James Scott, Founding Coordinator of the Collaborative Justice Project at the Ottawa Courthouse returns to one of these models: restorative justice.

What led you to work on the death penalty?
It all began in 1985 for me. The Canadian Government of the time wanted to return to the death penalty which had been abolished in 1976. I acted as Project Director on a campaign to influence the debate. For two years, we worked on educating the public, lobbying MPs, involving churches, NGOs, etc. Any organisation interested in issues related to justice. In the end, and despite the hard line of that Government, we won. The vote on 8 June 1987 ended that attempt to re-establish the death penalty. After that, I began to be interested in restorative justice.

Can you explain what restorative justice is?
I was invited to the World Congress to talk about alternatives to the death penalty. You can’t really say that restorative justice is an alternative to the death penalty because it can’t replace that punishment. However, the death penalty incarnates an extreme example of a punishment applied by a punitive justice system. A system in which one creates suffering, in which one ends a life in response to a crime committed. Now, even in abolitionist countries the logic behind the justice system remains the same: dedicating most of its energy to catching, sentencing and punishing the guilty. It is an inefficient system insofar as it is not really dissuasive; it doesn’t allow the people sentenced to be rehabilitated; it doesn’t take into account the other people affected by the crime. Punitive justice is sort of one dimensional in the way it works. Why do we render justice in this way? That is the question which is the starting point for any consideration of another kind of justice. Today, we know more than ever before about the causes of crimes: alcohol, drugs, mental illness, misery, racism, etc. We understand a lot more than a couple of centuries ago when the current justice system was created. Globally, our idea is to put forward a justice system which would carry out more complex analyses and which would include all the people who have been affected by the crime.

So, the idea would be to give more space to the victims?
To the victims yes, but also to communities. In its simplest form, punitive justice sees a crime as a violation of the law. You break the law so you must pay. Restorative justice considers a crime as a wrong committed. Someone has suffered prejudice. Of course, it is also a breach of the law but that is not the heart of it; that is not the only important element. The most important thing is that people have been affected - the victims of course, but also the families of the victims, the neighbours, the community and even the family of the accused. It is a much more holistic approach. So the central question is no longer “what punishment for the accused?” but “what wrongs have been committed and how can they be repaired?” By asking these questions, restorative justice can restore broken relationships.

Relations between the guilty party and the victim?
Even in the case of someone who burgles the house of someone they don’t know, a relationship is created. And generally speaking, we are all connected because we try to live together as a community. In the burglary example, something is broken in the community. The neighbours of the victims can be frightened, the people who have been victims directly, even if they had good insurance, can be afraid of living at home or going out…There are all kinds of wrongs which the current system does not take into account at all. We suggest a healthier and more comprehensive answer which takes into account all the parties and which holds the accused responsible but not only through punishment. Of course, there can be a punishment, incarceration etc. but there must also be efforts for restoration: what can the accused do to make things better? To repair the wrongs committed? To reassure the community that he will no longer be a danger in the future?

Is there not a risk that the victims and the community demand the death penalty?
It is true that, whatever the country or the culture, victims are inclined to want the other party to suffer. Not all, of course. But sometimes, victims can have a hard line and say “I want this person to suffer because I have suffered, because my child has suffered”, etc. And we understand that. But it is also because victims find themselves in a system which only proposes that solution…In Canada, victims can only make a victim impact statement to allow the judge to see how much they have suffered, how it has had an impact on their lives. But, they do not say anything about the punishment because that is seen as inappropriate. “They can’t be objective” right? In the current system, only the State can decide who is objective and appropriate.
I personally am working on two projects. One of them tackles the period prior to sentencing. We establish a dialogue between the accused and the victim, if both parties are favourable. After the meetings, the actors can draw up a resolution plan which will be submitted to the judge. And very often, I have seen that, if the victims see that the accused really is remorseful and really wants to assume his or her responsibilities, they are less interested in imprisonment - and more interested in the fact that the accused can make up for his or her act, sort things out, either concretely, for example financially, or symbolically…or the victim is interested in the fact that the accused is making an effort to stop the crime happening again by trying to get help for example. If the victims see that the accused is remorseful and he or she wants to make up for their actions, they are less interested in the number of years they will spend in prison - because these things are more important to them. In the current system, where these things are not suggested to the victims, the victim can only measure how much society is taking their pain seriously according to the number of years in prison the person must serve. But this is not constructive if they have other possibilities. Many people would choose other options if they had the choice.

Where is this applied currently?
In Canada, we still have a punitive justice system, although we have abolished the death penalty. However, there are discussions underway, as well as several pilot projects which are trying to demonstrate that a new approach is possible. I have talked about my “pre-sentencing” experiment which is applied at the Ottawa Court. Some people find this project indulgent towards the guilty but that is not my position. For the accused, it is very hard to face the victims, to take direct responsibility for one’s actions. In a way, it is easier to stay in prison, claiming to be innocent. The punishments are possibly lighter but the responsibilities are taken more seriously. Above all, there is more satisfaction for the victims because they have played a role in the process. Someone has taken their pain seriously; someone has taken responsibility vis-à-vis their suffering; someone has made an effort to sort things out.
We also have a “post-sentencing” programme, for murder cases for example. Cases which are so serious that people generally do not want to meet for a long time. But 10 or 15 years later, when the guilty party is still in prison, the victim’s family and friends can feel the need to meet the person sentenced to ask them certain questions. About what happened; about what the guilty person has been doing in prison. Are they working on their problem, are they assuming responsibility for what they’ve done, are they going to do it again when they get out, are they going to try and find the family and hurt them when they get out? Again, a broken relationship can be repaired.

• The presentations of Sumeet Verma, George F. Kain and James Scott are available on the Congress website : http://congres.abolition.fr