Papers will be completed in Word Format as an attachment. The papers will be typed in Times New Roman using 12 font. Papers will be double-spaced. All papers will be at least 500 words in length  

Read the attached documents and answer the questions at the end of the Paintball Case. Questions are also posted below.

1. Read this case history through the court proceedings. What would most likely be the outcome of this case in your community? What values would prevail in your community for handling this case?
2. What restorative justice core values are exemplified in this case history?
3. How were these questions answered in the case history: What harm resulted from the paintball incident? How can we heal the harm? Who is responsible for healing the harm?
4. What would your community need to do to create a restorative justice approach to incidents such as presented in the case history?

The Paintball Case

A Restorative Justice Case Study

Tom Cavanagh

Copyrighted materials enclosed. May not be reproduced.

2

The Paintball Case:
A Restorative Justice Case Study

Tom Cavanagh, MS

Affiliate Professor
School for Professional Studies

Regis University
Denver, Colorado

Copyright © 1998. Tom Cavanagh-Restorative Justice, Inc.
All rights reserved. This publication is protected by copyright law and may not be
reproduced in whole or in part by Photostat. Microfilm, retrieval system, or any other
means, without prior written permission of the publisher.

Tom Cavanagh-Restorative Justice, Inc., Publisher
PO Box 214
Fort Collins, CO 80522
www.restorativejustice.com

3

About the Author

Tom Cavanagh is a scholar, writer, and facilitator of restorative justice. He

facilitated a private forum called, “A conversation about restorative justice in

Colorado,” as part of the Institute on the Common Good at Regis University in Denver.

He is currently a Ph.D. candidate at Colorado State University in Educational

Leadership and an Affiliate Professor of Management for the School for Professional

Studies at Regis University. He worked as a court reporter for the District Court in Fort

Collins.

He is an honors graduate of Regis University in Denver, with a MS in

management. His undergraduate work was completed at Carroll College, Helena,

Montana, where he received a BA in English, and Lamar (Colorado) Community

College, graduating with an AA in Liberal Arts.

4

Abstract

“The Paintball Case” is a case study, similar to those used to teach people about

the law or management. The intent of this case study is to teach people about

restorative justice based on a real life application.

District Court Judge Fred McElrea, of Auckland, New Zealand, a pioneer in the

application of restorative justice processes in the courts, made these comments about

“The Paintball Case”:

“I think this a great case study – informative, educative and insightful. What was

most impressive was the boy’s offer to donate part of his eye if that would bring back

her sight. The second reaction I have is to marvel at the way in which restorative justice

helps build community bonds that were not there before – for example, the common

interest and empathy of the two families. Lastly, it brings home how simple it really is

to get these things going! That is because this sort of process is second nature to most

people, whereas the court process is an artificial, ritualized procedure that obscures

people’s real feelings and desire for reconciliation.”

5

The Paintball Case:
A Restorative Justice Case Study

The Offender

Fort Collins lies in Northern Colorado and is known as the “Choice City,”

because it is one of the popular places to live in the United States. As a result this

conservative city of over 10,000 people, known for its university and agriculture

heritage, is growing rapidly and experiencing the joys and pains of rapid growth.

One evening in April of 1998, 15 year old Justin Barton and two of his cousins

were together for the evening in Fort Collins, Colorado. Early in the evening the

teenagers were at the Foothills Fashion Mall. They ate dinner at Taco Bell and went to a

coffee shop. While driving around, the boys passed Swenson’s Ice Cream Parlor. After

Justin’s cousins told him he could not go paintballing with them, Justin reached into the

trunk, though the back seat, pulled out a paintball gun, and fired into a group of girls at

the store.

As he fired the gun, Justin noticed a young girl quickly turn her head. His

cousins said, “Justin, what are you doing?” Justin replied, “I think I shot a girl in the

face.”

The Victim

The same evening, 15 year old Jorel Travis went bowling with her friends and

then on to Swenson’s Ice Cream Parlor. While Jorel and her friends were eating their ice

6

cream in front of the store, shots came out of the window of a Volkswagen Jetta. A

paintball struck Jorel, resulting in permanent blindness in one eye.

The Court Proceedings

On June 8th, Justin appeared in juvenile court to answer to the charge resulting

from the paintball incident. The charge was second degree assault with a deadly

weapon. At the time of the incident, Justin was on probation for a charge of attempted

theft.

Justin pled guilty to the charges before Juvenile Magistrate Joseph Coyte, as part

of a plea agreement. The plea agreement called for a sentence to probation, with the

terms and conditions to be set by Magistrate Coyte. The maximum possible sentence

for Justin was two years probation and 45 days in jail. If he were charged as an adult,

the possible incarceration was two to eight years in the state penitentiary.

The Motivation

The motivation affecting the outcome of the paintball case was based on a desire

of both the offender and victim to meet face to face. Justin wanted to talk to Jorel.

When he entered his guilty plea, Justin explained, “I never wanted to hurt anybody, but

I was being very thoughtless at the time. I understand if you never forgive me. If you

don’t get your vision back, I would be happy to donate the part of my eye you need.”

Soon after the incident, Jorel expressed her desire to meet with Justin. “I’d like to

talk to him to see how he really feels about it.” Both Jorel and her mother, Rene Bone,

were described as being motivated to resolve the case by educating people about the

dangers and harm of paintball guns and preventing such an incident from happening

again. Jorel and her mother were neither malicious nor vindictive.

The Conference

7

Because of the willingness and desire of Justin and his family and Jorel and her

family to meet, probation officer Mort Gallagher suggested this case was ideal to use a

family group conference, a restorative justice process for healing the harm of crime.

Although Justin and his family expressed apprehension, they agreed to attend the

conference.

The family group conference was held at the United Way office, a neutral

location. The conference was held the day before the sentencing to accommodate the

presence of everyone who wanted to attend. Flexibility was the key to bringing people

together who were concerned about the incident. Justin was living with aunt and uncle.

His mother lived in Texas, and his father resided in Pennsylvania. Both wanted to

attend.

Bernadette Felix was the probation officer for Justin at the time the incident

occurred. Justin came to her soon after the incident and admitted his involvement.

Bernadette talked with Magistrate Coyte about the planned family group conference

and obtained his support.

Leslie Young, a trained mediator for family group conferences and a Loveland

police office, coordinated the process and made the necessary contacts and

arrangements. Fifteen people attended the conference. One person was designated to

record the main points during the dialogue.

At the conference people were seated in a circle, with no tables or other barriers.

Jorel, her family, and one of the girls present at the incident sat to the right of Leslie. To

the left of Leslie sat Justin, his family, and other people present at the scene of the

offense. Bernadette sat in between the two groups.

The four-hour conference began with Leslie giving an overview of the conference

process and reminding the participants that participation in the process was voluntary.

Justin began by talking about the incident. The harm resulting from the crime was

expressed by Jorel explaining what happened, how she felt, and what she hoped to get

out of the conference. Jorel’s mother Rene was expressive. She talked about the

outcomes and harms resulting from the offense and particularly that she lost her job.

8

Then the discussion went around the circle. The victim’s friends and family members

talked about the effects of the incident on their lives. Justin’s family and friends next

told of the effects of the offense on them, including an aunt who was blind in one eye

since birth and an older cousin who was a poor role model for Justin regarding

paintball gun shooting.

During this sharing Justin was visibly moved and cried. A key theme during the

discussion was concern for the safety of others involved with paintball guns and of the

need to inform others of the dangers of paintballing.

Leslie turned the discussion to answering “what” questions concerning the harm

resulting from the incident: What needs to happen? What do we want to accomplish?

What do we need to do? In line with the key theme of the conference and in place of

community service, the group decided they wanted Justin to talk to school children and

write a letter to the local newspaper and teen magazines about the risks and dangers of

paintballing.

Justin’s family assumed financial responsibility for the out-of-pocket expenses

incurred by Jorel and her family. An uncle to Justin offered to provide a computer for

Jorel. Justin’s grandmother offered to give rides to Jorel when her mother was busy. In

order to pay the financial obligations, Justin needed a job. One of the people present

thought her husband could provide Justin a job in carpentry. All present agreed to

initiate a write-in campaign to legislators requesting the public be warned of the

dangers of paintball guns.

Justin read a letter of apology to Jorel, in which he again offered to donate his eye

to the victim. The letter was prepared prior to Justin’s first meeting with Bernadette,

who was his probation officer at the

time.

Leslie prepared a copy of each point of the conference that was reached by

consensus. This paper formed the agreement of those present. During a break, the final

agreement was prepared, and each person responsible for performing a certain part of

the agreement was asked to sign the document.

9

In speaking about the conference, Bernadette said, “Initially it was very tense, but

as it went on, people were able to come together as a team. It was a real powerful

experience.”

The conference was concluded by Leslie thanking those present for working

through this difficult process to help heal and repair the harm resulting from the

incident. The formal meeting was closed, and an informal discussion continued,

including the exchange of telephone numbers among those present and the two

mothers hugging.

The Sentencing Hearing

The day after the conference was the sentencing hearing in front of Magistrate

Coyte. The friends and family of Justin and Jorel mingled in the hall before court and

sat together in the courtroom. Several people talked about the conference. Bernadette

described the conference and gave a copy of the final agreement to the court and the

attorneys.

Magistrate Coyte expressed support for the agreement. He sentenced Justin to

two years of probation and 45 days in jail. The jail term was suspended, except for six

days in jail on weekends. The victim’s family was opposed to any jail time. After the

sentencing hearing, Jorel and Rene expressed to Justin they were upset with the jail

time.

Two days after the sentencing hearing, Bernadette and Justin met to review the

terms and conditions of his probationary sentence. Further discussions were held about

the ongoing needs of Jorel, focusing on healing the relationship of Justin with his

family, friends, and the community and building a relationship with Jorel and her

family and friends.

On September 10, 1998 a letter to the editor from Justin appeared in the Fort

Collins “Coloradoan” entitled “Teen learned the hard way about paintball-gun dangers.”

In the letter Justin described the dangers of paintball guns in general and the specifics of

the incident resulting in the injury to Jorel. He expressed to the community how sorry

10

he was for hurting Jorel and how such a result should have crossed his mind before he

shot the paintball gun.

Questions

1. Read this case history through the court proceedings. What would most likely be

the outcome of this case in your community? What values would prevail in your

community for handling this case?

2. What restorative justice core values are exemplified in this case history?

3. How were these questions answered in the case history: What harm resulted from

the paintball incident? How can we heal the harm? Who is responsible for healing

the harm?

4. What would your community need to do to create a restorative justice approach to

incidents such as presented in the case history?

Adopting New Values 1

Cavanagh, T., (1998). Adopting New Values for the Courts: What is Restorative

Justice? The Court Manager, 13(2/3). P. 24-27. Williamsburg, VA: National

Association for Court Management.

Abstract

What is restorative justice? Restorative justice was identified as a major trend in the

state courts for 1997. Yet, court managers as a whole know little about this process. The

principal focus, values, outcomes, and vision of both restorative justice and the present

system, called retributive justice, are explained. With this information, court mangers

and leaders can lead the development of clear mission and vision statements for their

organizations, incorporating the restorative and retributive justice values appropriate

for their communities. As a result, strategic planning will be focused on implementing

a vision based on these values.

* * * * *

Why is the criminal justice system of the United States failing at restoring peace

to our communities? The criminal justice system is based on retributive justice, which

focuses on the offender. The New Zealand courts were the first to use a process called

restorative justice, which involves balancing the interests of the offender, victim, and

community. What is restorative justice? What is our present system called? What are

values, outcomes, and visions of these two processes?

Restorative justice is a new concept for people in the United States. We are

familiar with the system of retributive justice, which is focused on answering the

questions of what laws were broken, who broke them, and then punishing the guilty.

Restorative justice recognizes three key parties to crime, the offender, victim, and

community. In an effort to serve the needs of these three parties, the criminal justice

system needs to be dedicated to restoration, healing, responsibility, and prevention.

1

Adopting New Values

2

For example, in New Zealand juveniles are referred to Family Group

Conferencing after they admit their guilt to the court. If they do not plead guilty, the

case continues through the traditional court process. The Family Group Conference is

initiated by a trained mediator bringing together the victim and the offender, as well as

family, friends, and supporters of both parties. The conference begins with the offender

describing the incident. The impact of the crime is described by each participant. As a

result, the offender realizes the consequences of his or her behavior, and the victims get

to express his or her feelings. The victim describes his or her desired outcomes, and all

participants are involved in problem-solving how to repair the harm done. The session

ends with all participants signing an agreement containing expectations and

commitments. Sentencing Circles is a process focused on the community and usually

involving complex issues, such as gang activities. Other restorative justice activities

more familiar in the United States are victim impact statements, classes and panels,

victim offender mediation, community service, restitution, and community restorative

boards.

Currently, most restorative justice type activities are done by social services

agencies, schools, law enforcement, and probation departments. These activities share

three common elements: healing, victim offender mediation, and apology (shaming)

and reintegration. Marshall (1997) offered a definition of restorative justice, which is:

“A process whereby parties with a stake in the particular offense come together to

resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of the offense and its implications

for the future.” Howard Zehr and Harry Mika developed “signposts” to identify

restorative justice processes:

Focusing on harms suffered rather than laws broken.

Showing a balanced concern for the victim and offender and involving both in the

criminal justice process.

Working toward restoration of victims through empowerment and response to their

needs.

2

Adopting New Values

3

Supporting the offender and simultaneously encouraging him or her to understand,

accept, and carry our their commitments to repair the harm.

Recognizing offenders’ need to fulfill obligations which are achievable, not punitive.

Providing opportunities for direct and indirect victim offender dialogue.

Involving and empowering the community through the judicial process, particularly

by increasing its capacity to recognize and respond to crime.

Encouraging collaboration and reintegration rather than coercion and separation

Paying attention to the unintended results of activities and programs.

Showing respect for the dignity of everybody, particularly victims, offenders, and

colleagues concerned with justice.

Today American courts are typically focused on retributive justice and the

offender and allow limited participation by victims though such programs as advocacy,

assistance, and restitution. The role of representative of the community is assumed by

the prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the people of the individual state or the United

States.

In 1966, Roger Warren, president of the National Center for State Courts, pointed

out, in 1996, the emerging trend towards a system of restorative rather than retributive

justice. That same year National Institute of Corrections Director Morris Thigpen noted

a transitional change is occurring in the criminal justice system involving themes of

restorative justice. In 1977 Nancy Gist, Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance,

called for bridging the gap between the courts and the public. Building partnerships

between the local judicial system and communities by making the work of the courts

visible, accessible, proactive, and focused on victims will help to bridge this gap.

Restorative justice ideally involves bringing together the offender, the victim,

their families, and community representatives to devise a plan to make the situation

whole again. Such a model recognizes the violation of one person by another.

Contrasted with that philosophy is the current system in the United States of

retribution, which focuses on violations of law, fixing the blame, and punishing the

guilty. The courts of New Zealand made the most comprehensive use of restorative

3

Adopting New Values

4

justice. The New Zealand system is a combination of ancient values, learned from the

Maori people, and modern insight.

As an example of implementing restorative justice values, the Colorado

Probation Services department adopted a vision of restorative justice, which “strives to

repair the damage caused by criminal behavior to the victims of crime, individually and

as a community. This may include financial reimbursement to the victim or victims, as

well as public service to the community in an attempt to ‘pay back’ the local community

residents.” The statement continues, “To be successful, offenders must also be

restored. They must learn how to respond positively and cooperatively to societal

norms, to become pro-social rather than anti-social.” The statement notes, “Neither

restorative justice nor modeling or pro-social behavior can be accomplished without

fostering a partnership with the larger community: the bench, the district attorney’s

office, the defense bar, social services, agencies who serve youth treatment providers

and agencies which provide educational, vocational and financial support to offenders

and their families.”

A Restorative Justice Conference was held in Denver in February 1988, and

Colorado probation department offices began implementing the vision of restorative

justice with the hiring of community liaison officers. The positions were funded with

grant money from two sources: the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) and the Violence

Against Women Act (VAWA). Duties of the community liaison officers include

coordinating restorative justice activities already in place in the community, developing

new programs, and educating the public about restorative justice.

Court employees need to become familiar with restorative justice and the key

values of the process in order that the missions and visions of all segments of the

criminal justice system can be in alignment. By understanding the core values of

restorative justice, court managers possess the tools to evaluate the outcomes of non-

prison, community based or alternative sentencing programs beyond recidivism rates.

Admittedly, a set of shared values are yet to be developed for restorative justice. Some

values are emerging which can guide the courts.

4

Adopting New Values

5

Retributive Justice

The focus of retributive justice is on the offender. Laws and punishment are the

core values. Outcomes are measured in terms of: 1) What law was broken, 2) Who

broke it, and 3) How should he or she be punished? Important to this process are the

ideas of separation, that is, putting people in prison or other placements outside the

family and community, and labeling or stigmatization, that is, giving people

identifications like parolee, probationer, felon, ex-con, prisoner, and even defendant.

The vision of retributive justice is to create a safe community.

Restorative Justice

Restorative Justice is based on a balanced focus on the offender, victim, and

community. The values, according to each participant, are: (a) the offender, apology or

shaming and reintegration, (b) the victim, the harm and opportunity for forgiveness,

and (c) the community, relationships.

Outcomes and measurements for restorative justice programs, based on each

core value are:

The offender:

Apology — either oral or written, recognizing responsibility and not seeing oneself

as a victim and realizing and acknowledging the harm suffered by the victim.

Reintegration — earning his or her place back in the community, particularly

through the action plan developed under the healing the harm process.

The victim:

Harm — assessing what harm was done, developing a case plan to repair the harm,

and creating an action plan for those responsible for healing and repairing the harm.

Forgiveness — the opportunity is extended for the victim to accept an apology from

the offender and to extend forgiveness.

The community

Relationships — healing broken relationships and creating new relationships.

The vision of restorative justice is creating peace in the community. This visions

differs from the retributive justice focus on safety, leading to separating undesirable

5

Adopting New Values

6

people, like criminals, from the community, usually by placing them in prison. The

result is those people who are different and live on the margins of society are the people

primarily sent to prison. Those people include the homeless, mentally handicapped,

poor, and minorities. The focus on creating peace realizes offenders are part of the

community and in most cases will return to the community if incarcerated. The

community of the offender includes family, friends, and work relationships. Those

relationships provide the environment for developing a sense of social conscience,

awareness of how one’s actions affect other people, and a desire to be a positive

member of the community.

Conclusions

Restorative justice in the juvenile justice system was identified as a major trend

in the “Report on Trends in the State Courts, 1996-97.” If courts adopt restorative

justice concepts as an alternative to the traditional retributive justice system and

implement a more balanced approach towards justice, communities will become

involved in the courts, and confidence in the criminal justice system will grow.

We can learn more about restorative justice by studying the New Zealand model.

With a thorough understanding of the New Zealand model, the judiciary and court

managers can adopt new shared values in our local judicial systems regarding the roles

of victims, offenders, and communities. Further research is needed to address three key

areas:

1. Communicating the value of restorative justice to the judiciary in order to raise the

respect for the process beyond minor cases.

2. Changing the mind-set of the courts from offender oriented to offender, victim, and

community oriented.

3. Altering the focus of the courts from being in-bred and geared toward protecting

and promoting self-interests, which are dedicated legal procedure, practice, and

tradition, to including the best interests of the community.

The benefits of adopting restorative justice practices to judges and trial court and

probation managers include:

6

Adopting New Values

7

1. Victims and the community can become more involved in the court process.

2. By using such practices as restitution, community service, mediation, family group

conferencing, and victim impact panels consistent with restorative justice values,

studies indicate recidivism decreases.

3. Victims are given choices and a sense of control, which decrease fear. As a result of

utilizing restorative justice processes, victims and offenders see the system as fairer

and are overall more satisfied.

4. A reduction in caseload is noted in some studies, particularly where all or most

cases are referred to a variety of restorative justice processes.

5. Plea negotiations are enhanced by options, reducing court time.

6. Victim advocacy is politically strong currently and can aid in changing the judicial

system.

7. Restorative justice offers a commonality of values for justice professionals

committed to improve the criminal justice system.

8. Payment of restitution is completed more often using restorative justice approaches.

To learn more about restorative justice, I recommend the following: “Changing

Lenses,” a book by Howard Zehr; “Restoring Justice,” a videotape that can be ordered

by calling 800/524-2612 and requesting PDS #72-630-96-720; and my web site at

www.restorativejustice.com.

7

Adopting New Values

8

References

Bazemore, G. (1997). The “community” in community justice: Issues, themes, and

questions for the new neighborhood sanctioning methods. The Justice System Journal,

19(2). Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.

Bazemore G. & Pranis K. (1998, February). Restorative justice conference.

Denver, CO: Colorado Probation Department.

Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge, England:

Cambridge University Press.

Colorado Probation Services, (1997). Statement of common grounds. Denver, CO:

State Court Administrator’s Office.

Doolan, M. (1993). Youth justice – Legislation and practice. In Brown, B. &

McElrea, F., The youth court in New Zealand: A new model of justice, (pp. 17-29).

Auckland, New Zealand: Legal Research Foundation.

Feinblatt, J. & Berman, G., (1997, November). Responding to the community:

Principles for planning and creating a community court. Bureau of Justice Assistance

Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

Marshall, T. (1997, March 20). Seeking the whole justice. Repairing the damage:

Restorative justice in action. Paper presented at the ISTD Conference.

McElrea, F. (1996). The New Zealand youth court: A model for use with adults.

In Galaway, B. & Hudson, J. (Eds.), Restorative justice: International perspectives, (pp.

69-83). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

8

Adopting New Values

9

Moore, L. (1996, Fall). Educational program summaries: Purposes of courts and

the delivery of justice. The Court Manager, 11(4). Williamsburg, VA: the National

Association for Court Management.

Mika H. & Zehr, H. (1997). Restorative justice signposts. Akron, PA: Mennonite

Central Committee.

National Center for State Courts (1998, Winter). NCSC tracks state court trends

for 1997. Center Court 3(1). Williamsburg, VA.

National Institute of Corrections, (1996, March). Community justice: Striving for

safe, secure, and just communities. Louisville, CO: LIS, Inc.

Presbyterian Church (USA) (Producer). (1996, May). Restoring justice [Film].

(Available from Presbyterian Distribution Service, 100 Witherspoon Street, Louisville,

KY 40202-1396.)

Zehr, H. (1995). Changing lenses: A new focus for crime and justice. Scottsdale,

PA: Herald Press.

9