| Popis: |
Using an ethnomethodological approach, this research sought to describe how Restorative Justice is integrated into the daily world of the prosecution. This was achieved through the use of in-depth interviews with ten Crown attorneys from different sites in Eastern Canada alongside limited periods of participant observation. This research described how Crown attorneys inhabit a world in which it is necessary to perform an in-depth analysis of the defendant, their characteristics and how much blame can be accorded to them in order to then consider what sanction, if any, is required. Their world also demonstrated that protection of the victim and of society are paramount. Nevertheless, issues such as delay and the reputation of the criminal justice system were shown to be an important factor to also consider as a competent member of the prosecution. Through these methods, participants described a world in which Crowns embody a quasi-judicial role by evaluating and deciding on the proper course of action in regards to a criminal file. When applied to the use of Restorative Justice, these factors helped demonstrate that Crown attorneys thought of it as something which allowed victim and defendant to communicate with one another regarding the consequences of a crime. Restorative Justice was able to be justified through certain factors mentioned above; however, certain other aspects did not find support through them. Indeed Crowns appreciated such a process because they felt it would not endanger victims, that it might contribute to the safety of the public, and because it does not supersede the criminal justice system. Furthermore, for some, it might reduce delay. However, aspects such as attaining victim and or defendant satisfaction did not easily align with the aforementioned factors despite the positive manner in which these potential consequences of Restorative Justice were described by most participants. It was hypothesized then that Restorative Justice is used in a seemingly appropriate manner due to the ways in which it can respond to issues which are important to the prosecution. Other potential positive consequences are simply viewed as beneficial but not offering strong justification for the use of such programs on their own. Indeed, through Restorative Justice, Crowns stay in some measure of control over proceedings while it may also help bolster the legitimacy criminal justice system by responding to certain criticisms levelled against it. Thus, to a certain degree, Crowns are able to reconcile the two different approaches by highlighting the benefits it brings to the criminal justice system while not drawing attention to the ways it does not. |
