Vermont Bar Journal, Vol. 40, No. 2 Summer 2014, Vol. 40, No. 2 | Page 24

SPECIAL ISSUE: A Facilitator’s Reflections whatever sentence they believed appropriate. The court ordered a pre-sentence investigation, to augment the pre-plea investigation that was already ordered, to be completed two weeks prior to the sentencing date. I became personally involved in this case one week prior to the sentencing date. Mike O’Malley, district manager of Rutland probation and parole at the time, knew of my interest and experience in restorative justice conferencing and passed a draft of the pre-sentence investigation by me. One condition that the VT DOC was considering recommending to the court was that the offender participate in a group conference if the family of the deceased victim so desired. I thought it was great that this was being considered at all but recommended to Mike that holding a conference prior to sentencing would be even more compelling. Doing so would potentially give the surviving victims a substantial role in sentencing, while simultaneously serving both the interests of the state and the defense. It also did not seem appropriate that the defendant be “sentenced” to do a conference as participation in any conferencing process should be voluntary. Mike sent the following e-mail to the Rutland County state’s attorney, the defense attorney, and the VT DOC probation and parole officer who had conducted the investigation: After reviewing and staffing a recent PSI on (the offender), it became quite apparent that the adversarial nature of the court system was not in the best interest of justice in this case. The victims are looking for closure for this tragedy. They appear reasonable and rational in their requests for closure and reparation from the offender, given the situation. The offender has taken responsibility for her action, would have probably already expressed her remorse for her poor judgment, agreed to victim’s wishes for reparation, and the social/psychological healing would have already begun, had she not followed sound legal advice from her legal counsel, which does not always tack and tie with good social/psychological advice. I would like to suggest the following—the use of Group Conferencing as a pre-sentence option. As part of our recommendation to the Court on this PSI, we have encouraged the Court to consider employing the group conferencing process as a pre-sentencing tool. This is indeed a compelling option in this case, as it appears likely that the defendant and the family of the deceased, along with other appropriate parties, would voluntarily agree to engage in this facili- 24 tated process. The goal would be to arrive at an agreement of reparation, which would be signed by all participants, which would address what needs to happen now as a result of the harm done. The final sentencing decision of the Court would not in any way be obligated by this agreement, but would certainly be, we would hope, informed and influenced by it. If all parties are agreed, the Department of Corrections could organize and hold such a conference in as little as two to three weeks time. There is no guarantee that a final agreement will be accomplished. However, there are very strong indicators that both parties in this case are excellent candidates to successfully complete this healing process for themselves as well as their community support systems. The ball is now in the hands of the attorneys in this case. As a result of this e-mail, the defense attorney submitted a request to the court to extend sentencing in order to accommodate a group conference. The Rutland County state’s attorney was willing to agree to this request as long as the deceased victim’s father agreed. In fact, the father was very open to the possibility but wanted to discuss it with his wife that night. The next morning, we were informed by the state’s attorney’s office victims’ advocate that the father and his family wished to participate in the group conference prior to sentencing. With the assent of the state’s attorney and the defense attorney, Judge Theresa DiMauro agreed to extend sentencing for six weeks. The resulting agreement/understanding that was developed and agreed upon by all participants at the restorative justice conference was: We, the undersigned, agree and recommend to the Court that the offender not receive a period of incarceration as a part of her sentence. We do believe that she should not drive for a total period of two years after sentencing. We also believe that the Court should establish a community service component at sentencing to possibly include public speaking, public service announcements, organizing public support to make improvements to (the State highway) or other appropriate efforts to positively impact t