Popular participation has been called "the ethical seal of a democratic society" by Friedhelm Hengsbach, a professor of Christian Social Science and Economic and Social Ethics at the Philosophical-Theological College Sankt Georgen in Frankfurt[1] and "the politics of the future" by Gene Stephens, professor of criminology at the University of South Carolina.
[3] Various authors have claimed that examples of participatory justice date back to civilizations as old as that of the Canadian Aboriginals and Ancient Athenians, even if the terminology had not been in use then.
[6][7] In ancient Athens, large popular courts, made up of 200 to 1000 randomly selected male citizens, shared in both functions of forming and of applying the law.
[12][13] According to the National Advisory Commission of Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, delays in sentencing and lack of protection of rights of the accused contribute to attitudes of legal cynicism.
Whereas the adversarial and disposition system is often slow-functioning, expensive, and inconsistent, the participatory justice model is a cheap and efficient way of resolution-making.
[12] In modern-day Canada, for instance, community members are involved in almost every step of the judicial process, even before people are arrested and sent to court; community organizations establish working partnerships with police to focus attention on growing social problems, like child abandonment or housing code violations, and prevent crime.
[2] Stahn mentions the importance of consulting victims at the reparation stage to determine whether they really believe the person who committed the crime against them is deserving of incarceration.
[3][6][7][17] It is used in a variety of cases, including between "Landlords and Tenants, Neighbours, Parents and Children, Families and Schools, Consumers and Merchants ... [and] victims of crime and offenders.
[2][14] An online and self-financed form of participatory justice, called the crowdjury system, has been promoted as an improved way of managing trials in the future.
[10] Inkiko-Gacaca, a system of community courts established in 2002 to respond to the large number of suspected perpetrators imprisoned after the 1994 Rwandan genocide, is a famous example.
[18][19][20] Through the process, Tutsi genocide survivors allegedly impose guilt on the Hutu, asking them to confess their deeds, express apologies to all victims and kin, and repay them tangibly, through public shaming.
[21] Because the negotiators are usually not trained in the collection of evidence and are not privy to the criminal background of the alleged offender, the resolution may be made without full facts and knowledge.
[22] In a participatory justice model, rule makers rely on the participation of affected interests rather than on administrators, politicians, and the general population.
[24] Also, within the CRPD, states were encouraged to involve DPOs when preparing reports for the body meant to monitor the implementation of the program.
Oftentimes, participation was originally denied not because of institutional or political failure, but because those in question aren’t recognized as in the domain of justice.