International Journal on Criminology Volume 3, Number 1, Spring 2015 | Page 8

International Journal on Criminology
sentences, or even later. The restorative process, penal process, and jurisdictions for the
enforcement of sentences can therefore work together and complement one another,
with a possibility of links between them. Although it is the responsibility of the judicial
authority to propose a restorative justice measure, nothing prevents the socio-judiciary
participants (in the widest sense), the protagonists, and their significant others making
such a request to the competent magistrate.
Such a system provides great flexibility and reduces the risk of exploitation of
the restorative justice and of all those involved (Wright 2011). The reference in the text
to “restorative justice measures” allows for all possibilities: no particular restorative
justice measure is mentioned, so all are eligible, with reasoned judgment from trained
practitioners, to decide which is best adapted to the situation in question, working with the
participants themselves. The most common measures, applied alone or in combination,
are penal mediation, restorative mediation (after proceedings), criminal reparation for
minors, restorative conferences, restorative circles, victims offenders encounters, circles
of support, and accountability. 9
B. The Practical Modalities for Proposing a Restorative Justice Measure
The process of proposing and implementing a restorative justice measure must be
based on directing people toward a dedicated restorative justice service, or a service
for promoting restorative justice measures. The introduction of detainee–victim meetings
in 2010 and 2014 at Poissy Penitentiary reminds us that the preliminary orientation phase
is essential for people who may be interested in participating in a restorative meeting of
any kind (Cario 2012). It is also the organization currently retained and tested within
the restorative justice measure trials in the new Regional Service for Restorative Justice
(SRJR: Service Régional de Justice Restaurative) provided by the Association for Applied
Criminal Policy and Social Reintegration (APCARS: l’Association de Politique Criminelle
Appliquée et de Réinsertion Sociale: www.apcars.fr) for Ile-de-France, with scientific
support from the IFJR (Sayous 2014).
The design of a restorative justice program, whether or not it takes place within a
dedicated restorative justice service, must consequently be based on a strong foundation
of partnership. Restorative justice must therefore have a network of organisms to guide
and direct potential participants. Within the APCARS’s project, SRJR referents have been
identified among external partners, as well as within its own victim support, judiciary
control, accommodation, and social reintegration services. Their mission is to facilitate
and improve the effectiveness of orientation toward the SRJR (Sayous 2014).
Partners who might potentially provide such guidance and direction generally
belong to the judiciary sector (judicial authority, penitentiary administration, integration
and probation services, national police, and gendarmerie) or the parajudiciary sector
(victim support associations, judiciary control associations, accommodation, and social
reintegration centers), the health and social services, and even victim associations.
Working directly with the victims, the perpetrators of penal infractions and/or those
9
See the summary table at the end of this study, showing the integration of restorative measures throughout
the penal process.
7