LET US REPAIR THE HARM!: LET US PROVIDE THE FAIR AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION

It is fair to fully repair the harm. But how do we know what amount of money and/or hours of work represents full, or the most complete possible, compensation? Mainly by asking the victims. And there are two ways to do so:  through dialogue and mediation between the harmed party and the offender, or through a judge.

1. DIALOGUE AND MEDIATION BETWEEN VICTIM AND OFFENDER

This restorative justice model is used as an alternative or complement to the traditional criminal justice system in an increasing number of advanced countries, such as New Zealand, Norway, Canada, Australia, Finland, or some U.S. states, such as California.

It seeks to involve all parties affected by a crime, including the abused person, the offender, and the community, to find a solution that promotes healing, accountability, and reintegration. It is based on these principles:

• Focus on repairing the harm caused by the offence, which may include compensation for the victim, restoring relationships, and reconciliation.

• Voluntary participation of the parties involved, especially the victim. They cannot be forced to take part in a restorative process.

• Offender accountability, whereby they must take responsibility for their actions, acknowledging the harm caused and working to repair it.

• Dialogue between the victim, the offender and, in some cases, members of the community. This is usually done through mediated meetings or restorative circles, where a constructive conversation is facilitated.

• Reintegration of both the victim and the offender into society, ensuring that both can move forward after the incident.

This way of implementing restorative justice has significant benefits:

• Emotional healing and empowerment of the victim, as they have the opportunity to express how the crime has affected them and to participate actively in resolving the conflict.

• Reduced reoffending: by making offenders take responsibility and work to repair the harm, they are less likely to repeat the abuse.

• Stronger communities: by involving the community in the process, social bonds are strengthened and a safer, more cohesive environment is promoted.

Some examples of this type of restorative justice are:

• Peace circles: discussion groups where the victim, the offender, and the community meet to talk about the abuse and its impact.

• Victim–offender mediation: facilitated meetings where the victim and the offender can talk directly about the crime and seek a resolution.

• Restitution programmes: initiatives in which the offender compensates the victim through a mutually agreed arrangement.

2. RESTORATIVE JUSTICE ORDERED BY THE JUDICIARY

When it is a judge who must determine the fair amount of compensation, the logical approach is to ask the victims what sum would compensate them for having suffered the harm.

And when they respond, how can we know they are not lying to obtain compensation above what is reasonable? In part, through a combination of polygraph testing and experts in lie detection. In reality, the reliability rate of this method is estimated at between 64% and 94%, with an error margin large enough that it is not admissible in court to rule on individual cases.

However, since it works in most cases, it could be used for courts to obtain an average across all victims for each specific type of abuse, and then adjust that result to eliminate, as far as possible, the effect of “lying”. For example, results far above the average could be discarded, as they would be suspicious of having been falsified. In this way, fairly reliable guidelines could ultimately be obtained on what level of reparation is fair for each type of harm. When in doubt, it is advisable to err on the higher side, always keeping victims at the centre.

Those general guidelines, of course, should sensibly be adapted by each judge to the specific case, by assessing the harm based on elements such as psychological and medical reports on the extent of the damage caused. Again, when in doubt it is advisable to err on the higher side, prioritising the protection of the victim.

On the other hand, in a criminal system based on making reparation to the victim, it may happen that the abuser has so much money that the compensation is small enough for it to be worth continuing to victimize and then pay compensation. This would be the case, for example, of a very wealthy man who rapes any women he wishes because each compensation payment is peccata minuta to him.  

To prevent this, in such cases it is fair to increase the compensation to the point where it represents a sacrifice significant enough to discourage them from reoffending. Any surplus can be used to compensate victims of other abusers who have not been fully compensated.

What can a person of integrity, with a sense of social responsibility, do to achieve a society in which justice is done by fully repairing harm to the innocent?:

1. By signing this campaign to ask all governments to fully redress all harm and damages caused to the innocent… SIGN NOW!…

2. By supporting this campaign to call for a reform of the criminal justice system… SIGN NOW!…

LET US REPAIR THE HARM!: Let us avoid prison where possible and guarantee dignified conditions 

3. By sharing these petition campaigns and this message with as many people as possible.

Thank you for doing so to help achieve a less harmful and more just society,