The Stingley Case and the Rising Tide of Restorative Justice: A New Path for Accountability?
The pursuit of justice can take decades. For Craig Stingley, it spanned thirteen years, culminating this week in a deferred prosecution agreement for two men involved in the death of his son, Corey. But the resolution in Milwaukee isn’t just about one family’s long fight; it’s a bellwether for a growing shift in how America approaches accountability, moving beyond purely punitive measures towards restorative justice. As traditional legal avenues increasingly feel inadequate – and as public trust in those systems wanes – restorative practices are poised to become a more prominent feature of the legal landscape, offering both promise and potential pitfalls.
From Shoplifting to Tragedy: A Case Ignored, Then Re-Ignited
In 2012, sixteen-year-old Corey Stingley died after being restrained by three men outside a Wisconsin convenience store for attempting to steal bottles of Smirnoff Ice. Initially, prosecutors declined to file charges, citing a lack of intent to kill. The case languished for years, a painful injustice for the Stingley family. What set this case apart was Craig Stingley’s relentless advocacy. He utilized a rarely invoked “John Doe” statute, allowing a private citizen to petition the court for a criminal investigation, ultimately leading to the appointment of a special prosecutor and a renewed examination of the evidence. This demonstrates a growing willingness to challenge established legal norms and demand accountability, even when the system appears resistant.
The Power of Dialogue: Restorative Justice in Action
The turning point came with the implementation of restorative justice practices. Under the guidance of the Andrew Center for Restorative Justice at Marquette University, Craig Stingley and his family engaged in face-to-face dialogues with Robert Beringer and Jesse Cole. These weren’t negotiations for a plea bargain; they were facilitated conversations aimed at understanding the harm caused, acknowledging responsibility, and exploring pathways to healing. As Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne noted, the process “appears to have been healing for all involved.” This highlights a core tenet of restorative justice: that true accountability isn’t solely about punishment, but about repairing harm and fostering empathy.
Beyond Punishment: The Benefits of Restorative Approaches
Restorative justice isn’t simply “soft on crime.” Research suggests it can lead to higher victim satisfaction, reduced recidivism rates, and a greater sense of community healing. A 2014 meta-analysis by the Campbell Collaboration found that restorative justice interventions were associated with moderate reductions in re-offending. (Campbell Collaboration – Restorative Justice) The Stingley case exemplifies this potential. While Beringer and Cole avoided jail time, they were compelled to publicly acknowledge their role in Corey’s death and contribute to a charity chosen by the family. This public accountability, coupled with the emotional weight of the restorative dialogues, arguably carries more significance than a prison sentence alone.
The Limitations and Challenges Ahead
However, restorative justice isn’t a panacea. It’s not appropriate for all cases, particularly those involving severe violence or where offenders refuse to take responsibility. Concerns about power imbalances between victims and offenders also need careful consideration. Furthermore, the success of restorative justice relies heavily on skilled facilitators and a willingness from all parties to engage in good faith. Scaling these programs and ensuring equitable access will be a significant challenge. The case of Mario Laumann, the third man involved in restraining Corey Stingley who died before facing charges, underscores the limitations – restorative justice requires a living, participating offender.
A Growing Movement, Fueled by Disillusionment
The Stingley case arrives at a moment of growing disillusionment with the traditional criminal justice system. High incarceration rates, racial disparities in sentencing, and a perceived lack of rehabilitation have fueled calls for reform. The parallels to the Trayvon Martin case, highlighted by ProPublica’s reporting, underscore the racial dimensions of these issues and the need for a more equitable and compassionate approach to justice. The increasing adoption of restorative justice practices, from school disciplinary programs to community-based initiatives, suggests a broader societal desire for alternatives to punitive measures.
The deferred prosecution agreement in the Stingley case isn’t just a resolution for one family; it’s a signal that the conversation around accountability is evolving. As communities grapple with the limitations of traditional justice, restorative practices offer a promising, albeit complex, path forward. The question now is whether this spark of change can ignite a broader transformation in how we address harm and build a more just and equitable society. What role will communities play in demanding and implementing these alternative approaches to justice?
