Restorative Justice Skyping From Milwaukee to Austin

As a law school educator, I am not particularly known for my use of high-tech electronic equipment. I much prefer teaching through direct storytelling and student participation. I simply like to make direct eye contact with people with whom I am talking. However last Saturday I had the wonderful experience of combining my storytellling/interactive teaching and Skype with a restorative justice class at the University of Texas at Austin. Dr. Marilyn Armour, a restorative justice scholar who teaches a course which is offered to both law students and social work students, asked me to talk to her weekend class.

Most people who know me will tell you that if you ask me to speak about our MULS restorative justice work, I have a hard time saying no. That being said, I still wondered how it was going to go, trying to teach a class long distance through a computer. Having traveled internationally, I have used Skype before . . . but I have never used it to teach a class. I was amazed how well it worked. Some of the law students asked really great questions about how to incorporate restorative justice into the criminal justice system and the corporate world. A social work student asked about ways she could utilize these processes in her future work. I could see the entire class. Although it was 4:00 p.m. on a Saturday afternoon, I am happy to report that they all appeared to stay awake and fully engaged in the discussion. And I had the ease of teaching the class from my bedroom (I did dress up since they could see me as well.)

I am still not convinced that “long-distance learning” can replace the value of students and teacher being in the same room with each other; there is something about that personal interaction including the casual talk that occurs before and after class that leads to important learning and interactions. But this experience has convinced me that electronic communications can enhance and supplement our traditional teaching in exciting (and inexpensive) ways.

Continue ReadingRestorative Justice Skyping From Milwaukee to Austin

Love and Violence: Valentine’s Day Edition

On Monday, February 6, Florida couple Joseph Bray and his wife Sonja got into a fight because, she says, he failed to wish her a happy birthday.  According to the arrest affidavit, the fight escalated; Joseph Bray pushed Sonja Bray onto their couch, grabbed her neck, and raised his fist to hit her, although he did not strike her.  Joseph Bray was arrested and when he appeared in court on a domestic violence charge, you can be sure the judge issued appropriate sanctions.

Or not.

Judge John Hurley ordered in lieu of posting a bond that Joseph Bray get his wife flowers and a birthday card, take her to Red Lobster for dinner, then take her bowling.  And he ordered the couple to see a marriage counselor. 

Continue ReadingLove and Violence: Valentine’s Day Edition

A Comparison of an Article 32 Investigation with a Federal Grand Jury (And Why the Former Prevails)

My recent military law class helped me to understand the judicial system employed by our armed forces. Many similarities exist between the judicial system in the armed forces and the Article III courts, but differences stand out as well. One such difference is that between an Article 32 investigation and its civilian counterpart, a federal grand jury. An Article 32 investigation provides more rights and opportunities for the accused than a federal grand jury. With that in mind, and an eye on overarching judicial policy, I concluded that the Article 32 investigation is better.

The comparison of the two judicial systems stems from the fact that both are designed to avoid trials on baseless charges. Beyond the similarity of this broad rationale for each process, however, little is in common between the two. An Article 32 investigation results in a non-binding recommendation, is limited to the charges on the charge sheet, and provides that the accused and counsel may be present. Conversely, a grand jury session’s indictment is final, allows any charges to be found, and neither the accused nor his or her counsel is allowed at the session.

Continue ReadingA Comparison of an Article 32 Investigation with a Federal Grand Jury (And Why the Former Prevails)