Restorative justice and reconciliation. Restorative justice follows a different path from retribution. The conception of crime, and of the means to right the wrongs, is different. In this respect Xxxxxx Xxxx, one of the pioneers of restorative justice practices, argues that: “restorative justice views crime, first of all, as harm done to people and communities… A harm focus, however, implies a central concern for victims’ needs and roles. Restorative justice begins with a concern for victims and how to meet their needs, for repairing the harm as much as possible, both concretely and symbolically” (1997: 68). The main focus of restorative justice is on the victims and not on the breach of the law. This affirmation of the victims’ needs and roles, which derived principally from experiences in victim/offender mediation in the USA, represents a major difference from the process involved in retributive justice. There are various definitions of restorative justice; Xxxx Xxxxxxxx proposes a more general definition of restorative justice that it is “a process whereby parties with a stake in a specific offence collectively resolve how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future” (1999: 5). This definition suggests that the attainment of justice involves various concerned actors who must come together to resolve their conflicts and to envisage implications for the future. In cases of conflict, the most directly related individuals are the victims and victimizers. The potential contribution of restorative justice to interpersonal reconciliation is far more visible than that of retributive justice. The key principles of restorative justice lie in the idea that justice is not the monopoly of the state and its institutions but rather, as Xxxxxx Xxxx describes it, “crime is a violation or harm to people and relationships; the aim of justice is to identify obligations, to meet needs and to promote healing; and the process of justice involves victims, offenders, and the community in an effort to identify obligations and solutions, maximizing the exchange of information (dialogue, mutual agreement) between them” (1997: 69). Thus bringing together victims, victimizers and the community into a confrontation so that they can collectively resolve their conflict affords agency to the actors in the attainment of justice. In comparison with retribution, restorative justice seems to fit more directly into the idea of interpersonal reconciliation in the aftermath of violent mass conflict,...
