Can America Be Saved

 I am writing this as a citizen of a world that no matter where we live are strongly impacted by whatever America does and whatever happens in America

America is celebrating but it will take a lot more than the end of the Trump presidency to save America. Trump promoted and encouraged, and even used the office of the presidency to legitimize the worst of America. The worst of America existed before Trump, was made stronger with Trump, and will continue after Trump. It's proponents may even become more strident.

Saving America will require government policy changes, legislative changes and even constitutional changes, but most of all cultural changes.

The toxic and partisan nature of American politics is not going away quickly or easily and the politicians are not going to solve America's problems. Toxic partisanship means ideas from the other side are rejected and fought against because they came from the other side and are thus seen as evil. In the rare case they may be seen as good ideas they are opposed rather than supported so the other side cannot take credit for them.

How are Americans to come together to solve their problems in this political atmosphere. I would propose a constituent assembly of Americans to propose solutions together. This assembly should be diverse, include all incomes, occupational groups and the unemployed, come from all regions, religions, including the non-religious, and include people of all sexual orientations and gender identification. It should also represent a broad variety of political philosophies while purposely not considering party affiliations in the choice of participants.

They should sit down together as Americans to find away to make America the country that it can be and their political leaders should commit to implementing the required changes no matter how difficult it will be politically.

Now I can stop here and say let Americans fix America, but being who I am I cannot do that without proposing some solutions for some of the most obvious and worst problems facing America.

We just came through an American election so let us look at that first.

Election day is when almost all elected American officials are elected, federal, state and local. Nobody talks about this but that in itself is a major problem for democracy. Voters are expected to be able to make choices about who they want to represent them for a large multitude of offices. Can they really absorb and analyze all the information necessary to make informed decisions. This system, I believe, encourages voters to just give up on deciding who to vote for and just vote a straight "party ticket", further strengthening the hold of toxic partisanship on America's political culture.

The other fact, strange to me and I suspect the rest of the world outside America, is that America holds 50 separate elections for federal offices each with separate rules. How can every vote be equal when there are 50 different sets of rules for voters.

And then there is the election of the President by the Electoral College where some states elect more than twice as many electors per voter as other states, not to mention the fact that the winner take all system means close to 50 percent of a states votes may not count at all in the presidential election if the parties are close in that state.

The Electoral College supposedly protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority but is that not the Senate's role where Senators elected by a minority of voters have a veto over legislation passed by Representatives representing a majority of voters. The Electoral College system is more akin to the Tyranny of the Minority. Everyone voting for President should have an equal vote otherwise the President does not represent all Americans equally.

We have not even mentioned the fact the elections are run and controlled by (state) politicians where gerrymandering, voter suppression and other shenanigans are considered fair game as long as you can get away with it. American elections are simply a power game with only lip service played to democracy.

Other countries do it differently. Elections cannot be fair if they are controlled by one of the parties seeking office. America needs to have an impartial non-partisan agency to control their elections, and for federal elections the rules must be the same for all Americans. America should look at the Elections Canada model, perhaps the fairest and most effective model in the world, that not only ensures elections are fair but facilitates encourages the electorate to get out and vote.

‘A crazy system’: U.S. voters face huge lines and gerrymandering. How Elections Canada makes a world of difference north of the border (Toronto Star)

Elections Canada says its system protects Canadian voters from U.S.-style drama (CBC News) 

And then we have the American justice system where we have a misguided understanding of what democracy means.

In a democracy the laws should certainly be written by the elected representatives. However the application of those laws and the adjudication of them is something that must be done according to those laws, not according to the whims of public opinion. The police and prosecutors should enforce the law as it is written and judges should interpret it that way. There should never be a conflict between doing the right thing and keeping their jobs. But this is exactly what making these positions elected positions does. It makes law enforcement and the courts a matter of political partisanship and public opinion where they should only be guided by law and fact. We see this extended to an extreme in the appointment process for the United States Supreme Court.

The United States must depoliticize the legal and court system if it wants to be a true democracy and it must reform the Supreme Court appointment process.

They would be wise to look at the Canadian experience where one cannot predict how Canadian Supreme Court justices will rule based on who appointed them.

Nothing separates America from the rest of the western world more than the violent nature of their society, and in particular American gun culture, which is somehow grounded in the Second Amendment, considered part of the United States Bill of Rights.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed [Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia]

Oddly most Americans, apparently including their Supreme Court, seem to ignore the first part of that statement.

Why a clause providing a right to own the means of mass murder would be included in a document intended to protect human rights only the Americans can answer, but I suspect the answer would not be very convincing.

The most compelling argument seems to be that America has become such an irreversibly dangerous and violent and lawless society that it is a necessity for everyone to be armed. I prefer to retain hope that America need not be such a society. However, regulating and reducing gun ownership is an absolute necessity to eliminating American's crime and violence epidemic.

The rest of the civilized world seems to manage quite well by considering firearms ownership to be a highly regulated privilege similar to automobile ownership but America seems to believe it is still living in the era of the wild west.

Compounding the problem of the Second Amendment is the American absolutist approach to rights, which makes it not only impossible to properly regulate gun ownership but also makes it near impossible to outlaw hate speech or prevent terrorist white supremacist war lords from forming private armies and using them to intimidate other citizens, usually non-whites or non-Christians, not to mention their threat to democracy itself.

A charter of rights need not be absolutist, as clause 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms demonstrates:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. [Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982]

I must say that the Supreme Court of Canada has done an admirable job in interpreting that clause in a reasonable fashion, without any sign of political partisanship.

We have looked at issues that have the most obvious legislative and constitutional solutions. We are not going to attempt to deal with all the challenges facing America today, including race relations, police misconduct, misogyny, sexual inequality, LBGTQ rights, Islamophobia, anti-science attitudes, and on and on. Most of these issues require changes beyond public policy, changes to the social culture of America.

But we would be remiss if we did not examine the two pillars that make America what it is, and I believe hold it back from what it could be, the worship of unbridled capitalism and individualism, coupled with an irrational fear of "socialist" ideas.

Interestingly enough U.S. News & World Report has just issued it's quality of life ratings and the top 10 countries are countries with "socialist" ideas.

Meanwhile, under American capitalism income inequality today may be higher today than in any other era. As an example, Amazon's Jeff Bezos made 1.2 million times the median Amazon employee in 2017.

Of course he receives that income because he works 1.2 million times as hard as the workers that actually provide the services Amazon sells. It has nothing to do with worker exploitation or predatory business practices.

Amazon is only one example of how American capitalism has come to work. America is a long way from the theoretical pretense of fair profits and and decent wages and working conditions.

American capitalism is inextricably intertwined with American individualism and the idea that not only can anybody, but everybody, can become a millionaire. There is no need for redistribution of wealth when capitalism can create an unlimited amount of wealth. There is no such thing as limits to growth as the earth has unlimited resources and energy and the planet has an unlimited ability to absorb the effects of unbridled industrial capitalism. All of this of course is what the experts refer to as bullshit but it drives the American capitalist philosophy because it is a simple answer to so many complicated questions.

It is this frame of mind that links capitalism to individualism and the idea that if everybody acts in their own self interests the interests of society as a whole will be served and the somewhat related credo that "what's good for General Motors is good for America". This is what enables so many Americans to put the interests of the wealthy and corporations before all else and explains why so many voters tend to vote against their own self interests.

It also explains the hesitance of so many in America, during this global pandemic, to make small sacrifices of individual freedom, like wearing a mask, for the sake of saving the lives of their fellow Americans and their willingness to simply disregard the advice of experts when it is inconvenient for them. Contrast that with other western countries where the sense of community is much stronger than individualism and the infection and death rates are much lower.

Electing a leader that does not depend on the worst of America for his base of support will certainly help but if America wants to solve its problems it needs to build a sense of community. America has massive problems that will require much more than people seeking to serve their own self interests. They require people working together for the good of the whole society.

It is becoming obvious that the measures necessary to fix American society will require a tremendous amount of political will and fundamental cultural changes. No doubt the usual political observers and experts will all agree that that simply is not possible. We know who failed to even try, but can the American people Make America Great Again.

Is American Democracy Fucked ?

So is the American political system completely dysfunctional.

I suppose the easy answer is to say they elected Trump so case closed, but of course it is much more complicated than that.

What advanced developed democracy cannot manage to keep it's government functioning.

The obvious answer should be “none” but of course we know that is incorrect.

Even countries that require months of negotiations after elections to form a coalition government do not let their governments shut down. They understand that government is more than just politics, that government is a good thing that provides vital services to the people. They have processes to allow the everyday work of government to continue while the politics is sorted out.

Take Canada for example. If a government cannot get its spending plan (in the form of an Appropriation Act) approved it is considered a loss of confidence in the government by the legislature and an election is called. However the Prime Minister and Cabinet (whom are all Members of the legislature) retain their positions and what are referred to as Governor Generals' Warrants are issued to fund the day to day operations of government. Government continues in a caretaker mode with no new policy initiatives undertaken until a new government is formed.

However the American system seems designed for deadlock with no confidence mechanism to break deadlocks by electing a new government. They have an executive with a Cabinet appointed and led by a President that is not responsible to the legislature and a bicameral legislative process, requiring the two legislative bodies and the President to agree for legislation, including government funding bills, to become law.

Currently the two legislative bodies are controlled by two opposing parties and the President who, while nominally the leader of one of the two main parties, is in reality a rogue actor with no political allegiance except to himself and no discernible political philosophy except for his own incoherent version of populism. This is a recipe for the chaos that is the current American political situation.

I can only suppose that when the founding fathers drafted the American Constitution they put a great deal of faith in the good will of the political participants to put the good of the American people ahead of petty politics.

Now let us look at the American electoral system.

We will start with Election Day when most (but not all as there are variations between states) Americans vote for federal, state and local officials. They could not design a better way to overwhelm voters leading them to take the path of least resistance and vote a “straight party ticket”. Just the mechanics of voting for that many officials (including many positions that should be public servants), without even considering the time and effort to consider local, state and federal issues and make meaningful voting decisions, must be completely overwhelming to voters.

Americans also elect prosecutors and judges. This raises the whole other issue of the politicization of the justice and judicial systems all the way up to a very politicized Supreme Court. This could be the subject of a treatise all by itself.

Looking at elections for federal office we have the absurd situation where the states set the rules and procedures for federal elections and these vary from state to state. So a federal election is not a consistent process with consistent rules for all Americans.

But the most egregious fact is that it is state politicians from the state's governing party that control the federal election process in that state, including the drawing of the electoral map with that infamous American institution of gerrymandering (to manipulate the boundaries of an electoral constituency so as to favour one party). This also includes the use of various voter suppression methods to reduce voting, usually of black and other minority voters.

Then we have the electoral college system which routinely elects Presidents that are not the choice of the majority of American voters. The system is somewhat designed to do that by giving smaller states relatively more electoral college votes but is made worse by the fact that in most states all of a state's electoral college votes go to the candidate with the most votes in that state. So if a presidential candidate gets 60% of a states votes he gets 100% of the states electoral college votes further skewing the results away from the popular vote.

Another concern is the primary system used to select the individual parties candidates, including the presidential candidates. Again we have an inconsistent system of primaries and caucuses that are different for each state. But perhaps the biggest problem is the timing of these primaries at different dates for each state. It makes for great drama and entertainment but the results of earlier primaries cannot help but affect the results of later primaries. There is a reason election results are not released before all the polls are closed – so that earlier voters do not influence later voters. The primary system seems designed to do just that.

A consistent federal election process overseen by an independent non-partisan agency (similar to Elections Canada) would go a long way to solving the structural problems with the American electoral system. The cultural problems of political corruption are another matter.

And we have not even looked at the role money plays in American elections which is a huge subject all by itself, especially the role of wealthy donors, PACs (Political Action Committees) and SuperPACs. No one in American government can possibly govern without constantly thinking about where the money is coming from for their next campaign. It is very hard to argue that that will not affect their decision making.

And it is almost impossible to do anything in the form of political financing reform as the Supreme Court has ruled that money equals free speech, effectively ruling that the wealthy have a greater right to free speech than ordinary citizens and a greater ability to promote their preferred candidates for election.

So with all of these fundamental problems how can American elections be fair. If American elections are not fair, they are not democratic, and if the electoral process is not democratic then the whole governing structure is not democratic.

American democracy is fucked.

On the Justice System, Presumption of Innocence & the Me Too Movement

Me Too Movement

The Me Too movement (or #MeToo movement), with many local and international alternatives, is a movement against sexual harassment and sexual assault.[1][2][3] #MeToo spread virally in October 2017 as a hashtag used on social media in an attempt to demonstrate the widespread prevalence of sexual assault and harassment, especially in the workplace.[4][5][6] It followed soon after the sexual misconduct allegations against Harvey Weinstein.[7][8] Tarana Burke, an American social activist and community organizer, began using the phrase "Me Too" as early as 2006, and the phrase was later popularized by American actress Alyssa Milano, on Twitter in 2017. Milano and Michael Baker encouraged victims of sexual harassment to tweet about it and "give people a sense of the magnitude of the problem".[9][10] This was met with success that included but was not limited to high-profile posts from several American celebrities, including Gwyneth Paltrow,[11] Ashley Judd,[12] Jennifer Lawrence,[13] and Uma Thurman.[14]

Source: Me Too movement - Wikipedia

MeToo on Twitter

Believe Women

"Believe women" is an American political slogan arising out of the Me Too movement.[1] It refers to the perceived necessity of accepting women's allegations of sexual harassment or sexual assault at face value. Sady Doyle, writing for Elle, argues that the phrase means "don’t assume women as a gender are especially deceptive or vindictive, and recognize that false allegations are less common than real ones."[1]

The slogan has been criticised for encouraging a presumption of guilt. Michelle Malkin, writing for The Daily Signal, suggests that it is a form of virtue signalling.[3]

Source: Believe women - Wikipedia

BelieveWomen on Twitter

While much of this movement has focused on the entertainment industry it is for all women and particularly those exploited by men in positions of authority over them. While it goes beyond criminal activity and extends to inappropriate and socially unacceptable behaviour much of it is focused on how the justice women treats women who are victims of sexual assault and exploitation.

The Big Five Principles of Our Justice System

So we will start by looking at what I see as the big five principles of our Justice System.

 

Blackstone's Ratio

In criminal law, Blackstone's ratio (also known as the Blackstone ratio or Blackstone's formulation) is the idea that:

It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.[1]

As expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his seminal work, Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s.

Other commentators have echoed the principle; Benjamin Franklin stated it as, "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer".[4]

Source: Blackstone's ratio - Wikipedia

Presumption of Innocence

The presumption of innocence is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. It was traditionally expressed by the Latin maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (“the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”).

In many states, presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, and it is an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution.

Source: Presumption of innocence - Wikipedia

The principle, now protected by section 11(d) of the Charter, that everyone accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent until the Crown has proven the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of a judge or jury.

Source: Presumption of innocence - Irwin Law

Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Reasonable doubt is a term used in jurisdiction of common law countries. Evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems.[1]

Generally, prosecutors bear the burden of proof and are required to prove their version of events to this standard. This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there could be no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a "reasonable person" that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a reasonable person's belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty.

Source: Reasonable doubt - Wikipedia

The evidence here must be so complete and convincing that any reasonable doubts as to the guilt of the accused are erased from the minds of the judge or jury.

The evidence here must be so complete and convincing that any reasonable doubts as to the guilt of the accused are erased from the minds of the judge or jury. This is the rigorous standard of proof that the Crown prosecutor is required to meet for each element of the offence in a criminal case.

Source: Beyond a reasonable doubt - Irwin Law

Jury Trials

A jury trial, or trial by jury, is a lawful proceeding in which a jury makes a decision or findings of fact. It is distinguished from a bench trial in which a judge or panel of judges makes all decisions.

Jury trials are used in a significant share of serious criminal cases in almost all common law lawful systems (Singapore, for example, is an exception), and juries or lay judges have been incorporated into the legal systems of many civil law countries for criminal cases.

Source: Jury trial - Wikipedia

Adversarial Justice System

The adversarial system or adversary system is a legal system used in the common law countries where two advocates represent their parties' case or position before an impartial person or group of people, usually a jury or judge, who attempt to determine the truth and pass judgment accordingly.[1][2][3] It is in contrast to the inquisitorial system used in some civil law systems (i.e. those deriving from Roman law or the Napoleonic code) where a judge investigates the case.

The adversarial system is the two-sided structure under which criminal trial courts operate that puts the prosecution against the defense.

Source: Adversarial system - Wikipedia

The Question of Consent and Credibility

The Law of Consent in Sexual Assault

Canada has a broad definition of sexual assault. It includes all unwanted sexual activity, such as unwanted sexual grabbing, kissing, and fondling as well as rape.

Sexual activity is only legal when both parties consent. Consent is defined in Canada’s Criminal Code in s. 273.1(1), as the voluntary agreement to engage in the sexual activity in question. The law focuses on what the person was actually thinking and feeling at the time of the sexual activity. Sexual touching is only lawful if the person affirmatively communicated their consent, whether through words or conduct. Silence or passivity does not equal consent.

Source: The Law of Consent in Sexual Assault - LEAF

Further information:

Brochure: Respect Sexual Consent - Royal Canadian Mounted Police

No Means No: Understanding Consent to Sexual Activity (Public Legal Education and Information Service of New Brunswick)

Let us start by rephrasing Benjamin Franklin's version of the Blackstone ratio with a more specific reference.

"it is better 100 rapists should escape than that one innocent man should suffer"

It does not sound quite so enlightened when made more specific. But that is close to reality due to the difficulty obtaining convictions in sexual assault cases. These are cases where there are often no witnesses except the victim and the accused and while there might be forensic evidence this can only prove whether a sexual act took place but not the key factor in guilt which is whether or not there is consent. So we are left with a “he said she said” scenario.

And in the “he said she said” scenario the truth become a matter of credibility and in our society one's credibility has been tied to one's social status – the ”he's a respected member of the community, he couldn't be lying” factor. Not to mention the reluctance to even report assaults committed by people in positions of power over others because of potential repercussions and the fact one won't be believed anyway. With the Me Too Movement we have seen that particularly in the entertainment industry.

But it is even more insidious (and evil) in regards to the exploitation and sexual assault of children. We have seen numerous cases of what can only be called sex assault rings comprised of so-called respectable members of the community targeting vulnerable at risk children with perceived low credibility simply because these “respected” people knew they could get away with it. And they did for too many years just because of the credibility attached to their social status.

The social standing and supposed moral credibility of religious leaders left them immune from suspicion for years and even when their institutions (one in particular) were made aware of numerous instances of assaults they was swept under the rug because protecting the reputation of the institution was more important than justice or protection for the victims.

So how do we deal with assessing credibility in sexual assault cases where it is a case of believing the victim or the accused.

Should we abandon the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and adopt the preponderance of evidence/balance of probabilities concept used in civil cases.

Preponderance of the evidence

Preponderance of the evidence, also known as balance of probabilities, is the standard required in most civil cases and in family court determinations solely involving money, such as child support under the Child Support Standards Act. It is also the burden of proof of which the defendant must prove affirmative defenses or mitigating circumstances in civil or criminal court. In civil court, aggravating circumstances also only have to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt (as they do in criminal court).

The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. The standard is satisfied if there is greater than fifty percent chance that the proposition is true. Lord Denning, in Miller v. Minister of Pensions,[12] described it simply as "more probable than not." Until 1970, this was also the standard used in juvenile court in the United States.[13]

Source: Burden of proof - Preponderance of the evidence (law) - Wikipedia

Balance of Probabilities

A standard of proof satisfying a judge or jury that the facts at issue probably occurred as alleged. Sometimes referred to as a preponderance of the evidence or a 51 percent likelihood of occurrence.

Source: Balance of probabilities - Irwin Law

I would suggest we do not want to abandon the principle of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and create a potential new problem of increased unwarranted convictions.

Rather I would suggest instead that judges instructions to juries make it clear that the standard for believing accusers and witnesses is not certainty, which is impossible to have, but rather reasonable belief in the credibility of the witness. In the words of the Me Too Movement judges must give jurors the right to Believe The Women if they reasonably believe them to be credible. The ultimate safeguard being that all 12 jurors must concur for a conviction to occur.

Broader Problems with the Justice System

There are are broader problems with our Justice System than how it deals with sexual offences.

The fist thing we should note is that we did not choose our Justice System. There was no process of examination of options or analysis undertaken . We simply inherited it, like our system of constitutional monarchy and parliamentary government, from the British. That is not necessarily a bad thing.

But our adversarial Justice System does have its problems.

It has been described as a matter of story telling with whoever tells the best story being the winner. In modern day story telling, which is done most often through TV and movies, the best story telling often involves who employs the best actors and the most effective special effects. In the case of the Justice System we are talking about the most expensive lawyers, investigators, and expert witnesses. No matter what the facts are the quality of the legal defence can be the biggest factor in a court's decision.

As well, all the facts are not necessarily available to the court for various legal reasons. If the state uses illegal means to gather evidence it is not available to the court. This is done to ensure the game is played fairly. This is, of course, a difficult matter and peoples' legal and constitutional rights are hardly “technicalities”. But would it not be better to punish those involved in illegal activity separately rather than having courts make decisions without all the facts.

Money can be the biggest factor in the outcome of a case. If you are poor, depending on legal aid or public defenders, you are at a disadvantage against the resources of the state. On the other hand if you are extremely wealthy your legal resources are much greater than those of the state.

There are other options than the adversarial system.

Inquisitorial system

An inquisitorial system is a legal system where the court or a part of the court is actively involved in investigating the facts of the case, as opposed to an adversarial system where the role of the court is primarily that of an impartial referee between the prosecution and the defense. Inquisitorial systems are used primarily in countries with civil legal systems as opposed to common law systems. Countries using common law, including the United States, may use an inquisitorial system for summary hearings in the case of misdemeanors such as minor traffic violations. The distinction between an adversarial and inquisitorial system is theoretically unrelated to the distinction between a civil legal and common law system. Some legal scholars consider inquisitorial misleading, and prefer the word nonadversarial.[1] The function is often vested in the office of the public procurator, as in China, Japan, Germany, and Scotland.

Source: Inquisitorial system - Wikipedia

The main criticism of such system is that you have one institution, the court, acting as prosecutor, defence, judge and jury. It is a system that would require a huge degree of confidence in the impartiality of the state for it to have credibility with the public.

My own sense is that we would be better off reforming our current system and I would start by looking at sentencing.

Sentencing

The first thing we need to look at are minimum sentences. Zero tolerance and minimum sentences are both concepts based on the idea that circumstances do not matter and no one can be trusted to exercise discretion.

Background on Minimum Sentences

Cleaning up the mandatory minimums mess (Policy Options)

Mandatory-minimum sentencing rules unravelling into patchwork (The Globe and Mail)

Federal government urged to rein in mandatory minimum sentences (The Toronto Star)

Sentencing Based on Accountability, Restitution and Rehabilitation

When it comes to sentencing, one thing the adversarial nature of our Justice System does is create an inclination for sentencing based on punishment and revenge rather than accountability, restitution and rehabilitation.

But there is a sentencing model that does just that, Restorative Justice, using processes such as Sentencing Circles to bring offenders, victims and communities together.

Restorative Justice

Restorative justice is an approach to justice in which the response to a crime is to organize a mediation between the victim and the offender, and sometimes with representatives of a wider community as well. The goal is to negotiate for a resolution to the satisfaction of all participants. This may include a restitution to be given from the offender to the victim, or to take steps to prevent the offender from causing future harm.

A restorative justice program aims to get offenders to take responsibility for their actions, to understand the harm they have caused, to give them an opportunity to redeem themselves and to discourage them from causing further harm. For victims, its goal is to give them an active role in the process.[1] Restorative justice is founded on an alternative theory to the traditional methods of justice, which often focus on retribution. However, restorative justice programs can complement traditional methods.

Academic assessment of restorative justice is positive. Most studies suggest it makes offenders less likely to reoffend. A 2007 study also found that it had the highest rate of victim satisfaction and offender accountability of any method of justice.[2] Its use has seen worldwide growth since the 1990s.[3] Restorative justice inspired and is part of the wider study of restorative practices.

Source: Restorative justice - Wikipedia

Restorative justice

An approach to justice issues that focuses on reconciliation and repair of harm as opposed to conventional retributive approaches. In R. v. Gladue, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688, Cory and Iacobucci JJ. wrote: “In general terms, restorative justice may be described as an approach to remedying crime in which it is understood that all things are interrelated and that crime disrupts the harmony which existed prior to its occurrence, or at least which it is felt should exist. The appropriateness of a particular sanction is largely determined by the needs of the victims, and the community, as well as the offender. The focus is on the human beings closely affected by the crime” (at 726).

Source: Restorative justice - Irwin Law

Sentencing circles

Sentencing circles (sometimes called peacemaking circles) use traditional circle ritual and structure to involve all interested parties. Sentencing circles typically employ a procedure that includes: (1) application by the offender; (2) a healing circle for the victim; (3) a healing circle for the offender; (4) a sentencing circle; and (5) follow-up circles to monitor progress.

Restorative justice - Sentencing circles - Wikipedia

Circle sentencing

A method of sentencing sometimes used with Aboriginal offenders (and occasionally with other offenders). Typically, the judge, lawyers, police, offender and parents, victim, and other community members and professionals sit in a circle. Everyone has an opportunity to express their feelings about the offence and offender, and their views about an appropriate sentence. If a consensus emerges about an appropriate sentence, the judge will usually impose this sentence, though the judge is not obliged to do so. A body of jurisprudence deals with the appropriateness of circle sentencing for adults, and section 41 of the YCJA recognizes the judicially convened “conference,” which includes the possibility of circle sentencing.

Source: Circle sentencing - Irwin Law

Postscript

Outside of the Justice System we can believe as we choose, no “beyond a reasonable doubt” is required for individuals to use their own judgment as to their own beliefs about individuals' guilt.

As well, individuals, employers, organizations, etc. are completely entitled to hold people to higher standards than whether they committed a crime or not. In fact they should. Criminal responsibility is a pretty low standard, especially for people in positions of public trust or control over others lives, whether it be in the workplace or elsewhere.