Empowering Justice: An Intersectional Feminist Perspective on Restorative Justice in the Sex Trade

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12204
• Published date: 01 November 2017
• Author: Kristine Riley
• Date: 01 November 2017

Empowering Justice: An Intersectional

Feminist Perspective on Restorative Justice

in the Sex Trade

By KRISTINE RILEY*

ABSTRACT. Restorative justice might seem like a benign alternative to

prison, but it is full of pitfalls, particularly when it is still enmeshed in

the criminal justice system. Nowhere is this more true than with sex

workers, who are either punished for their work or morally castigated

for it. The criminal justice system’s interventions into the sex trade,

even when using programs based on restorative justice, fails to address

the harms and conflicts women experience in the sex trade and street

economy. A major reason restorative programs fail to serve women in

the sex trade is because it remains tethered to the criminal justice

system, which carries traditional punitive consequences. When women

entrenched in these conflicts are given the space, support, and

freedom, they are able to develop relationships and resolutions that

better exemplify restorative values. This paper explores the limitations

of the current relationship between restorative justice and the criminal

justice system and then highlights how the relationships and resistance

strategies of the Young Women’s Empowerment Project demonstrated

restorative justice praxis in the sex trade.

Introduction

In response to decades of failure of policies that aggressively punished

criminal behavior, the criminal justice system began to adopt a culture

of reform. To rein in the damage caused by generations of punitive

*Program Associate, Center on Sentencing and Corrections at Vera Institute, New

York City. Former intensive reentry case manager at Friends Outside (Santa Cruz,

CA). Certified in basic mediation and restorative justice mediation. Helped develop

restorative teen court for the Center for Dialogue and Resolution in Eugene, OR. B.A.,

Psychology and Community Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz, M.S., Con-

flict Resolution, University of Oregon Law School.

American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 76, No. 5 (November, 2017).

DOI: 10.1111/ajes.12204

V

C2017 American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Inc.

justice, the criminal justice system in the United States began a slow

pivot from punitive practices toward therapeutic methods of account-

ability. The dominant socio-political point of view has significantly

changed, as more people have championed restorative justice: a form

of conflict resolution that focuses on underlying unmet needs that drive

harm or conflict. Restoration seeks to create safe and accountable com-

munity relationships by facilitating dialogue and understanding

amongst a wider range of stakeholders than traditionally accommo-

dated by Western justice systems (Zehr and Gohar 2003).

State and local governments have formally integrated therapeutic

methods of accountability into their justice systems. In many places,

prisons and jailsare the largest providers of behavioral health and social

service referrals in the absence of viable alternatives (Arceneaux 2013).

Though the integration of services has improved the conditions and

outcomes of justice involvement in many ways, providing services pri-

marily through thejustice system presents serious contradictions.

The destabilizing impacts of the justice system on victims, offenders,

and communities make the relationship between criminal justice and

restorative justice fraught with limitations. Even when paired with ther-

apeutic resources, contact with the justice system imposes life-long—

and even intergenerational—social, political, and economic collateral

consequences. As legal scholar Michelle Alexander (2010: 141) argues,

a criminal record effectively authorizes “discrimination in employment,

housing, education, public benefits,” and other institutions. The stigma

of prior justice involvement creates barriers to establishing a normal life

outside the supervision of the criminal justice system. Instability caused

by legal, employment, and housing discrimination against people with

a criminal record linger long after cases are disposed and increase risk

of further justice involvement (Morsy 2017; Bailey-Kloch 2015; Western

and Pettit 2010; Allard 2006; YWEP 2009). A formal relationship can

unnecessarily prolong contact with the justice system and create bar-

riers to restorationand stability.

For many instances ofharm, the criminal justice system is an inappro-

priate method of conflict resolution, butit has become the default inter-

vention from decades of expansive criminalization and over-policing of

conflicts by the state,coupled with the simultaneous divestment in pub-

lic resources. Reforming the system’s punitive responses to quality-of-

The American Journal of Economics and Sociology1158

life and behavioral health violations changes methods of accountability

of carceral interventions, but leaves the oversight of restoration by a

punitive system intact.

The over-policing and criminalization of sex workers is a prime

example of the criminal justice system’s inability to recognize a multi-

plicity of victim and offender identities, a capacity that is necessary to

the success of restorative interventions (Hames-Garcia 2004). While

more and more jurisdictions have developed specialized courts and

programming for prostitution-related arrests, the paradoxical frame-

work that views sex workers simultaneously as victims and offenders is

deeply flawed (Jefferies 2017; Kilbridge 2016; Bailey-Kloch 2015;

Michaelson 2015; Crabapple 2014). Layering restorative interventions

with criminal justice oversight is framed by outsiders’ desire to use the

justice system to save women from their problems, often predicated on

the assumption that sex work is the result of ethical failure. The savior

model of intervention into the sex trade has been criticized for the

paternalistic assumption that women need help developing self-respect

and moral guidelines. These assumptions are exemplified in one pro-

gram, literally called DIGNITY, which implicates one’s dignity, or lack

thereof, as a central element of sex work (Ludwig 2015; Wilde 2014).

While these conflicts and harms are very well worth resolving, more

conversation is necessary on the appropriate conditions and objectives

of such an intervention. Service providers need to be nuanced enough

to recognize the diverse experiences of people in the sex trade and the

often violent or coercive circumstances that prevent women from mak-

ing their own choices aboutsafety (Doyle 2014; YWEP 2009).

The criminal-restorative approach to regulating the sex trade is a

combination of retributive justice (punishment of crime) and restorative

justice (community support). The police restrict the sex trade with

intimidation and funnel people towards justice personnel offering sup-

port programs. The coercive nature of the pathway towards services,

and the consequences of punitive intervention should one deviate,

arguably limit the extent to which these methods embody restorative

values and relationships. Additionally,many reforms related to prostitu-

tion charges have received sharp criticism by sex workers’ rights advo-

cates as shame-based interventions that lack the nuanced

understanding of the multifarious coercive forces that women navigate

Intersectional Feminist Views on Restorative Justice 1159