Restoring Restorative Justice - Editorial

Editorial Two

The release of criminals convicted of murder, rape and such other serious offences from prisons is always an emotional issue.

It would be nice to see them reformed and rehabilitated into the society.

The problem is many of them reoffend. Besides, the victims of crimes perpetrated by them believe that the release of these criminals back to the society not only increases the risk of increased offending but also instils in them the fear complex that the offenders would come after the rest of the family.

Would it not be nice if such vengeful sentiments could be assuaged, perhaps by getting victims and offenders together for a chat? Many criminologists and sociologists think so.

They say that such meetings should be used for youthful lawbreakers and adults. Their belief is that in future, offenders may be punished not by courts, but by panels composed of victims and local people, who will decide how they should make restitution for their crimes.

This is somewhat akin to the public justice system followed in many Indian villages even today but more formal and widely accepted.

Termed Restorative Justice, the idea was originally developed in New Zealand and Canada, as a last-ditch effort to deal with the growing numbers of Maori and native youths in the juvenile courts. Such people, the reasoning went, had little commitment to the legal system but might be more inclined to obey kinfolk or tribal chiefs. It worked here, and restorative justice has spread round the world.

Results are mostly good. Making young criminals confront the consequences of their actions seems to work better than prison in making them go straight in future.

Even hardened criminals may benefit, although courts and politicians are more reluctant to try it out on them.

Ben Lyon, who runs Connect, a pilot project in South London, says that gang members welcome the chance to meet victims’ families. “Such people need to come out of prison knowing there will be no continuation of a feud. We often experience situations in which the offender is more nervous than the victim,” he said.

But there have been some spectacular missteps, which advocates of restorative justice are less keen to advertise. A few years ago, an aggrieved shopkeeper in Australia sentenced a 12-year-old shoplifter to wear a T-shirt imprinted with the words “I am a thief.” Local university students seized on the slogan as an icon of cool. Sales at his shop fell.

Such slips are almost inevitable, given victims’ lack of experience in dispensing justice. Declan Roche, a criminologist at the London School of Economics, points out that, with the exception of jury service, the judicial system is almost entirely undemocratic.

In 1998, a New Zealand man was accosted in the street and stabbed six times. Having received a sincere apology, he decided that the perpetrator should not go to jail, but instead help pay for plastic surgery to restore his face.

A District Court Judge, who was profoundly moved by the meeting of minds, agreed. But a higher court did not. Deciding that there was a public interest in deterring violence, it sentenced the culprit to three years in prison.

The concept that criminal actions harm individuals, rather than an abstract law-making state, is unfamiliar. If restorative justice is to work, the public must get used to some new responsibilities.

The criminal justice system must determine how to balance victims’ sentiments with the general good.