<論文>修復的司法におけるコントロール

Abstract

In recent years, a new way of dealing with criminality has emerged in criminal justice policy around the world. Restorative justice recognizes crime as a violation of a person by another person, and not just as a violation of a legal system. It may be expected to improve the relationship between offenders and victims through constructive dialogues. The present justice system may often be criticized in failing to match victims' needs and to prevent recidivism. This paper seeks to analyze restorative justice sociologically, particularly on the dialogues among victims, offenders, mediators (facilitators) and others. In another words, my concern is to understand a mechanism of communication in restorative sessions through a sociological notion of 'control'. Braithwaite's concept of 'reintegrative shaming' is usually cited to ground the legitimacy of restorative justice program. Shaming has normally recognized as a method of stigmatizing and exclusion. Although it is 'a dangerous game', he thinks we can control the restorative dialogue by using particular shaming in beneficial and reintegrative way. Shaming must be followed by acceptability and forgiveness. How to manage both shaming and accepting is seen as a crucial technique there. On the other hand, mediators are required to know the psychological routes of restorative conferencing, especially in a type of Victim-Offender-Mediation (VOM) session. Mediators are not allowed to lead the conversation among stakeholders, but just to frame its rules, as well as to confirm the stakeholders' spontaneous agreements repeatedly to continue the process. This paper analyzes those kinds of control in restorative programs as a group-session-like function. This kind of control has proximity to the practice of some new religious movements to some extent and Michel Foucault's argument on subjectivity through confession. However, some essential incompatibilities between Foucault's viewpoint on confession and the control in restorative justice dialogue are still confirmed. A hypothesis which is set up through this paper's argument is the following: under social pressure to match victims' needs, to improve the recidivism rate and to reduce government budget on criminal justice policy, the way of communication control in restorative justice might be promoting a new system of meaning that requires changes in people's identities by speaking, listening, being listened and mutually understanding. And at the same time, the transformation of identities can be accepted socially by calling for that kind of control.