Reconciliation justice as an intervention to deal with the situations of crime victims in modern legal systems
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.66026/3xr7y465Keywords:
Restorative Justice, Criminal Policy, Victims' Rights, Criminal Mediation, Material and Moral Compensation, Iraqi Law, Code of Criminal Procedure, Constitutional Provisions.Abstract
This study analyzes restorative justice as a complementary pathway for addressing crime victims’ needs within contemporary legal systems, with emphasis on the Iraqi framework’s capacity to integrate this model into criminal policy. It posits that a deterrence-centered system marginalizes victims by limiting their participation. Using a descriptive-analytical method, the paper examines key provisions e.g., Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 64 (testimony) and Art. 183 (asset seizure for compensation) alongside constitutional guarantees of life and healthcare. Despite the absence of a specific statute, these norms provide a viable basis for activating restorative mechanisms under clear judicial safeguards. The research highlights criminal mediation and material/moral compensation as tools to balance fairness with general deterrence and reframes the victim as an active legal participant rather than a passive recipient. It concludes by recommending legislation that delineates eligible offenses, structures victim participation, secures enforcement and compensation, and subjects agreements to rigorous judicial oversight.
This study concludes that restorative justice is not a substitute for punitive justice, but rather a complementary path that re-centers the victim and makes reparation the focus of the criminal response. The analysis shows that the 2005 Constitution and certain rules of criminal procedure provide practical mechanisms for activating mediation and compensation under judicial oversight that ensures consent and enforceability. Accordingly, the study recommends clear legislation defining the scope of crimes eligible for reconciliation and the establishment of judicial mediation units, while excluding crimes of serious violence. This approach strengthens institutional trust and reduces litigation costs and recidivism rates, without compromising the rule of law or the requirements of deterrence.


