We witness countless court cases every day that result in the issuance of a verdict and ultimately the punishment of the offender. However, experience has shown that in today’s world, the issuance and execution of sentences does not necessarily mean the realization of justice. In many cases, the victim is still dissatisfied after the end of the trial and the offender has simply gone through a punitive process without any real reform. The traditional criminal justice system has mainly focused on punishing the offender, but with the progress of human societies, the limitations of this approach have become apparent. The density of cases, recidivism, and the dissatisfaction of victims have highlighted the need to pay more attention to restorative justice. In this regard, restorative justice, as a new movement in criminology, seeks to repair the damage that crime causes to society, the victim, and even the offender. Unlike the traditional penal system, which considers two main axes: the offender and the victim, and in which the state plays the main role, restorative justice has three axes: “offender,” “victim,” and “local community.” In this system, the offender is also considered a type of victim, because social, economic, or cultural deprivations and harms often create the basis for delinquency.

The roots and causes of restorative justice

For a long time, thinkers such as Cesare Beccaria, despite their punitive approach to crime, emphasized the prohibition of the death penalty and respect for the rights of criminals. Later, in international congresses on prison and justice, including those in the 1990s, the issue of restorative justice and compensation for victims and their participation in the justice process was seriously raised. Garofalo, one of the founders of the research school, suggested that compensation for victims and obtaining their consent should be a condition for granting conditional release and even that compensation funds should be created for cases where the criminal is unable to pay. Also, theories such as “labeling theory” showed that the traditional penal system, by labeling criminals, puts criminals on the path to committing more crimes. These views, along with the inefficiencies of traditional criminal justice, paved the way for the move to restorative justice. In comparison, both systems seek to prevent crime and compensate for damages. In criminal justice, punishment is applied with the aim of deterrence and ensuring the security of society, while restorative justice, through tools such as family counseling sessions, victim-offender committees, and face-to-face confrontation, seeks to establish direct accountability of the offender and repair damaged relationships. In restorative justice, compensation for the victim is an independent principle and is considered prior to any type of punishment. Also, unlike criminal justice, whose main goal is to impose punishment, restorative justice attempts to return the offender to society, to understand the responsibility for his actions, and to achieve his social reintegration.

Practical examples of restorative justice in the world

One successful example is the Maori Reconciliation Sessions in New Zealand. In these sessions, young offenders, their families and victims sit together and discuss the consequences of the crime and ways to repair it. This method was later developed in the United States, Canada and Australia and has even been used for other age groups and minor forgivable crimes. Victim-offender panels also allow participants to recount their experiences in a safe and guided environment, describe the damage done and find agreed-upon solutions to repair relationships. This process not only helps to make amends, but also seeks to prevent reoffending. This approach is so important that it is stated in the seventh and eighth principles of the UN resolution as the fundamental principles for the use of restorative justice programs. On this basis, the offender’s participation in the restorative process must be free and voluntary, and his statements in this process should never be used against him in court. These principles guarantee the human rights and dignity of the offender, along with reparation for the victims. Currently, more than a hundred countries in the world, including New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Germany, and several European and Asian countries, have applied restorative doctrines in the resolution of criminal disputes, which shows that restorative justice is not just a theory, but a successful practical experience worldwide. The legislator in the Iranian Criminal Procedure Code has also paid attention to mediation and has considered its purpose to prevent the accumulation of cases and promote the rehabilitation of the offender.

Repair, trust and strengthen society

The importance of this approach is that it attempts to restore the dignity of individuals after committing a crime, meaning that the victim’s dignity is restored by shaming the offender and using group and family capacities, the main goal of which is to apologize to the victim. On the other hand, in the restorative school, the “criminal” is also considered a “victim”, so his dignity must be respected and the context in which the crime occurred and whether his reform and return to society is possible? If we accept that there is little difference between delinquency and victimization, we will conclude that many criminals are themselves victims who have been deprived of various social and human benefits, such as having responsible parents or having education and employment. Of course, it should be noted that although criminal justice covers all crimes (i.e., in this school there is no distinction between general and specific crimes or minor and major crimes, and the court is obliged to issue a verdict), in restorative justice, the legislator’s opinion is more focused on minor and forgivable crimes. For example, in crimes such as murder or armed robbery that are punishable by violence, the restorative school seems to be ineffective, because the first condition in this school is that the accused person is capable of reforming, given the circumstances and history of the accused. Restorative justice, by respecting human dignity, paying simultaneous attention to the victim and the offender, and trying to strengthen society, offers a new way to reduce crime and avoid revenge. This system is an opportunity for criminals to understand the responsibility of their actions and, by compensating for the damage, return to society. Ultimately, this approach shows that true justice does not lie only in punishing the offender, but in repairing relationships and restoring social trust; This, if implemented correctly, can replace revenge in many cases, preventing the victim and their loved ones from experiencing accumulated and destructive anger in society.