www.vtbar.org
Restorative Justice
as jail time, as well as restitution to a victim
and community service.’?” Ever? Or can
these criminal justice officials just not bother doing so at all—even if a defendant lets
the court and the district attorney know he
would do so voluntarily? Senator Illuzzi has
acknowledged that the policy by itself allows the criminal justice system to use restorative practices for any criminal offense
and for sentencing purposes.21
A defendant properly disposed towards—and who sought— a restorative
justice process could make a colorable
post-conviction appeal as to the authority
of his conviction, in my opinion, if no judge
or state’s attorney actually did anything in
the way of attempting to have his case resolved in such a manner. The statute has
been law of the land for over twelve years.
One would think some effective shaping of
the criminal justice system to meet the statute’s policy goal of “a community response
to a person’s wrongdoing at its earliest onset” should have happened by now. But
the statute is vague. According to the Vermont Supreme Court’s stated tools of statutory interpretation, “the primary rule is to
give [statutory] language its plain, ordinary
meaning” and “when ambiguity renders
the plain meaning rule unavailing, … other
aids of statutory construction [are used].”22
An aid of statutory construction that applies
here is the rule of enacted provisions. “The
rule of reenacted provisions reflects the
presumption that all language in a statute
or regulation is inserted for a purpose.”23
Thus, I ɕ