International Journal on Criminology Volume 4, Number 2, Winter 2016 | Page 145

International Journal on Criminology
Finally, while there is no obvious connection between transitional justice or
a sentencing circle, it is odd that this improperly used re-appropriation effect being
found in many other programs said to be restorative. At the other end of the spectrum
of existing measures, the use of mediation in educational environments does not
always correspond to the goal of restoration that upholds it. It even seems to have
a tendency to be quickly transformed into an additional disciplinary tool used for
the internal regulation of the establishment, seeking only, due to the absence of any
restorative measure, to set up a new dynamic in the internal communication methods
used at the school, assisting with discipline, control, and prevention (Grenier
2015; Mbanzoulou 2007). We come to the same conclusion that Christie arrived at
many years ago: restorative justice or not, certain holders of power are quick to reappropriate,
knowingly or de facto, the material results of restoration at the expense
of victims (Christie 1977).
In terms of discussion, what can be retained, finally, concerning the benefits
of restorative justice? Above all, restorative justice is a large, multifaceted family,
which is fairly cohesive and composed of numerous formal or informal initiatives
that may be very institutionalized or indeed social and charitable. These initiatives, in
the end, share a common goal of re-placing people at the center of their own history
concerning a specific event, at the center of their own progression in order to make
them again masters of their own life course. Restorative justice should, consequently,
be defined as including any service or program—whether or not it involves a faceto-face
meeting (not always and not often necessary)—that enables a person affected
by a tragedy or a conflict to finally find, in safe and prepared conditions, a direct
answer to three simple but equally complex questions (which no judge, clinician,
reentry agent, volunteer, or companion can answer for them): “Why did this happen
to me,” “How can I get out of it,” and “What does the future hold for me within my
community” (Rossi 2015b).
In the same way, insisting on a discourse that constantly compares restorative
justice to criminal justice (or therapeutic and clinical management) will lead to a
major trap: currently, there is no institutional or centralized structure that allows for
affirming the restorative nature of one program over another. When "criminal justice"
is mentioned in law, or the "psycho-dynamic" or "cognitive behavior" approach in
psychology, they can be discussed in general terms: it is a matter of a particular
approach or ethics. Thus, a psychologist trained at one school can reasonably be
compared to another. In the same sense, a lawyer's actions are monitored by the
bar, or another comparable professional order, such that he or she also follows strict
standards. There exists nothing similar in restorative justice—and there is nothing
planned in this regard. A surprising article by Choi, Gilbert, and Green (2013) clearly
shows this. After studying a series of mediation practices among perpetrators and
victims in American Midwestern states, the authors concluded that the principles
of restorative justice taught to practitioners were not necessarily applied in the field
and led to a wide range of activities. Some of the measures implemented resulted
only in the marginalization of victims: insufficiently prepared, they were influenced,
144