Los tratados internacionales

Apology

Across the force as a whole, there appears to be an overemphasis in relation to the

importance of the offender apologising to the victim. The lack of understanding with regards to the importance of interaction manifests into an emphasis on the interaction being about „making‟ the offender apologise, rather than the victim and offender engaging in successful interaction (of which an apology is a by-product). It is significant to note that when

discussing understandings of restorative justice for officers the importance of victim and offender interaction and facilitated dialogue was subsumed by the emphasis placed on the offender saying sorry: “all we want to do is get the offender to say sorry to the victim, which is generally what the victim wants [FG3P4]”. There was a consensus amongst some officers that restorative justice was something they had always done, it was described as:

[Going] back to the old school, so to speak, like Dixon of Dock Green, when the cops are called out and you‟re taken round with your mum or whoever was affected and you apologise and that would be the end of it [FG3P4].

This demonstrated simplification as to what restorative justice principles are and a lack of understanding and engagement regarding the wider philosophy of restorative justice. It was often referred to as a simple process where you get the victim and the offender together – the main purpose being for the offender to say sorry: “you‟d have a meeting between the suspect and the shop manager and there‟s like an apology [FG4P9]”

When asked if an apology was necessary for restorative justice, some officers believed it could occur without an official apology as such: “sometimes you don‟t need an apology it‟s just to understand why it‟s happened or that it won‟t happen again” (FG3P4). There are clearly different understandings across the force in this respect. One officer recounted how they had carried out a “successful” RJ where the victim and the offender had been satisfied with the interaction but the offender had not explicitly apologised. The officer described how the case came back to him because an apology was not recorded on the notes: “You

137 would send off your pocket note entry and then it came back and „this person hasn‟t said sorry. What? You‟ve got like 4, 5, 6, pages but you‟ve sent it back because this person hasn‟t said sorry [FG3P6]”. Officers were therefore clearly frustrated and expressed experiences where supervisors did not understand what restorative justice was, or were not supportive of the process. This demonstrates a lack of clear understanding in relation to restorative values and principles across the force.

Repairing harm/Restoration

Crime is not simply the breaking of laws; restorative justice recognises that crime creates harm and conflict. Restorative justice is a process that enables the offender to recognise the harm that they have created and to make attempts to repair that harm. Despite this

widespread acceptance, at least in academia, of restorative justice being inextricably linked to notions of repairing harm, the term is not used in early formal understandings. The 2010 Force Procedures document lacks a clear reference to the role of restorative justice for repairing harm: the term “repairing harm” is not used; the emphasis is instead placed on the notion of „restoration‟. Restorative justice is described as providing „tangible restoration‟ (although what this involves is not made clear). In marked contrast to this the new 2014 policy embraces the idea of „harm‟, the term is used frequently throughout the policy document and there is an emphasis on repairing harm instead of the previous use of the term „restore‟:“[a restorative approach] enables everybody involved in an incident to play a part in repairing any harm caused and reducing the impact the offence has on the victim and the community.” [Restorative Approaches Procedures, 2014:2.2]

Part of the re-launch and the rebranding of restorative justice to a new restorative approach involved a move away from the terms „victim‟ and „offender‟ to those of „harmed‟ and „harmer‟. This appears to be a conscious and deliberate decision taken by those

implementing the new policy. There is a clear recognition in relation to the idea of „harm‟ caused by a crime or incident and that a key part of restorative justice is not only to recognise harm but to help the victim and offender to identify ways in which the offender can repair the harm that they have caused. The new policy clearly states that the role of a restorative approach is to „effectively resolve issues‟. This idea of „effective resolution‟ to those involved is a stark contrast to the old policy document; this is not about providing a partial restoration, the repair of harm is a clear goal.

Discussions throughout this chapter have highlighted that the key values and principles of restorative justice have not been fully understood; either by the organisation (particularly in relation to early policy procedures) or by frontline officers. Whilst the new policy

demonstrates positive signs of a movement towards embracing restorative values there still needs to be an element of caution. Particularly as policy is driven in a top down manner the

138 community as a key stakeholder is still absent from the process. This chapter has considered police understandings of restorative justice specifically in relation to the process, the key stakeholders, and the outcomes. It will now look towards the broader definitions; exploring how restorative justice is defined by the police force and how officers across the

organisation understand it.