International Journal on Criminology Volume 4, Number 2, Winter 2016 | Page 147

International Journal on Criminology
models are carefully thought out and implemented, that the parties, victims, and
perpetrators have (do we need to be reminded?) an essential and central role: these
persons are the program and participate only for their own reasons. All persons
(victims, perpetrators, relatives, members of their community of belonging, citizens)
involve themselves in the way they wish, pose the questions important to them, and
are engaged to the degree they are able. Only they—and this is essential—are in
control of the content of subjects discussed during meetings (even though they must
never be solely responsible for carrying them out). Even though at every moment, a
strict guided framework is necessary, essentially the participants themselves decide
on every moment that takes place (the victim(s) as much as the perpetrator(s), or
both parties in the case of events not qualified as criminal). This is so that their place,
actions and claims, words, and freedom are always assured and respected. In this
regard, the role of the mediator or facilitator is defined as being the guarantor that
such principles are respected.
In no traditional penal procedure is it possible to find greater freedom to act
and think as in restorative justice. The (vertical) penal system is absolutely imposed
on the parties and it is often criticized for stealing their own history from them
(Christie 1977). The victim assistance support programs, the offenders rehabilitation
programs, certainly responds in large part to the responses and needs expressed
(sanction and compensation), but it nonetheless is generally unable to return all
power to the litigants to control their own affairs. The professionals involved still
tend too often to present themselves as experts of the situation. As a result, some
overprotect the victims (by determining their needs for them), while others guide
perpetrators (by deciding on the desired trajectories for them). Clinicians and jurists,
generally speaking, are experts in the situation of persons; in restorative justice, the
person is the only expert of his/her situation.
It thus seems urgent today that in order to claim the use of the qualifier
"restorative," any program or measure of restorative justice should first be defined
ahead of time according to the movement it is a part of and in line with the approach
for which it is being used. Second, every restorative initiative should state, in a
completely transparent way, the procedures it uses, the methods it employs, and the
foundations upon which it is based. This is essential for research, and for the institutions
or social organizations that utilize such measures. It is also unquestionably essential
for citizens who are being offered, unscrupulously, some restorative measure (for
payment) without really knowing, or being able to know, what to expect. Without
clarifying its allegiances and internal procedures, restorative justice risks continuing
to group together and mix up many effective programs with other completely
improvised programs that have been created or imitated by well-meaning "sorcerer's
apprentices." This all may prove dangerous for the participants. Restorative justice
should never involve taking a risk. Restorative justice is not an experience to be
tried out or to be subjected to; it is even less a new wonder technique intended to
quickly manufacture model citizens who are miraculously rehabilitated or restored,
with satisfactory results every time. To become and remain the resource it seeks to
146