International Journal on Criminology Volume 3, Number 1, Spring 2015 | Page 5

Restorative Justice in the Penal Reform in France
identifying and expressing what all parties have suffered, promoting mutual understanding
of what happened (why?), and seeking possible solutions to remedy the damage (how?)
(Zehr 2012). It is relevant, in this respect, to emphasize that “the resolution” of these
“difficulties resulting from the offense” leads “in particular” to the reparation of “all types”
of harm. This is not limited to bodily and/or property damage: the approach must be
global. It is not only monetary, contrary to the assertions of many criminal lawyers, who
constantly confuse the direct consequences of the criminal act with its impacts on the
future of those involved (Peltier 2014). The diversity and range of the repercussions,
rather than the intrinsic seriousness of the facts, are taken into account when deciding on
a suitable measure of restorative justice.
The penal reform also displays a real convergence between the objectives of
restorative justice and those of the penal process. Previously, the functions of the
sentence were confusingly included in article 132-24 C.pén., along with the ways of
personalizing sentences. Now defined in article 130-1 of C.pén., the function of a sentence
is “to sanction the perpetrator of the crime; to favor their ‘amendment, integration, or
reintegration,’ . . . in order to ensure that society is protected, [to] prevent new crimes being
committed, and restore social equilibrium, while respecting the interests of the victim.” These
are the functions assigned to restorative measures: giving responsibility to all parties to
assist reintegration into the social space; global reparation for each of the protagonists,
their significant others, and/or the communities to which they belong; and preventing
new crimes from being committed in order to help restore social harmony. The Law of
August 15, 2014, applicable from October 1, 2014, makes the restorative process and
the penal process complementary. Its effectiveness (through the available means) and
its efficacy (symbolic, instrumental, and pedagogical) (Cario 2008) are inscribed in the
prerequisites of the penal reform.
B. The Prerequisites for Recourse to a Restorative Justice Measure
Among the deontological 4 principles in article 10-1 C.pr.pén., we can identify
a first set of guarantees regarding conditions for recourse to a restorative justice
measure. There is a formal requirement that all the involved must recognize the facts.
However, this should not be understood as a confession but as an absence of denial.
In all ways, it conforms to the specifications of the international texts: the Council of
Europe Recommendation (1999), the UN Economic and Social Council Resolution
(2002, 2005), and the European Directive (2012, compulsorily applicable on November
16, 2015). 5 It is a question of avoiding any secondary victimization of the parties, and
setting the terms for the restorative dialogue on common foundations. The generalization
of the caesura of criminal proceedings, allowing the competent judge to rapidly declare
4
See, in particular, the IFJR deontological code: justicerestaurative.org/actualites_2014-07-22.html.
5
Recommendation no. R(99)19 of Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe Member States on mediation
in penal matters; United Nations Economic And Social Council resolution on the basic principles of
restorative justice (April 2002), recalled in extenso at the eleventh United Nations Congress, Bangkok, April
2005; European Parliament and Council Directive of October 25, 2012, establishing minimum standards
on the rights, support, and protection of victims of crime: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/criminal/victims/index_en.htm.
4