Pratiques et effets de la justice restaurative en France

What this is about

This research report studies how restorative justice works in France since Article 10-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure incorporated it in 2014, and what effects it produces. It analyzes it on three levels: as a public policy of the government and the judicial institution, as an activity of professionals and volunteers, and as an experience of victims and of the persons who committed offenses. It was written by a multidisciplinary team that brought together university researchers with members of specialized associations and of the national schools of prison administration and of judicial youth protection. It is addressed to those who design, fund, coordinate, or evaluate these programs, and to academia. Its approach is that of the social sciences: direct observation of mediations and group meetings, interviews, and focus groups in several cities, rather than satisfaction surveys or measures of recidivism.

Annotated table of contents

• Introduction : Restaurer la justice ? (Introduction: Restoring justice?). Presents the French legal framework, the various practices grouped under the name restorative justice, and its arrival in the country. Delimits the object of study to the majority version, linked to the criminal justice system and centered on restorative mediations and group meetings between victims and convicted persons.
• 1. Évaluer la justice restaurative. Préalable méthodologique (1. Evaluating restorative justice. Methodological preliminaries). Recounts how the research took shape in partnership with sector organizations and describes the fields observed. Reviews French and international evaluations, their criteria and limits, and proposes evaluating the public policy, the professional mobilization, and the effects on participants.
• 2. Une politique publique de « faible intensité » (2. A «low-intensity» public policy). Shows that, despite political consensus and the declared support of the Ministry of Justice, restorative justice spreads little, is delegated to associations with scarce resources, and remains at the margins of the judicial institution. Analyzes the heterogeneous local coalitions that sustain it and their organizational and cultural differences.
• 3. Qui sont les « bénéficiaires » de la justice restaurative ? (3. Who are the «beneficiaries» of restorative justice?). Points out that direct meetings between a victim and the person who offended them are rare and describes the profiles of those who take part, generally isolated people and often linked to sexual or domestic violence. Includes professionals as beneficiaries and analyzes the gender dimension of these practices.
• 4. Entre thérapie et « regain » d'État. Les effets de la justice restaurative sur les justiciables (4. Between therapy and the «resurgence» of the State. The effects of restorative justice on justice-involved persons). Examines the effects on victims and perpetrators: the reunion with a State that offers time and listening, recognition, emotional release, and improved self-esteem. Discusses the limits of individual accountability and the relationship of these practices with therapy, including the controversy with the French commission on incest and sexual violence against children (CIIVISE).
• Conclusion. Summarizes the generally positive but individual effects of the measures, which do not reach the social environment or the structural causes of violence. Warns about the fragility of the system, the lack of resources, and volunteer burnout, and mentions possible institutional paths.
• Annexes. Gather the table of materials collected, the French normative texts on restorative justice, the interview and focus group guides, the sociodemographic characteristics of the fields, and the debate in the National Assembly during the XVI legislature.
• Bibliographie (Bibliography). Lists the references cited throughout the report.
• Résumé (Summary). Synthesizes the purpose, method, and main findings of the research.

Key ideas

• In France, restorative justice is a right recognized by law since 2014, but it is applied little because it is not organized or disseminated as a full public policy.
• Its development depends on the commitment of officials, association staff, and volunteers who stretch their working time, which makes it fragile and exposed to burnout.
• Most measures do not culminate in a meeting between the victim and the person who offended them; preparation is the central stage and often the only one.
• For participants, the experience works as a reunion with a State that devotes time, listening, and practical guidance, after negative experiences with criminal justice.
• The most consistent effects, at least in the short term, are the recognition of victims and the recovery of the self-esteem of perpetrators, along with new social relationships.
• The effects are mainly individual: the close circle and the community take part little, and the structural dimensions of violence, such as gender, are hardly worked on.
• Existing evaluations rely on immediate satisfaction and psychological categories, and tend to overestimate how long the effects last; longer-term studies are needed.
• Professionals also benefit, because these practices restore meaning to occupations affected by the rationalization of judicial work.

Practical uses

• What can and what cannot a restorative mediation or a group meeting between victims and convicted persons achieve?
• What institutional and funding conditions are needed so that access to restorative justice no longer depends on local voluntarism?
• How can a program be evaluated without being limited to participants' satisfaction or short-term recidivism?
• What place do preparation, support, and listening have in the effects reported by victims and perpetrators?
• How does gender influence who takes part, who facilitates, and what types of cases reach these programs?

Key terms

restorative justice, France, restorative mediation, meetings between victims and convicted persons, public policy, evaluation, project groups, prison administration, judicial protection of youth, recognition, self-esteem, gender, sexual violence, therapeutic justice, community