Interview with Marie Monnet — Restorative Justice

21 october 2026

Marie Monnet, a lawyer admitted to the Paris Bar, a doctor of law and theology, and Rector of Domuni Universitas, publishes Restorative Justice: Foundations, Practices and Methods with Domuni Press in October 2026. Originating in lectures delivered in Toulouse, Brussels and Tours, this book presents an alternative approach to justice that does not replace criminal proceedings but complements them. Interview.

“A judicial decision does not always bring closure to what it adjudicates”

You are a lawyer and teach law. Why write a book about restorative justice?

Because experience has taught me that a judicial decision does not always bring closure to what it adjudicates. I do not reject criminal law: it classifies acts, establishes responsibility and imposes penalties, and this response is necessary. Yet a victim may leave a trial without having been heard. A convicted person may serve their sentence without having fully grasped the harm they have caused. And sometimes there is no trial at all: the facts are time-barred, the perpetrator is deceased or unknown, or the complaint has been dismissed. The victim is then left alone with what they have endured.

Your book opens with a meeting. Why did you make this choice?

Because restorative justice begins neither with a rule nor with a sanction, but with a meeting. A mother whose son had been killed agreed to meet a prisoner convicted of a similar homicide. He was not her son's murderer. He had nothing to defend, and no sentence was at stake. He recounted the violence, followed by his gradual realisation of the harm he had caused. At the end, she said: “For the first time, I feel that someone has answered me.” Nothing had been repaired in the strict sense. But words had been exchanged.

What do you criticise about criminal justice?

Nothing in itself: it is a civilisational achievement. It replaced vengeance, which has no end, with a third party who judges. But it has its blind spots. A trial sets the State against the accused, while the victim often remains on the periphery. Their most pressing questions—“Why me?” and “Could this happen again?”—remain unanswered. Social bonds are not restored. Recidivism also remains high: 59% of people released from prison in 2016 were convicted again within four years.

Two Truths, Four Pillars

How would you define restorative justice?

As a change in perspective. Howard Zehr, one of its pioneers, spoke of “changing our lenses”. For conventional criminal justice, crime is first and foremost a violation of the law. For restorative justice, it is primarily harm inflicted on people and relationships. What is broken is not merely a rule, but also dignity and trust.

You speak of “two truths”. What are they?

First, the truth of the facts, which the trial establishes through its rules of evidence and the adversarial principle. It is indispensable. But there is another truth, which I call relational truth: it no longer tells us only what happened, but what it did to people. Sleepless nights, fear of going out, shame. Such a truth cannot be proved; it is entrusted to another. The two truths are not opposed: the second presupposes the first and brings it to completion.

What are the foundations of this approach?

Four pillars: the truth of the facts, personal commitment, the restoration of relationships, and the community dimension. The first three are often mentioned. The fourth is frequently overlooked, even though it is decisive. A crime does not affect only one victim: it wounds a family, a neighbourhood, a parish. Responsibility for an act belongs to its perpetrator, but rebuilding belongs to everyone. This is what distinguishes restorative justice from simple two-party mediation.

Levinas, Girard, Ricoeur: why these three philosophers?

Because they help us understand its power. Levinas shows that the face of the other places me under an obligation before any rule: in the encounter, the victim ceases to be a case file, and the perpetrator ceases to be a case. Girard describes the temptation to find a scapegoat, which threatens every wounded community. Ricoeur sees judgement as establishing a “just distance”, which the restorative encounter then engages with: it brings people closer without eliminating that distance.

“This rigour is not coldness”

In practical terms, how does a meeting take place?

It is often imagined as a spontaneous conversation. The opposite is true. It is a process designed down to the smallest detail and supervised by trained professionals. This rigour is not coldness: it is the condition for safety and, therefore, for freedom of expression. There are four stages. First comes the request, which must always be voluntary: a person can say yes and then no, without having to justify the decision. Next comes preparation, the longest phase, often involving several months of individual interviews. Then comes the meeting itself. Finally, there is the follow-up.

Why such lengthy preparation?

Because we must ensure that everyone is participating for the right reasons and that no further harm will be inflicted. Interviews help identify unrealistic or dangerous expectations: a victim secretly hoping to humiliate someone, or a perpetrator primarily seeking an advantage for their release. Everything depends on careful attention. Many victims say that what helped them, even before the meeting, was being listened to at length without interruption. Many perpetrators discover that they had never been listened to in this way.

Does the victim meet their aggressor?

Not necessarily, and my book focuses primarily on encounters in which this is not the case. In victim–prisoner encounters, a small group of victims meets a small group of perpetrators convicted of similar offences, accompanied by two facilitators and two volunteers representing civil society. A victim can ask questions of someone who can answer them from personal experience, without having to face their own aggressor. And a victim who never meets anyone has not failed: restorative justice is not measured by the number of meetings that take place.

The Law, the Church, and What Comes Afterwards

What does the law provide?

In France, the law of 15 August 2014 introduced Article 10-1 into the Code of Criminal Procedure. A restorative justice measure may be proposed at any stage of proceedings, including during the execution of a sentence. The conditions are demanding: the facts must be acknowledged, the individuals must give their explicit consent, and an independent, trained third party must conduct the process. In legal language, we find the same pillars that I describe. Belgium was a pioneer: since the law of 22 June 2005, mediation may be requested at any time.

What happens when a trial is not possible?

This is the central question, and the Catholic Church has provided the most developed example. In 2021, the Sauvé Commission found that the vast majority of cases of abuse could never be brought to trial because the perpetrators had died or the offences were time-barred. Two bodies were established following its recommendations: INIRR and the Commission for Recognition and Reparation, which explicitly draws on restorative justice. They demonstrated that acknowledgement is possible outside the courtroom. In Belgium, the arbitration centre established after 2010 handled 628 requests, and more than 80% of victims chose conciliation rather than a decision imposed by a third party.

You are personally involved in this field.

Yes. I am a founding member of the association Justice Autrement, established in 2022 on the initiative of Thérèse de Villette. Recognition and reparation do not tell the whole story: some people need to meet, speak and hear an answer. We offer offender–victim encounters open to anyone affected by sexual abuse, whether committed within the Church or outside it. The process is free of charge and offers no material advantage. What is at stake is of a different order: recovering one's dignity and no longer being reduced to a label, whether that of victim or aggressor.

“A More Humane Justice, and One That Makes Demanding Requirements”

It is often argued that this is a form of justice that is too lenient.

This is the most common objection, and experience contradicts it. It is often easier for a convicted person to serve a sentence than to hear victims describe what an act similar to their own has done to their lives. A trial allows a person to defend themselves, remain silent or challenge the allegations. An encounter leaves no such escape. As Thérèse de Villette puts it, this justice is simply more humane, and it is highly demanding.

Is it effective?

The studies are nuanced but clear. A meta-analysis published in 2025 found an approximately 17% reduction in the risk of reoffending, alongside a marked improvement in satisfaction among both victims and perpetrators. This is not a miracle solution: the benefits are real, particularly for victims, while the effect on recidivism is positive but limited. It is also more pronounced when the encounter supplements the trial rather than replaces it. Restorative justice works best alongside criminal justice, not in its place.

Are there situations in which it is inappropriate?

Yes, and we must be very clear about this. Where there is violence, coercive control, abuse, or mistreatment of a child or a vulnerable person, the first requirement is not reconciliation, but the protection of individuals and recourse to justice. Too many families and institutions—the Church was certainly no exception—have sought to “settle things among ourselves”. Restorative justice comes after protection has been secured and alongside the justice system, never in place of either.

Your book gives considerable attention to the Bible. Is restorative justice Christian?

It is not a Christian invention, but it recovers, often without being aware of it, a very ancient biblical insight. Joseph forgives his brothers after hearing them acknowledge their wrongdoing. Zacchaeus names his own wrongs and gives back more than he took. But I insist on one point: mercy must never be used to conceal wrongdoing. Forgiveness belongs to the victim. No one can demand it of them.

Is this book intended only for legal professionals?

No. The final chapter addresses everyday wounds, the ones left unspoken within families, teams and communities. When faced with a conflict, we instinctively seek to determine who is right and who is wrong. The restorative question is different: who has been hurt, what do they need, and who can respond to that need? Restoration does not always mean returning to the relationship as it was before. Sometimes it simply means being able to sit at the same table. But it means believing that truth, when spoken and received, can help people rise again rather than crush them.

Marie Monnet, Restorative Justice: Foundations, Practices and Methods, Domuni Press, “Law” series, October 2026.