1. 9/27/2017 5:02 PM
Greening Justice: Examining the Interfaces of Criminal, Social and Ecological Justice
Rob White and Hannah Graham,
School of Social Sciences, University of Tasmania.
© 2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries.
The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION.

2. Greening Justice
‘Greening justice’ encompasses a variety of initiatives and actions within criminal justice which advance a more sustainable relationship between humans and the environment.
It implicates practitioners, offenders and communities in efforts to reduce the social, economic and ecological costs of crime and criminal justice. This spans institutions, buildings and places, purposes, practices.
See Chapter 4 ‘Greening Justice’ in Graham & White (2014) Innovative Justice.

3. Systemic and Sustainable Change
A systemic approach to ‘greening justice’ amalgamates human and environmental concerns to advocate progressive thinking about the needs of different stakeholders, offender rehabilitation, as well as sustainable architectural design, resource conservation and efficient technologies.
A remarkable and optimistic vision is set out in a white paper by the American Institute of Architects (AIA) Academy of Architecture for Justice (2010).

4. Sustainable Justice: Different Scales
The Scale of Community: Purpose of justice system is defined as protecting public safety by channelling deviant behaviour into acceptable norms so that all citizens can have meaningful roles in their communities. This philosophy is foundational and transformative, emphasizing treatment over punishment, focusing on improved outcomes rather than retribution.
The Scale of Building: Structures supporting the justice system are sited, constructed, and operated to maximize resource utilization and reduce consumption and pollution generation – to create a healthy, net- positive impact on the community and the environment.
The Scale of Personal Experience: The physical needs, health, dignity, and human potential of all who come in contact with the justice system are respected and given opportunity to flourish. This applies equally to staff, offenders/detainees, visitors, service providers, media, jurors, the judiciary.
American Institute of Architects (AIA) Academy of Architecture for Justice (2010)

5. Greening Policing waste minimisation
energy conservation and use of renewable energy
transport, fuel consumption and emissions
promoting environmental awareness among staff
recycling programmes
greening police stations/existing building spaces
Implications for community policing and localised community engagement, de-militarisation of police, and public perceptions of police legitimacy.

6. Greening Courts
proximity of court to allied justice institutions, co- location of support agencies, reduces need for transport;
shared facilities, multi-purpose uses (e.g., adversarial, therapeutic and problem-solving, restorative justice, alternative dispute resolution, community justice);
waste management, recycling and shifts to electronic information systems (e.g., to reduce use of paper);
views of nature and use of natural light to reduce stress and save energy and money spent on lighting;
community justice court diversion to green initiatives.
Implications for courts as convivial community spaces.

7. Greening Prisons
greener prison architecture, more sustainable operations;
open/low security ‘eco-prisons’ and sustainability ethos;
views of nature, ‘green exercise’ in open spaces;
scientific research, captive rearing of endangered species;
education and qualifications for prisoners to be employed in ‘green-collar’ jobs and emergent green economy;
greening of correctional industries;
green re-entry and ‘giving back’ community projects.
Implications for healthier, safer prisons; opens the door for more stakeholders to support reintegration pre-release.

8. Greening Offender Supervision
young offenders working with green social enterprises
Indigenous offenders, tribal justice and green re-entry.
green crime prevention in cities: engaging offenders to reduce crime and fear of crime in disadvantaged areas.
green technologies (e.g., solar panel installation).
environmentally sustainable activities (e.g., community gardens and food justice, saving honey bees, e-waste recycling, flood defence work, habitat restoration).
Implications for supporting desistance, employment and access to the labour market, cultural citizenship.

9. Diverse Rationales and Dimensions
Fiscal: saving money, creating revenue.
Architectural: siting and designing sustainable, green buildings.
Legal: complying with State regulations, charters and laws.
Political: public relations, electoral cycles, tax-payers as voters.
Environmental: less waste & emissions, more eco-friendly practices.
Educational: raising awareness of workers, offenders, communities.
Physical and Psychological: reducing stress, more exercise, healthier police, court and corrections staff, healthier offenders.
Instrumental: “keeping offenders busy”, staff ticking boxes.
Criminological: crime prevention and safety, reducing re-offending.
Moral: enabling desistance, citizenship; saving endangered species.
Cultural: positive shifts in police, judicial and penal cultures.

10. Politics of Being Green
Interfaces of criminal, social and ecological justice.
Different emphases lead to different conclusions (stopping movement, enhancing movement in corrections and community justice context).
Different policies lead to different outcomes (saving money = more prisons? Or, pursuing green community justice reinvestment and social justice).
Risk and selectivity in who benefits (only some offenders are eligible to participate, yet the involvement and desistance of the most traumatised or ‘risky’ may matter most).

11. Greening Regressive Carceral Regimes?
A stated objective of the green multi-purpose Blue Earth County Jail & Justice Center in Minnesota, is ‘to allow for future jail expansion in a cost-effective manner’ (Beyer, 2012: 2).
One of the most serious warnings that ‘green’ does not necessarily equate to ‘good’ is found in the (mis)appropriation of the ‘green’ mantra by the US Government at Guantánamo Bay. It boasts state-of-the-art green technologies, including four large wind turbines, multi-faceted fuel and energy reduction strategies, as well as bicycle-riding traffic police – which reduce emissions and consumption and save US taxpayers millions of dollars each year.

12. Critiquing Values and Ideologies
The imbalance in values and ideologies in terms of criminal, ecological and social rehabilitation and justice cannot be made much more apparent when the ‘green’ credentials and eco-ambitions of militarised carceral regimes are co-located with torture and other violations of fundamental human and civil rights.
But do not judge the centre of ‘greening justice’ by its extremes – the most sustainable prison is the one never built!
A systemic approach that integrates diverse scales of sustainable justice with progressive outcomes is our goal.

13. A Logic of Abolition
True sustainability hinges upon the impetus to decarcerate, diminish in size and de-commission. It is not only about doing more with less, it is about doing less.
‘Greening prisons’ and reintegration initiatives as alternatives to the normal operational practices and routines of confinement, and are precisely intended to situate the offender in the outside community.
Beyond punitive ‘hyperincarceration’ (Cunneen et al., 2013): restorative justice, social justice and penal change.
The very presence of ‘greening justice’ projects is important in terms of the politics of penal reform.

14. Social and Ecological Justice
Reducing harm to the environment, to individuals and to communities necessitates the re-casting of the Nature- human interface in compassionate, innovative ways.
Health benefits to offenders, victims, practitioners, and members of disadvantaged communities.
Engaging offenders in constructive public works that foster a sense of achievement, citizenship, ‘generativity’ (giving back, “making good”), social and human capital.
Supporting desistance = safer communities in long-term.
Development of societal ‘emotional intelligence’ and social conscience regarding ecological wellbeing.

15. The Future
In a world that is rapidly being subject to the vagaries of climate change, ‘greening justice’ initiatives provide evidence that criminal justice institutions have the capacity to be at the vanguard of good ecological practice and conservation. There is a merger of interests as justice architecture and penal reform (including reform of prisoners) circle around how best to make justice more environmentally sound. In this event, a win-win situation is created for humans and Nature alike.
We believe that the same holds true for ‘greening justice’ initiatives that pertain to community policing, courts, probation, crime prevention and community reintegration.

16. American Institute of Architects Academy of Architecture for Justice (2010) Sustainable Justice 2030: Green Guide to Justice. New York: American Institute of Architects.
Brisman, A. (2004) ‘Double Whammy: Collateral Consequences of Conviction and Imprisonment for Sustainable Communities and the Environment’ William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review 28(2):
Cunneen, C., Baldry, E., Brown, D., Brown, M., Schwartz, M., & Steel, A. (2013) Penal Culture and Hyperincarceration: The Revival of the Prison. Surrey: Ashgate Publishers.
Feldbaum, M., Greene, F., Kirchenbaum, S., Mukamal, D., Welsh, M., & Pinderhughes, R. (2011) The Greening of Corrections: Creating a Sustainable System. Washington DC: United States Department of Justice National Institute of Corrections.
Graham, H., & White, R. (2014) Innovative Justice. London: Routledge.
Lynch, M., & Stretesky, P. (2010) ‘Global Warming, Global Crime: A Green Criminological Perspective’ in White, R., (ed.) Global Environmental Harm: Criminological Perspectives. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Norton, C., Holguin, B., & Manos, J. (2013) ‘Restoration Not Incarceration: An Environmentally- Based Intervention for Working with Young Offenders’ in Gray, M., Coates, J., & Hetherington, T. (eds.) Environmental Social Work. London: Routledge.
Pretty, J., Wood, C., Bragg, R., & Barton, J. (2013) ‘Nature for Rehabilitating Offenders and Facilitating Therapeutic Outcomes for Youth at Risk’ in South, N., & Brisman, A. (eds.) Routledge International Handbook of Green Criminology. London: Routledge.
Stohr, M., & Wozniak, J. (2014) ‘The Green Prison’ in Cullen, F., Jonson, C., & Stohr, M. (eds.) The American Prison: Imagining a Different Future. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.