We are talking more and more about restorative justice. For those who do not yet clearly see what it is about, it amounts to creating a secure and reassuring space for discussion, between participants in an offense, victims and perpetrators, and where applicable their loved ones, without an objective of result, and without a predefined time frame.
It may give rise to a meeting, whatever the form, either between the interested parties or with people concerned by facts of a similar nature. The process is in any case voluntary, free (without expectations in return), confidential, and supervised by impartial facilitators.
After having seen and rewatched the film I will always see your faces directed by Jeanne Herry following in-depth and methodical work on these practices, many volunteers came forward to lead this type of meeting.
Lack of resources
As discussions on the institution of a so-called “criminal guilty plea” procedure resume in parliament, restorative justice appears all the more appropriate to implement. In fact, criminal justice, both in terms of its investigative possibilities and the follow-up to be taken, has been bogged down for decades, due to a lack of the resources it needs. According to its users, it rarely manages to meet their expectations.
For many criminal cases, particularly in matters of sexual violence, an area in which nearly 90% of complaints filed result in dismissals or dismissals, six to eight years are now necessary to bring them to trial.
Should we not therefore agree on a principle of reality, and actually resolve to judge offenses differently when the facts are not contested by their perpetrators, while ensuring that the victims’ words are freed as well as their own?
A law insufficiently applied
Wouldn’t offering everyone a measure of restorative justice as soon as possible be the surest way to deal with the repercussions caused by the offenses, as is practiced in many other countries, primarily Canada, Belgium, New Zealand, and a number of Anglo-Saxon countries?
This right, established in 2014 in France for the benefit of victims and perpetrators of crimes, allows them, in fact, at the end of unconditional listening interviews carefully implemented by pairs of trained and supervised facilitators – who in no way call into question their feelings about the facts – to move towards the appeasement sought by leaving confinement, a static mode of operation, to begin a dynamic of reconstruction.
But due to a lack of truly dedicated personnel and in sufficient numbers, this right is today not effective across the entire territory, if not flouted.
In 2023, Éric Dupond-Moretti, then Minister of Justice, declared to the rapporteur of the Law Commission that if “certain people have no desire to be put in the presence of the architect of their misfortune, each time (they are), the results are incredible. (…) To systematically propose it, when we are not ready, would amount to misleading people. »
“Do you know, Madam (the rapporteur), what is missing in many jurisdictions? Associations, an offer! (…) No point in encouraging people to choose a procedure which is not yet operational, finalized, to make a proposal behind which there will be nothing! I intend to do so when the time comes (…). »
Develop volunteering
Hasn’t that time come?
Has the time not come to no longer give almost exclusive training to prison integration and probation counselors (CPIP), to youth judicial protection educators, as well as to employees of victim assistance associations, who, both overwhelmed by their own activities, are not granted (or do not find) the time essential to exercise this right for the benefit of those who demand its application?
Hasn’t the time now come to give priority to training motivated volunteers who are struggling and looking for funding for this purpose?
The budget to be allocated to training for volunteers, in particular those provided with quality by the French Institute of Restorative Justice (IFJR), would not be colossal compared to that envisaged to remunerate the assessors of the new criminal jurisdictions proposed in the bill.
Has the time not finally come to take into account the expectations of victims and perpetrators who, for their own reasons, wish to be able to engage in a measure of restorative justice, without filing a prior complaint, even before initiating a procedure?
Responding to these requests is not only likely to unclog our justice system, but, above all, will allow and already makes it possible to deal with humanity, without violence or inappropriate attacks on privacy, a number of sufferings endured as a result of criminal behavior recognized in fact, if not in terms of guilt.
About opinions
This text is signed by a guest author. He expresses his opinion and not that of the editorial staff. Our Live section aims to allow the expression of pluralism on religious, social and current affairs subjects, and to encourage dialogue, according to the criteria set by our editorial charter.
Share your opinion in comments or by writing to us at: readers.lacroix@groupebayard.com
