France: the possibility of a conversation

Maiana Bidegain. The possibility of a conversation between assailant and victim is very recent in France: the law has existed since 2014 and the memorandum was released in 2017. My meeting took place at the end of 2017 and was one of the first in France, if not the first. I was the victim of rape during my childhood by a young man who was then convicted. At the time, I did not attend the trial. My reparation process was based solely on the support of my family and I could not get answers to the questions I asked myself. This question of why, common to all victims, haunted me my whole life. Answering this question was necessary to rebuild my world, which was shattered by the attack. Two events drove me to want to meet my assailant. First, I stumbled across an article announcing his appearance before a court for similar offences. Second, part of my documentary Secretos de Lucha shows my father talking to one of his torturers, which sparked the interest of Professor Robert Cario¹, who invited me to a symposium on restorative justice in 2008.

Since by chance, I had found my aggressor just as this system was being set up in France, I did not hesitate a single moment. For me, the fact that he again stood accused of similar offences marked a failure of the justice system. The criminal justice system had done its job – he had been imprisoned – but the problem had not been resolved. This meeting seemed to me a necessary step to imagine a future.

MB. Restorative justice offers both parties a secure environment for open expression. It takes place outside of the criminal process: what one party or the other has to say carries no weight in terms of increasing or reducing the sentence of the accused – such stakes have been removed. It allows the two parties to express themselves: for the victim, to understand and to find meaning; for the attacker, to find explanations for his actions. It also gives each person the opportunity to discuss the aftermath and the consequences of the perpetrated action. The repercussions are layered, affecting the two people involved, but also their loved ones and society as a whole.

Restorative justice sets aside time that is not offered during the trial. The hearings do not leave room for a conversation between the victim and the assailant; it’s the lawyers’ voices which take precedence.

Although lawyers defend their clients’ interests, they are still professionals pursuing their own personal objectives, other than those of their clients. Restorative justice offers a space for expression where the two individuals are given the time they need: the time for the exchange itself, but also the preparation time, which is very long, during which the two parties meet with a mediator. Restorative justice puts into place a process that protects both parties from what will be said: if the mediator detects any ferocity that might harm one of the speakers, he does not authorise the meeting.

MB. This process can be widespread or translatable on a large scale, as was the case in Rwanda and South Africa, with the creation of reconciliation committees. In the context of a conflict on a national scale, restorative justice opens a space for dialogue that enables the different sides to re-learn how to live side by side. Matters cannot always be settled on a case-by-case basis, as in criminal justice.

Individual accountability is a broader concept in Canada, where the families of the two parties are involved. This outlook draws its inspiration from the indigenous peoples of Canada but also from the Maori, who do not perceive justice as a personal matter binding together two individuals, but as the consequence of a community-level shortcoming. If the social fabric is torn, everyone must ask themselves why and then how the group as a whole can contribute to the reparation process.

In France, restorative justice is not an alternative to prison. Nevertheless, I am not convinced that incarceration gives the individual the occasion to modify his behaviour. Restorative justice lets one envisage the possibility of sorting oneself out.

I am certain that this system, through the active participation of the two speakers and the accountability of the assailant faced with the consequences of his actions, makes it possible to modify human behaviour. A conversation between assailants and victims is essential to understand coexistence. The question of crime or offenses is not directed only at the two parties, but at society in general. That is to say, what is society to do?