Abstract
In France, the increased attention to victims’ experiences is undeniable. This attention is one of the many vectors of transformation of the modern judicial system. It has helped the development of restorative justice, which, in turn, reinforces greater awareness of victims in the justice system. However, does this increased attention to victims contribute to them participating more actively in today’s criminal justice system? Following a literature review and a methodology section outlining three and a half years of empirical research, the discussion presents three key findings. (Section I) As managed by the central state, the integration of restorative justice into criminal justice opens a new hybrid space for victims; however, this space remains both state dependent and marginalized in many ways (number, space, legitimacy, etc.). (Section II) As a result of the relative indifference of the state, the development of this space relies on convinced and enthusiastic (para)legal professionals. Their role appears to be crucial. In this light, participation in restorative measures reflects more on the activity of these (para)legal professionals than on victims’ demands and agency. (Section III) Finally, I focus on the participants: Do the victims experiencing these restorative measures share the perspectives of these intermediaries? Empirical data suggest a dissociation between restorative measures and criminal proceedings, implying that participation in restorative justice measures has little to do with participating in the criminal justice system, which is represented by the courts, lawyers, and judges. This is related to the modalities of restorative justice’s institutionalization in the country.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The law defines restorative justice measures as “any measure enabling a victim as well as the perpetrator of an offence to participate actively in the resolution of difficulties resulting from the offence, and in particular in the reparation of prejudices of any kind resulting from its commission” (Article 10–1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, personal translation).
Victim-offender encounters typically bring together four victims and four offenders (inmates or on probation) to dialogue, in a circle, during one weekly meeting for five weeks. These encounters can happen in or outside of prison (in a civil society organization or communal venue considered neutral). Victims and offenders do not know each other but have experienced or committed the same types of crime (for the interviewees: sexual violence, domestic violence, robbery with violence, murder, and attempted murder). Before these five sessions, the two facilitators (most often a victim support worker and a probation officer) prepare each of the participants (listening to their stories, preparing them to tell it to others and face their reactions, defining their expectations, exploring the different scenarios that could happen and where to set boundaries, etc.). This preparation lasts for 5 or 6 months, with each individual being offered at least three preparatory meetings (more often, five or six). Two volunteer “members of the community” are also present during the sessions, to assist participants emotionally and socially and assist the facilitators in setting up the meetings. Colleagues of the two facilitators are also systematically involved to shuttle participants from their homes to the venue. As for restorative mediations, they consist in several similar preparatory meetings, either with the victim or the offender, with the possibility of a face-to-face meeting with the other person in mind, though this meeting does not often occur (around 10% of the time).
By this, I mean both legal and paralegal professionals. Probation officers are legal professionals. Victim support associations’ professionals are paralegal professionals, partners to the public sector, funded and vetted by the ministry of Justice and the Courts. It is also the case of the two most important specialized restorative justice organizations in France, funded and vetted by the ministry of Justice.
The law n° 2000–516 of 15 June 2000 reinforcing victims’ rights; the law n°2002–1138 of 9 September 2002 on justice orientations; the law n°2004–204 of 9 March 2004 on justice adaptation to the evolutions of criminality; the law n°2005–1249 of 12 December 2005 on the treatment of recidivism in criminal offences. For instance, this last law dictates that the nature, quantum, and regime of sentences ought to reconcile several imperatives, such as the protection of society and interests of the victim. “L’évolution du statut de la victime dans la procédure pénale” [the evolution of victims’ status in criminal proceedings], an article published on “Vie publique”, an informational website edited by the Legal and Administrative Information Service of the French Republic. URL: https://www.vie-publique.fr/eclairage/287825-justice-levolution-du-statut-de-la-victime-dans-la-procedure-penale.
Participation, the fact of being part of something, may uncover different dimensions (active, passive, and other nuances) depending on the degree to which one’s agency is exercised. The exercising of one’s agency requires “social arrangements that permit all (adult) members of society to interact with one another as peers”. Antonsdóttir (2018, p. 325). It applies to the criminal justice process, whatever the distribution of roles between peers.
They may also not attend the trial and rely on their legal representation if they do not want to be present in Court (unless they received a subpoena to appear in Court).
For a more precise and nuanced account of victims’ level of satisfaction with the criminal justice system respectful of the heterogeneity of their expectations and experiences, I would recommend starting with Laxminarayan et al. (2013).
Following Marcus, I situated the ethnography of restorative justice in some of its distinct fragments. The nature of these fragments may differ, as is the case between a restorative justice program for domestic violence and an international colloquium in a cultural institution. This informed particular aspects of a complex object: a local or international dimension, a method of dealing with delinquency, a group seeking professionalization, etc. Marcus (1995).
In this article, I use the categories “victims” and “offenders” in use in the field of restorative justice to label participants. This article does not aim to question these categories. Nevertheless, the use of quotation marks (which I will not use going forward) should serve as a reminder that these remain constructed categories that should be questioned in order for the meanings and representations they convey to be understood. For a relevant example, see Antonsdóttir’s work on the use of the term “victim-survivors”. Antonsdóttir (2018).
Because this special issue focuses on victim participation, I made the choice to leave out the offenders’ perspectives in this particular article.
My analysis is also informed by an ongoing research project I am conducting that aims to study more specifically the effects of restorative justice measures on participants. I am currently conducting more interviews with participants of restorative justice measures (a dozen), both as victims and offenders. These are not yet fully analyzed, but they unavoidably contribute to my analysis. Research project “Les effets de la justice restaurative,” 2020–2023, co-directed by the author and Sandrine Lefranc (CNRS, Sciences Po).
“Facilitators” is the term designating the practitioners who accompany the participants throughout the process of restorative measures, from conducting preparatory meetings through facilitating (or mediating) the victims-offenders encounters or restorative mediations. The training approved by the state to be a restorative justice facilitator is mandatory and carried out by workers from two restorative experts organizations approved by the state.
As stated before, the Penitentiary Administration and the Youth Judicial Protection Administration do not provide any extra resources for restorative justice. Yet their agents represent more than half of the restorative justice practitioners. In that context, they stretch their professional time beyond extra billable hours to carry on while maintaining their regular tasks, in an already overloaded professional routine. Griveaud (2022). Only the Victim Support Administration (SADJAV) did dedicate a specific budget to restorative justice. In 2021, the budget dedicated to restorative justice was €408,000. These figures should be compared with the €32.1 million earmarked for victim support under program 101 of the SADJAV in 2021. They therefore represent 1.27% of the budget dedicated to victim support. Just under half would fund the French Institute for Restorative Justice (IFJR) and the Association for applied research in criminology (ARCA). The rest is dedicated to victim support organizations applying for funding for restorative justice programs.
Also in art. D1-1-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, created by article 7 of decree n°2020–1640 of December 21, 2020, prosecutors, judges, and presidents of courts “shall propose, when this measure is feasible[,]” a restorative justice measure to the victim or the offender.
Online seminar hosted by the French Institute for Restorative Justice, with Claire Strugala, magistrate, senior official from the Victim Support Administration of the ministry of Justice, and member of the Restorative Justice National Committee, April 15, 2021.
Of these participants, 51% are victims, according to the intermediary report on the national experiment for restorative justice, French Institute for Restorative Justice, 2023.
Interview with a restorative justice coordinator from the French Institute for Restorative Justice, August 2019.
Intermediary report on the national experiment of restorative justice within a jurisdiction situated in the south of France, French Institute for Restorative Justice, 2023. This is partly the result of a common dead end in judicial policies: in the end, magistrates remain independent from the ministry of Justice. It just so happens that restorative justice professionals are accountable to both magistrates and the ministry.
In the pro-active approach, there is a systematic dissemination of information to all victims, which allows them to decide for themselves if they want to participate. In the protective approach, only victims actively asking to meet with the offender are informed about restorative justice measures, to reduce any risk of secondary victimization. Wemmers and van Camp (2016).
From 2014 to 2022, the daily regional press regularly issued articles on the topic of restorative justice. However, only four national press articles, two documentaries, and a fiction film can be accounted for. Radio and television interventions have occurred but are rare. This changed with the recent success of the French film, Je verrai toujours vos visages, which depicts two restorative measures and stars several well-known actors. Released in March 2023, the film sold more than one million tickets and was number one at the box office during its first week. Still, our sociopenal culture does not facilitate representations of dialogue with serious crime offenders, and research has shown France to be settled in a “punitive moment”. Fassin (2017).
We do not know much about the rate of interest in restorative measures within the victims of crime, besides the result of an experiment in which a hundred victims of domestic violence who had previously solicited a local victim support organization had been contacted by phone. The experiment showed that 10% of the people contacted had at least a first in depth interview with facilitators. Activity report, French Institute for Restorative Justice, 2021.
All names are pseudonyms.
A clarification: referring to victims as a homogeneous entity does not make sense in light of victimization surveys conducted around the world and, notably, in France. Zauberman (2015). They show different profiles of victimization and different responses to it, as well as different expectations towards criminal justice from those who chose to file a complaint and/or an adhesion procedure. Statistically, people who have suffered property damage are mostly looking for compensation from the judicial system, whereas those who have faced personal injuries describe it as a call to the state for the culprit to be punished and the violence not to be repeated. Zauberman (2005).
In the scope of this fieldwork (and representative of restorative justice in France), restorative measures participants as victims were all faced with serious and personal offences (murder, violent home jacking, road felonies resulting in paralysis and handicaps, sexual and domestic violence). They all filed a complaint. They all described frustration, misunderstandings, and pain when it came to the various stages of the criminal proceedings, where they were asked to tell their stories and justify themselves but felt tested more than heard. They were from various socioeconomical backgrounds and territories, mostly women, and their most common feature was being relatively isolated socially, whether prior to the events, as a result of them, or both.
This representation excludes probation officers, whose work is very poorly known in France and associated with inmates’ assistance. Larminat (2014).
“Care” is understood as a set of social practices and policies associated primarily with solicitude, but also with caring, assistance, support, and concern for others. Ledoux (2013).
One example of these additional services is a restorative justice facilitator accompanying a participant to the trial of their case for support, while also working with them in parallel with the restorative justice process.
References
Abbott, A. D. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. The University of Chicago Press.
Adam, C., Cauchie, J.-F., Devresse, M.-S., Digneffe, F., & Kaminski, D. (2014). Crime, justice et lieux communs: Une introduction à la criminologie. Larcier.
Aertsen, I., Daems, T., & Robert, L. (2006). Institutionalizing restorative justice. Willan.
Antonsdóttir, H. F. (2018). ‘A witness in my own case’: Victim–survivors’ views on the criminal justice process in Iceland. Feminist Legal Studies, 26(3), 307–330.
Atlani-Duault, L. (2009). Au bonheur des autres: Anthropologie de l’aide humanitaire [Nouvelle édition avec une conclusion réactualisée]. Armand Colin.
Barker, V. (2007). The politics of pain: a political institutionalist analysis of crime victims’ moral protests. Law & Society Review, 41(3), 619–664.
Bonafé-Schmitt, J.-P. (1998). La médiation pénale en France et aux Etats-Unis. LGDJ-Lextenso ed.
Bonelli, L., & Pelletier, W. (2010). Cahiers libres. L’État démantelé: Enquête sur une révolution silencieuse. La Découverte.
Booth, T., Bosma, A., & Lens, K. (2018). Accomodating the expressive function of victim impact statements: The scope for victims’ voices in dutch courtrooms. British Journal of Criminology, 58, 1480–1498.
Boutellier, H. (2006). The vital context of restorative justice. In I. Aertsen, T. Daems, & L. Robert (Eds.), Institutionalizing restorative justice (pp. 25–43). Willan.
Braithwaite, J. (2002). Restorative justice & responsive regulation. Studies in Crime and Public Policy.
Cario, R. (1997). Potentialités et ambiguïtés de la médiation pénale: Entre Athéna et Thémis. In R. Cario (Ed.), Science criminelle. La médiation pénale: Entre répression et réparation (pp. 11–33). L’Harmattan.
Cario, R. (2002). Victimes, du traumatisme à la restauration. Sciences criminelles: Vol. 2. L’Harmattan.
Cario, R. (2021). Grandeurs et vicissitudes de la justice restaurative en France. L’Harmattan.
Christie, N. (1977). Conflict as property. The British Journal of Criminology, 17(1), 1–15.
Cyr, K., & Wemmers, J.-A. (2011). Empowerment des victimes d’actes criminels. Criminologie, 44(2), 125–155.
Daems, T. (2009). Criminal law, victims, and the limits of therapeutic consequentialism. In B. Keirsbilck, W. Devroe, & E. Claes (Eds.), Facing the limits of the law (pp. 1–18). Scholars Portal.
Faget, J. (2006). The French phantoms of restorative justice: The institutionalization of ‘penal mediation.’ In I. Aertsen, T. Daems, & L. Robert (Eds.), Institutionalizing restorative justice (pp. 151–167). Willan.
Fassin, D. (2017). Punir: Une passion contemporaine. Seuil.
Fassin, D., & Rechtman, R. (2007). L’empire du traumatisme: Enquête sur la condition de victime. Flammarion.
Garland, D. (1985). Punishment and welfare: A history of penal strategies. Gower.
Griveaud, D. (2022). La justice restaurative en France: Sociologie politique d’un ‘supplément d’âme’ à la justice pénale [PhD Dissertation]. Université catholique de Louvain-la-neuve (ISPOLE); Université Paris Nanterre (ISP), Belgium, France
Griveaud, D., & Lefranc, S. (2024). Les effets de la justice restaurative (Institut des études et de la recherche sur le droit et la justice)
Hudson, B. (2006). Balancing the ethical and the political: Normative reflections on the institutionnalization of restorative justice. In I. Aertsen, T. Daems, & L. Robert (Eds.), Institutionalizing restorative justice (pp. 261–282). Willan.
Kaufmann, J.‑C. (2014). L’entretien compréhensif (3e édition). 128. Sociologie anthropologie. Armand Colin. (Original work published 1996)
Larminat, X. D. (2014). Hors des murs: L’exécution des peines en milieu ouvert. Texte remanié de: Thèse de doctorat: Science politique: Versailles-Saint Quentin en Yvelines: 2012 : La probation en quête d’approbation: l’exécution des peines en milieu ouvert entre gestion des risques et gestion des flux. Partage du savoir. Presses Universitaires de France
Lascoumes, P. (2006). Ruptures politiques et politiques pénitentiaires, analyse comparative des dynamiques de changement institutionnel. Déviance Et Société, 30(3), 405–419.
Laugerud, S., & Langballe, Å. (2017). Turning the witness stand into a speaker’s platform: Victim participation in the Norwegian legal system as exemplified by the trial against Anders Behring Breivik. Law & Society Review, 51(2), 227–251.
Laxminarayan, M., Bosmans, M., Porter, R., & Sosa, L. (2013). Victim satisfaction with criminal justice: A systematic review. Victims & Offenders, 8(2), 119–147.
Ledoux, C. (2013). Care. In C. Achin & L. Bereni (Eds.), Dictionnaire genre science politique: Concepts, objets, problèmes (pp. 79–90). Sciences Po Les Presses.
Lefranc, S. (2006). Le mouvement pour la justice restauratrice:« an idea whose time has come ». Droit Et Societe, 63–64(2–3), 393–409.
Lefranc, S. (2022). Comment sortir de la violence? Enjeux et limites de la justice transitionnelle. CNRS Editions.
Lefranc, S., Mathieu, L., & Siméant, J. (2008). Les victimes écrivent leur Histoire. Raisons Politiques, 30(2), 5.
Lefranc, S., & Weill, S. (2023). Le procès V13 comme expérimentation judiciaire: Entre justices pénale et transformative. Les Cahiers De La Justice, 1(1), 41–57.
Lemonne, A. (2018). The adventure of the institutionalisation of restorative justice in Belgium. The International Journal of Restorative Justice, 1(2), 230–251.
Leroy, J. (2002). La place de la partie lésée dans le procès pénal révolutionnaire. Annales Historiques De La Révolution Française, 328(1), 105–119.
Marcus, G. E. (1995). Ethnography in/of the world system: The emergence of multi-situated ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 95–117.
Pélisse, J., & Talesh, S. (2018). How legal intermediaries facilitate or inhibit social change. Archives Ouvertes HAL(hal-01917429)
Pillayre, H. (2020). Compensation funds, trials and the meaning of claims: The example of asbestos-related illness compensation in France. Socio and Legal Studies, 2(30), 180–202.
Pin, X. (2006). Les victimes d’infractions définitions et enjeux. Archives De Politique Criminelle, No, 28(1), 49.
Pires, A. (2001). La rationalité pénale moderne, la société du risque et la juridicisation de l’opinion publique. Sociologie Et Sociétés, 33(1), 179–204.
Pratt, J. (2006). Beyond evangelical criminology: The meaning and significance of restorative justice. In I. Aertsen, T. Daems, & L. Robert (Eds.), Institutionalizing restorative justice (pp. 44–67). Willan.
Rechtman, R., & Cesoni, M. L. (2005). La « réparation psychologique » de la victime : une nouvelle fonction de la peine ? Revue De Droit Pénal Et De Criminologie.
Richards, K. M. (2005). Unlikely friends? Oprah Winfrey and restorative justice. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 3(38), 381–399.
Robinson, G. (2008). Late-modern rehabilitation. Punishment & Society, 4(10), 429–445.
van Camp, T. (2017). Understanding victim participation in restorative practices: Looking for justice for oneself as well as for others. European Journal of Criminology, 14(6), 679–696.
Wemmers, J.-A., & van Camp, T. (2016). Victims’ reflections on the protective and proactive approaches to the offer of restorative justice: The importance of information. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 58(3), 415–442.
Zauberman, R. (2005). Punir le délinquant? La réponse des victimes. Informations Sociales, No, 127(7), 54.
Zauberman, R. (2015). Les enquêtes de victimation. Idées Économiques Et Sociales, No, 181(3), 8–21.
Zehr, H., & Gohar, A. (2003). The little book of restorative justice. Non profit publication of The little book, with additions from Ali Gohar. Good Books and Uni-Graphics
Funding
The doctoral research leading to this article was supported by the Fund for Scientific Research (Belgium).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The author has no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Griveaud, D. Restorative Justice in France: A Participatory Turn? Empirical Research on the Management of Victims’ Participation. Int Criminol 4, 31–43 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43576-024-00111-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43576-024-00111-x