for valid comparisons.
During the first two years of the experiment, the restorative justice program has met the needs of victims much better than the conventional system, as well as significantly reducing re-arrests of young offenders. About 230 youths have participated in conferences and a like number in the control group.
Over 90 percent of victims say they were satisfied with how their case was handled under restorative justice, compared to only 68 percent under the other court-ordered methods. Ninety-eight percent of victims said they would recommend restorative justice to a friend in a similar situation, versus only 24 percent of victims in traditional court programs who would say the same.
For offenders, conferences worked better than the typical slap-on-the-wrist rendered by the juvenile system. Over 80 percent attended the conference, reached an agreement, and fulfilled all its terms, compared to only a 58 percent completion rate in the control group.
Following offenders over time, McGarrell and his team find the re-arrest rate for offenders from restorative justice conferences is little more than half that of the offenders from the control group, a dramatic and statistically significant reduction. The city has been pleased enough to expand the project to young second-time offenders.
Is it a panacea? Of course not. Victims are far more willing to cooperate in the case of youthful rather than adult offenders, and for minor property crimes where reparation is feasible. The principles of restorative justice, which resemble those of the civil justice system, apply widely though. Even if adults, probation and incarceration are involved, contrition and repairing the damage to the victim are not ruled out.
One of the secrets to Japan's low crime and low imprisonment rate is the use of restorative justice: If the criminal expresses genuine contrition and makes amends to the victim, then the public sector can go somewhat lightly on the criminal. We can do the same here.
(Morgan Reynolds is director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis.)
The Independent Institute
(II is an independent public policy research organization whose goal is to transcend the political and partisan interests that influence debate about public policy. II aims to redefine the debate over public issues, and foster new and effective directions for government reform, by adhering to the highest standards of independent scholarly inquiry, without regard to political or social biases.)
Wanted: new player for the "Axis of Evil" team
By Ivan Eland
OAKLAND, Calif. -- In the wake of the United States' triumphant romp through Iraq, there is a yawning hole in the "axis of evil." In the past, when the stakes were much greater, there have always been three nations in such "Darth Vader" coalitions. During World War I, the nations wearing the black hats were Germany, the Ottoman Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. In World War II, we had Germany (again), Italy and Japan.
So to continue to mimic the giants of old and provide a universe of nations to fight in a perpetual war for perpetual peace, the Bush administration needs to demonize, elevate and enshrine another despotic nation in its dream team of malcontents.
One administration official recently characterized Syria, Libya and Cuba as the "junior varsity" of evil. So will one of these bad boys be elevated to the varsity squad? With the administration's recent white hot rhetoric against Syria -- accusing that regime of producing chemical weapons, harboring terrorists and the defunct autocrats of Iraq, and, in general, being a "rogue" state -- that country is probably pulling the best odds now in Las Vegas.
But not so fast -- don't count out Moammar Gadhafi of Libya and Fidel Castro of Cuba. If Michael Jordan can make a comeback, so could they. Granted, the odds are greater for them, but they had years of experience on the varsity team before being sent down to the junior varsity.
Fidel Castro, with the support of the Soviet Union (the "Evil Empire") and communist China, was a thorn in the side of the United States during the Cold War. With the collapse of Castro's Soviet benefactor, he has been quieter in recent years. If he wants to get back in the game, he'll have to rehabilitate his sagging military and revive his now dormant efforts to sponsor terrorism (like North Korea, Cuba remains on the State Department's politicized list of nations sponsoring terrorism even though its efforts in the last decade have been rather pathetic).
And remember Gadhafi of Libya? During the Reagan administration, the ruler of that small North African country was not only on the varsity squad of thugs -- he was the star. The Reagan administration, primarily in order to justify pumping up the defense budget, made Gadhafi the essence of evil, but then eventually forgot about him. Reagan's successor -- Bush I -- left him alone because Iraq's Saddam Hussein, Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic and Panama's Manual Noreiga became the "dangerous" tinpot tyrants of that administration.
President Bill Clinton, of course, continued harassing Hussein and Milosevic and substituted Haiti's Raoul Cedras for the defrocked Noreiga in the club of third-world goons that were wrongly compared to Hitler (a truly dangerous titan of doom who actually had formidable military and economic means and was trying to take over an entire region of economic and technological power). But Gadhafi is still around and could certainly come off the bench to fill the vacant spot.
In the long shot category, we have Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Although the two countries are not on America's list of terrorist nations because they are "friends" (many of whom, over the years, have gone over to the other team), they have provoked the ire of hawks who have the ear of coach Bush II. Although the Saudis have buckets of oil and the Pakistanis are (sort of) helping the United States hunt for Osama bin Laden, those nations previously either directly or indirectly aided al-Qaida -- a terrorist group that actually attacked the United States (unlike the terrorist groups supported by Saddam Hussein that never focused their attacks on the United States).
And what about al-Qaida for inclusion in the axis? The group has almost no chance of filling the empty spot on the "axis of evil" roster because it is actually a threat to the United States. Like Iraq, which has been cut from the squad, the other axis teammates -- Iran and North Korea -- are small, relatively poor nations with antiquated militaries that reside half way around the world from the United States. If left alone, they would pose little threat to the colossal American superpower.
As the CIA said before Gulf War II, unless attacked, Iraq would probably not use its weapons of destruction against the United States or give them to terrorists. In fact, Iraq did not even use them even in that extreme circumstance -- conclusively demonstrating its insignificance as a threat.
The same is likely to be true for the other current members of the axis. In the worst case, even if Iran, North Korea or members of the junior varsity of "rogues" obtain a few nuclear weapons, they could be deterred from using them to attack the United States by the crushing world dominance of the massive American nuclear arsenal.
The very fact that al-Qaida is a genuine threat to the United States, and that the countries of the axis are not, means that the terrorist group will never make the team. In fact, the Bush administration needed the axis to divert public attention from the embarrassment of not finding Osama bin Laden and destroying al-Qaida. Because that reality still holds, the administration needs to quickly select a new draft pick to fill the big sneakers of Iraq in the hall of fame of the wicked.
(Ivan Eland is a senior fellow and director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at the Independent Institute.)
The Hoover Institution
School choice works
By Herbert J. Walberg
STANFORD, Calif. -- Voucher advocates see parental choice as a means to an end -- improving education through enhanced competition -- but opponents fear such privatization would harm public schools. Early research on American small-scale voucher programs suggests that choice may yield beneficial effects. A massive, nationwide study of vouchers in Sweden proves the case.
The Swedish voucher experience is significant for several reasons. It extends over sufficient time for the supply of independent schools to expand and for public schools to respond. It has the potential to involve all the children in the nation and includes almost 300 urban and rural municipalities.
Unlike many American choice programs, few restrictions were placed on the entry of new independent schools. Unlike capitalistic America, moreover, Sweden is a socialist or mixed economy with a huge public sector, making the success of privatization unexpected.
Until 1992, Sweden's public schools were funded by the national government and operated by local municipalities. Then the national government adopted major reforms: Parents were allowed to choose their children's school. Municipalities were required to fund approved independent schools at 85 percent of the per-student cost of public schools.
A national agency was given the responsibility for approving new independent schools. To receive government funding, independent schools had to forgo tuition charges, meet established educational standards, and admit students without regard to ability, religion or ethnicity.
Now "almost anyone can set up a school and receive public funding," according to Swedish economists Fredrik Bergström and Mikael Sandström, who conducted the voucher study. They add, "Sweden has become one of the most permissive countries in the Western world with regard to allowing parents to choose schools freely."
The reforms produced none of the negative consequences feared by choice opponents. Far from hurting the public schools, competition from new independent schools has led to an improvement in the public schools. As in other markets for goods and services, greater competition leads to greater improvement.
The number of independent schools increased fivefold, and their student enrollments increased fourfold. Although many of these schools were established in affluent areas, they also expanded rapidly in less-privileged areas serving working-class and immigrant populations. A majority of the new independent schools are specialized or pedagogy based, not religion based. Corporations run 30 percent of the independent schools, and some companies are expanding rapidly.
The researchers also found no indication that higher-income earners chose independent schools to a greater extent than low-income earners, no evidence that freedom of choice led to increased economic segregation, and nothing to indicate that independent schools have fewer special-needs students.
"The main lesson to be learned from the Swedish reforms is that school choice works," conclude Bergström and Sandström. It's also far from being "a radical libertarian experiment," they note, because the schools are still entirely financed by public funds.
School markets work in Sweden. Is there any reason why they shouldn't work in the United States?
(Herbert J. Walberg is a distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution; a member of Hoover's Koret Task Force on K-12 Education; and university scholar and research professor emeritus of education and psychology at the University of Illinois at Chicago.)
