Restorative Justice Model

nterest in restorative justice has been growing since the early 1990s. In many countries, programs, studies and discussion groups on the subject have proliferated. The failure of the punitive justice model, excessive use of incarceration and the alienation of victims and lack of response to their needs have generated support for this new way of thinking (Roach, 2000; Law Commission of Canada, 2003; Hudson, 2003). In Canada, the emergence of the restorative justice model can also be attributed to the inability of the justice system to find solutions to crime in Aboriginal communities and the problem of over-representation of Aboriginal persons in correctional facilities.

In 2002, Canada played a key role in the adoption of the Basic principles
on the use of restorative justice programmes in criminal matters by the United Nations Economic and Social Council. The Department of Justice of Canada also contributed to the development of a Statement of Principles and Values of Restorative Justice and guidelines on the funding of restorative justice programs.

In the field, the first mediation program between offenders and victims was started in Kitchener in 1974. In the 1980s, more than a hundred mediation programs were established, often by faith communities and volunteer groups. Most of the programs were part of diversion measures, although they could be introduced at different stages of the criminal process. Family conferences also fall into the category of restorative justice practices. They are aimed primarily at young offenders and help engage family and friends of the victim and the offender in a dialogue in order to find the best ways of dealing with criminal behaviour. In many Aboriginal communities, sentencing circles give victims, offenders, elders and other community representatives the opportunity to examine the consequences of the offence, reparation for injuries to victims and reintegration of the offender into the community. Some of these sentencing circles operate within the formal justice system as alternatives to the conventional sentencing procedure and involve justice professionals (Law Commission of Canada, 2003).

In the past decade, practices have become more diverse but are still disparate in terms of philosophy, principles and application.
In Canada, restorative justice practices are more established in the English-speaking provinces and Aboriginal communities. In Quebec, the phenomenon has not been embraced to the same extent. Even today, there are misgivings about committing to a movement that is often associated with faith groups. Quebec has perhaps felt less of a need to move toward restorative justice because diversion programs and alternate measures were already firmly established, especially in the administration of justice for minors (Jaccoud, 2003).

Despite the progress that has been made, restorative justice is the subject of much criticism. Organizations that support victims and advocate for their rights have reservations and questions about the model (Reeves, 1989; Roach, 2000). The aim of this article is to present some of the reasons why this model is not immediately accepted as an answer to all crimes or a solution for all victims and offenders. It looks with a critical eye at the principles and practices of restorative justice, particularly from the standpoint of the answers it seeks to provide for victims of
crime