회복적 정의에 의한 공동체 회복 - 호주 DART 사례의 시사점을 중심으로 -

People easily blame perpetrators whenever they hear about serious offenses through news media. However, we should consider that offenses are not only the fault of individuals but also the community. The community is an indirect offender, affecting surrounding offenses, and also an indirect victim, affected by severe challenges after offenses. The traditional criminal justice system focuses only on individual perpetrators or crimes, while the community, which is both an indirect perpetrator and victim, is easily overlooked. Restorative justice, expected to complement traditional criminal justice, could help restore the role of the community. As relationships between people have loosened and communities have also disintegrated today, one could ask whether there is a community and whether a community should accept responsibility for the crime. However, as small communities still exist today, a community could take the role of restorative justice expected. Through restorative justice, communities can realize their responsibility for crime as indirect perpetrators, accept responsibility, and recover the damage suffered as indirect victims. Australia tried restorative justice programs to address issues of violence and sexual violence in the Defense Force. Australia designed restorative justice programs to involve victims, facilitators, and community members, which is distinct from typical restorative justice programs in which participants are usually victims, perpetrators, and facilitators. At the end of the program, community members were able to face the community's problems and promised to improve them. Also, the victims stated that they experienced healing through conversations and recovery through reintegration into the community. Australia's case shows that the community could benefit from restorative justice as indirect perpetrators and victims.