Dr. Martin Carnap
Overview
Honduras has the highest incidence of violence in Latin America and a very low clearance rate for violent crimes. The North American National Center for State Courts (NCSC) provides knowledge and information to courts to help develop the Ministerio Publico’s (MP) “Orlan Arturo Chávez” Law School in Honduras. We were invited by the NCSC to teach new learning methods and cooperation tools in a three-day seminar to 23 public prosecutors who work at the law school.
Metaaccion focuses on sustainable development in Latin America. This often involves topics such as decentralization, mediation of interests, or the development of a learning culture. We often cooperate with trainers from different institutions and projects and promote the advancement of learning in networks.
Topic: strengthening adjudication
The goal of the initiative is to form an educational network of lecturers with knowledge of criminal procedural law and to enhance the public prosecutor functions in Honduras. The aim is to systemically connect three areas from the perspective of each of the main stakeholders:
a) Identification of crimes (victim and witness perspective).
b) Establishing the facts of the case (crime investigation police and public prosecutor’s office perspective).
c) The administration of justice (judiciary and judicial party perspective).
These three topics were to be explored in a hands-on manner during three workshop sessions using TeamNavigator, Team² and RealityCheck as appropriate interaction metaphors. In so doing, the aim was to develop the ability to complete tasks through engaging in dialog and cooperation. The process and results of the group work were to be visualized through a facilitation method. Solutions were to be creatively visualized and stimulated with the aid of graphic recording performed by a colleague.
Staging: finding the path together – TeamNavigator
a. Preparation and performance
The representatives of the participating institutions and embassies who additionally attended the start of the event had already reflected in their opening speeches on their personal take on public requests for proposals. This marked the opening of the dialog session, and the entire group of more than 30 participants responded with evident interest to the invitation to take part in the first interaction task, TeamNavigator.
Transfer to the real world (TeamNavigator)
| Elements in the learning project | Elements in the real world |
|---|---|
| Strings of various colors | Different roles, stakeholder units, organization |
| Recorded winding path | Program schedule, procedures, legal process |
| Strips of paper with writing on them pulled out of slits | Stages of the program, legal instances to be passed through, stakeholder units |
| Large curves in the path | Main mealtimes, transition to new sections of the seminar, transitions between branches of the law (e.g., civil and criminal law) |
| Everyone pulls the strings, the platform lifts up | Dominant behavior, conflicting legal demands of all stakeholders, disintegration due to entrenched interests |
| Tracing pen leaves the drawn path in an uncoordinated manner | Loss of concentration, learning phase due to error, ignorance of procedural rules, loss of trust |
| Tracing pen returns to the drawn path in a coordinated manner | Reintegration into the seminar program, coordination to ensure compliance with the legal process, mediation of the parties to the proceedings |
We formed a big circle around the covered TeamNavigator: “What we are looking at here is a process that we have to manage together. As always, there are direct stakeholders and observers who will come in later.” I pulled the cloth away to reveal a path drawn on the surface of the paper that followed three large slaloming curves across the items of the program schedule to reach the goal. 18 participants were each given a colored string that they were to use to move a pencil together along the marked route. The observers who had not been given a string stood in the second row with an interested look on their faces. “In the second half, you will be doing the guiding to the finish line. Please pay close attention until then.” The graphic-recorder logged the process so that it could be reflected on after the performance phase.
b. Progression and finish
The TeamNavigator task became immediately clear once the tablecloth was removed. The participants quickly grabbed the strings and pulled so hard that the heavy frame of the TeamNavigator lifted up and the pen moved outside the path in an uncontrolled way. Dynamics, relationships and their interdependencies quickly became visible and also tangibly experienced. The colors of the strings were called out and, after a brief prompt from me, the participants called out the names of the other participants, who had to pull or slacken the strings so that the frame was lowered and the pencil could return to the path and move forward. The first program items were to be discovered by pulling out facilitation cards slotted in the paper slits. At the first large arc of the path, the “pulling” and “slackening” roles were switched. This worked better and better as the activity progressed.
The process enabled all of the participants to develop a new perspective on events, and to identify and vocalize communication patterns. The group developed new, cooperative behaviors, especially in the second half when the participants who had previously been observers switched roles to become active participants.
Reflection
The trainers, the public prosecutors and the attending authority figures reflected together on how the process went. All of them noticed the parallels to the real world: “The beginning is uncoordinated,” “At the beginning roles often change,” “It is important to listen and coordinate the stakeholders,” “Things get loud,” “Control is eased and reasserted in an alternating pattern until the target is reached.”
Conclusion
TeamNavigator is a fairly low-threshold tool and hence an easy challenge for all participants to master. The path that is to be jointly followed acts as an interaction metaphor for the learning processes in the law school and the strict rules involved in the administration of justice, from the recognition of an offense to criminal processing and potential sentencing: the legal process must be followed.
The tool was particularly effective in getting the participants to leave entrenched patterns behind at the beginning of the workshop, enabling them to become active and to change roles as the situation required. The integration of the group, the role of the counterparts in goal achievement, procedures and leadership were visualized and made physically tangible. We repeatedly referred back to this experience later on during the facilitation.
Staging: Cooperation with limited resources – Team²
The group work focused on the public’s expectation of timely and effective legal redress. Teams had been formed for the work areas of identification, fact-finding, and adjudication. Team² was to be used to quickly and effectively improve how they cooperate in seminars and in their working lives.
a. Preparation and performance
Two tables with chairs had been prepared with one set of puzzle pieces each for ten participants: “Each one of you is tasked with finding the right pieces to build a square. The squares are the same size. No talking is allowed. Oh, and you can place your pieces in the middle, but you are not allowed to take anything from the other participants’ areas.”
The tablecloth was removed from both tables at the same time. The participants were confronted with puzzle pieces of different sizes, shapes and colors. Personal areas were marked off at each seat at the table and a shared area in the center of the table. Some took up to five pieces from the pile, others were hesitant. If they were not careful, the few remaining pieces from their area would be taken away from them (without permission). Some had a square, others were missing parts, some had used parts to build their squares that were needed elsewhere.
Transfer to the real world (Team²)
| Elements in the learning project | Elements in the real world |
|---|---|
| Rules are introduced | Laws and procedures are officially published |
| Puzzle pieces covered by tablecloths | Uncertainty of undetected cases, secret files, unknown witnesses, victims and facts |
| Marked work area vs. shared area in the center of the table | Individual field of responsibility, confidential information vs. public domain, public information |
| Goal: form uniform squares from different parts | Compliance with legal norms, policies, and principles through different procedures |
| Assembled parts impede the overall solution | Inconsistent statutes result in objections to, and delays in, legal cases; legal loopholes lead to failure to indict |
| Trustworthy cooperation in the common area in the final phase | Good cooperation within and between the institutions involved in the publicly regulated domain; effective victim and witness protection ensures resolution and legally binding sentencing |
b. Progression
Gradually, through cooperation and the use of hand signals and gestures, the group overcame their perplexity. The second group at the other table remained unobserved.
One table was quicker to finish. The participants at this table were asked not to celebrate yet, but to advise the other table. However, advice was not desired and had to be given cautiously. It slowly became clear that the task would only be completed when both tables were finished, which would then be celebrated together.
Reflection
From their working lives, the participants were already familiar with the strong individualistic tendency of legal functionaries, which ran counter to the expectation of rapid and effective legal redress. The work areas of identification, crime investigation, and legal enforcement always required good cooperation between all stakeholders to process cases swiftly and successfully. In so doing, it was necessary to remain composed and keep form.
By the final phase, a cooperative and productive mood had taken hold at the tables. One participant commented: “Everyone has their shape, but we need to accomplish more (together).” Another: “If I gave up one of my pieces, I knew I would be helped by the others as well.”
Conclusion
Dominant, self-serving behavior can obstruct (legal) proceedings. Having an overview of the overall task and the ability to integrate contribute to the completion of the task. Team² enabled the group to dramatically experience individualistic ways of working and deadlock, and overcome them by cooperating in the “public domain.”
The tool is ideally suited to the middle part of a seminar, where the focus is on individual results (to which a significant contribution is made by cooperation within subject matter-related working groups).
The solution-finding process is helped through taking different approaches, applying analytical observation, and the use of hand signals and gestures. The elements of the interaction metaphor can be transferred to team situations, but also to cooperation between organizations. Team² can be facilitated at many tables simultaneously and can therefore be used very flexibly.
Staging: Connecting the dots between the details – RealityCheck
a. Preparation and performance
After the groups had worked on the three areas of identification, fact-finding, and adjudication, the next step was to develop a list of questions that would later be answered by the law school students working in groups. The didactic objective behind asking the questions was to raise awareness of the relationships between the three areas.
The RealityCheck picture cards depict scenes from an interconnected story. We spread them out face-down on the floor away from the work groups and informed them: “A new case needs to be uncovered here in this room and the connections need to be clarified. Please each take one of the picture cards, which each represents your limited individual view. Please do not show, but communicate what you have to the others.”
Transfer to the real world (RealityCheck)
| Elements in the learning project | Elements in the real world |
|---|---|
| Picture cards are spread out face down on the floor | Detailed information on offenses and context; random coincidences with no discernible connection |
| Communicating description of picture to teammates | Recording of witness interviews; expert discussion of the findings |
| Recognizing common reference points between two picture cards | Forensic investigation; circumstantial evidence at crime scenes; securing evidence; registration of involved persons; inspection of files in the public administration; bank account statements |
| Picture cards with common reference points | Reconstruction of events; forming chains of circumstantial evidence; relationships between individuals |
| Establishing logical connection and sequential order of the picture cards | Flow of information; involvement and payments; connection to other concurrent or previous cases; serial offenses; immediate or future potential hazards |
b. Progression and finish
The group appreciated the break from group work – after all, they got to work on a new case! Everyone took a picture card. We made sure that they did not show their cards to the others, but that they treated their cards as their personal mental image, which had to be communicated to the others. It was similar to a detective story with initially disorganized, inaccurate, even contradictory witness statements and circumstantial evidence. Confusion arose. Some conducted intensive enquiries and discovered common points of reference around which small groups formed. Urban and rural environments, jungle and pirates, an animal as well as people in special situations, and so on. The connections between the group scenarios were still unclear, but bit by bit the group became better organized.
At the end, the picture cards were carefully placed down on the floor and the order was checked using the overview, and corrected where necessary. A story emerged that connected all the scenarios.
Reflection
During the discussion, we discovered multiple parallel relationships between the process and outcome in the tool and challenges and opportunities in the delivery of justice. We reflected on how individual findings in urban and rural settings only made sense in their different contexts. By looking at only one picture card, it is not possible to understand the complete reality. Our personal perspective is only a small part of it. Even if we describe our perspective precisely, realities only emerge through integrating the different perspectives of all participants.
Conclusion
In order for the group to succeed with RealityCheck, it was necessary for them to communicate their personal viewpoint, to listen to each other and to coordinate with each other. In this way, the different perspectives of the participants created “multi-level” parallels in the daily fight against crime. Once again, the didactic principle was put into practice:
I – I share my perspectives with others.
YOU – I am also interested in their opinions.
WE – With our shared knowledge, we think
about what we can do.
Only when we share our views with others and we listen to those of others, can we gain a fuller picture of reality and see how the different realities interact with each other and are linked. Often, we do not know the views of outside groups, and openness is necessary in order to administer justice in complex cases.