International Journal on Criminology Volume 3, Number 1, Spring 2015 | Page 6

International Journal on Criminology
the guilt or innocence of the person charged—something long demanded by criminal
lawyers—would have made it possible to overcome all objections regarding the respect
of the presumption of innocence (however, see the modalities of recourse to criminal
mediation before proceedings). Nevertheless, an essential breach was opened when
it came to judgment for minors (article 24-5 onwards, Ord. 1945) and later for adults
(article 132-70-1 onwards, C.pén.).
The measure “can only intervene after the victim and the author of the crime have
received full information about it.” This condition indicated the importance of preparing
the participants and not hurrying them. The process and the guarantees offered must
be explained to the participants, as well as the possible outcomes, the benefits that the
process might bring them, and what they cannot expect from it. This information must
be “full” and formulated in a didactic and pedagogical way, by specially trained people.
The measure “can only intervene after the victim and the author of the crime . . .
have given their express consent to participate.” Essential to the correct implementation
of the restorative justice measure, this condition guarantees the active involvement of all
participants in the restorative meeting. It marks the legitimacy of each participant’s place.
This consent must be expressed throughout the proceedings of the measure, and it can
be revoked at any moment. From a methodological point of view, it is crucial not to limit
seeking participant consent to the principle of participation alone. It must also apply to
the choice of measure, as well as all the practical methods for its proceedings.
Article 10-1 C.pr.pén. provides a second set of guarantees regarding the
implementation of the restorative justice measure “by an independent third party with
the correct training.” Such training cannot be improvised. To gain solid and relevant
disciplinary knowledge, professionals and volunteers must complete their basic training
by acquiring knowledge of listening and interview techniques, group facilitation
techniques, and the specificity of the implementation and follow-up protocols for
restorative measures. The French Institute for Restorative Justice (IFJR), in partnership
with the French National Institute for Victim Support and Mediation (L’Institut national
d’aide aux victimes et de médiation: INAVEM) has begun offering such training, for
most of the eligible measures. Unfortunately, training cannot be provided at university
owing to the theoretical, pedagogical, and praxeological knowledge necessarily required.
However, currently, anyone wishing to work in these wider criminology professions still
faces the outdated resistance of the “intradisciplinary” sectors that supposedly study
the complex criminal phenomenon. The facilitator 6 of the meeting, also in charge of
preparing the participants, is responsible for ensuring that the proceedings run smoothly.
Such preparation, which is often lengthy, is always guided by the principle of not (re)
victimizing the potential participants, and not aggravating the situation of the detained
persons. The facilitator makes sure the proceedings are safe and that everyone gets a fair
chance to speak, so that all participants can express themselves and be heard, with respect
and dignity. With up-to-date knowledge of restorative justice and criminological issues
affecting victims and perpetrators, the facilitator must also be familiar with the specific
techniques for implementing the chosen measure. They must be unbiased towards the
6
It is important to understand that the term is neutral, especially since the implementation of the restorative
measures scrupulously favors a parity reflected in the gender composition of humankind.
5