 |
Restorative
Justice - Between
State Punishment and Vigilantism
Recent years have seen a new response to crime.
Under the headline of
“Restorative justice”, attempts are made to reintroduce the parties
directly affected by crime. Within this new framework, crime is
understood, primarily, as harm to individuals and communities, rather
than simply a violation of abstract laws against the state. Instead of
owing a “debt to society”, the offender owes a specific debt to the
victim and the community. How to repay this debt is decided through a
process of negotiation between the parties involved.
However promising, Restorative Justice poses a serious challenge to
fundamental principles of modern constitutional states. In general,
taking the right and the power to right serious wrongs out of the hands
of individuals remain one of the key-characteristics of these states.
Instead, both are put into the hands of an overarching state,
mainly by monopolizing the use of force and subjecting everyone to a
rule of law, i.e., working out general, standing laws that determine
legal obligation in any particular case, thereby constituting a shield
against tyranny or arbitrary rule. Apparently, Restorative Justice is
in conflict with this "milestone of civilization", and I am
investigating the philosophical implications of this conflict.
In addition, I am investigating possible conflicts between interests in
prosecuting genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes at The International Criminal Court
on the one hand, and interests in granting amnesties through Truth and
Reconciliation Commissions after the South African Model on the other. |
|
|
Jakob
v.
H. Holtermann
PhD & MA
(Phil.), BA (Phil. & Lit.)
Postdoc researcher
Centre for Studies in Legal Culture
Faculty of Law
University of Copenhagen
DK-1455 Copenhagen K
Phone: +45
3532 3954
Mobile:
+45 2680 2646
Mail:
jvhh@jur.ku.dk
|
