I say “merely” because if not retribution, the least that society can expect is atonement on the part of the offender. Restorative justice is a new concept and I believe that more time needs to pass to be able to really assess the extent to what it has worked in those countries in which it is being tried. Constant evaluation, as always, is the key component.

The White Paper on restorative justice itself admits that the system of suspended sentences has, in far too many cases, not really helped reform the offender. Neither apparently has the system of remission. We read daily in our newspapers of people with a long history of suspended sentences and of recidivism appearing in front of our law courts.

Irrespective of any future strategies, far too many offenders have been returned back into the bosom of the community without apparently benefiting from whatever “correction” the Corrective Facility (alias prison) offered them.

This has to be said and kept in mind. For far too long the victims seem to have been rendered invisible in Malta. The financial and psychological traumas they go through are rarely, if ever, brought to public notice. There have been suicides among the victims, and long medical treatment on the part of many others. Yet, the people held up before the public as deserving of help seem to be mainly the offenders. The White Paper, quite rightly, promises to redress this; only time will tell if that promise will be adequately fulfilled.

However you define it, restorative justice is a process through which remorseful offenders accept responsibility for their misconduct to those injured and to the community and, in return, are allowed back into the fold. The emphasis is on remorse. One must keep in mind that offenders range from the young person committing his first crime, to the hardened criminal, to really wily and intelligent operators. Remorse is not easily identified and measured. The best of parole boards in other countries have been fooled time and time again to the detriment of the system and the public, which pays the price.

A number of programmes have become associated with restorative justice. These programmes demand a highly trained staff and, before the judicial system swings in the direction of restorative justice, that staff must be available. I would have expected this to be a priority but the White Paper fails to mention it. Presumably the psychologists, psychiatrists, mediators, social workers, vocational guidance teachers, and others working within the prison environment to prepare offenders for life outside the walls, are available and well prepared to operate in this special field

Literature seems to indicate that such programmes have had some success, although the “success” ratio seems to be higher with young offenders than with older ones. Some studies suggest that post-sentence community sentence work is less successful possibly because offenders are less motivated. There are other reasons. Howard Zehr maintains that administrative goals and measurements that define “success” in terms of utilitarian concerns may subvert the restorative vision.

As restorative programmes employ professionals, these professionals may cast the programme in terms that would preserve their own livelihoods.

Also, a programme designed to divert offenders from incarceration may conflict with what is needed to ensure the safety of the society into which they are returned. It is the job of those charged with making the White Paper work, to see that this does not happen.

Josie Muscat is

Azzjoni Nazzjonali leader