RESTORATIVE JUSTICE: AN EFFECTIVE APPROACH TO TACKLE HATE

CRIMES IN INDIA

10.4 CONTEMPORARY DEVELOPMENTS IN INDIAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE

SYSTEM

Submitted To
Mr. Rahul Sangaokar, Assistant Professor of Law
Submitted By
Rudransh
UID: UG2017- 88

Academic Session: 2020-21

Semester-VII

Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur

 Research Design

Doctrinal research has been followed for the completion of this project. Textbooks related to this
topic have been referred to. Several primary sources such as statutes have also been referred for
this project. The other major source of information is the case laws. The accessibility of
technology has made it possible for students to research on any topic irrespective of discipline.
Articles available on the internet concerning the project have been taken into account for this
project through the internet. Major source of information for this project have been case laws and
statutes. Those websites have been referred to which have information regarding the topic to
explain the relevance of this topic.

Research Question

1. How the hate crimes can be tackled by the restorative justice?

2. Is hate crime an exception to crime of aggression?

3. What law has been laid down by the judiciary regarding such cases?
 Contents
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 4

Hate Crime: An Exception to Crime of Aggression .................................................................... 6

Judicial Cue for Structured Restorative Justice ........................................................................ 8

Circle Sentencing: Restorative Justice with Traditional Roots .............................................. 10

Proposed Structure .................................................................................................................... 12

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 16
 INTRODUCTION
It wouldn’t be wrong to say that sometimes expression of art is a product of the social reality or a
prediction of a possible future. One of the primary example is the movie American History X
which revolves around the racial divide in US and the white neo-nazi movement. It is
particularly interesting because some of its dialogues like the immigration rant (There are over
two million illegal immigrants bedding down in this state tonight! This state spent $3bn last year
on services for those people who have no right to be here in the first place. Three billion
dollars!....Our border policy’s a joke! So is anybody surprised that south of the border, they’re
laughing at us? Laughing at our laws?”) are still unintentionally reiterated as rhetoric by
politicians. However, the movie’s reference has been made not to highlight the causes and
consequences of racial divide but the transformation of the protagonist (Derek Vinyard) from a
neo-nazi to peace loving tolerant person. His transformation journey began when he was
imprisoned for 3 years for man slaughter of a black person. There he was assigned to work with
black prison mate (named Lammont) and in the process he befriended him mainly because of the
common love for basketball. Gradually, Derek’s camaraderie with Lammont grew stronger and
he realized that his racist ideology is highly corrupted and bigotry. Derek’s remorse makes him
shun all his neo nazi beliefs and by the time he was released from the prison he was a
transformed man. Derek transformed not because of the retributive criminal justice that
imprisoned him but because of this interaction with a black community member who himself has
been a victim of hate crime. Hence, the lesson that is drawn is that if right kind of setup is
provided then the interaction of hate crime offenders with the victim(s) and the community can
actually transform them. Such transformation is not only confined to movies but various
countries around the globe have adopted a more systematic structure where reformation of
offender is sought through the involvement of victims and the community. Such involvement is
also necessary because it has proven to offer closure to the victim and heal the broken
community (Sapir, 2007). This approach is recognized as restorative form of justice.

Ever since the Independence, India has lived under the shadow of social disharmony and hate
crime in one form or another. The 1947- partition, 1984- Sikh Riot, 1992- Babri Masjid
demolition, 2002- Gujarat riot, 2013- Muzaffarnagar riots and 2020 – Delhi riots are some of the
major highlights of communal violence in India. All these incidences left behind an enormous
number of victims, physically and emotionally violated, and plenty of young first time offenders
waiting trial and imprisonment. Till date, Indian Criminal legislation does not have any robust
system in place to treat hate crimes differently from crimes of general aggression. Possible
consequence of such indifference has been non - implementation of restorative justice leading to
offenders falling to recidivism (recurrence of criminal behavior in a person , often after the
person receives sanctions or undergoes intervention from the justice department for a previous
crime (National Institute of Justice)), victims being void of emotional healing and non-fixing of a
broken community. In the present paper the author has meticulously discussed the criminology
of hate crime and suggested an alternative correctional course. In particular, Part I has
dedicatedly discussed hate crimes and the intricacies involved. It has been explained how hate
crime is an exception to general crime of aggression. Further, arguments have been advanced to
highlight the inefficiency of the present Indian criminal justice system to deal with such crimes.
Part II has highlighted some recent judgments of Indian judiciary where the Courts have deviated
from the general practice and have taken up a course of reforming the offenders. Taking cue
from the judgments the author has suggested a more inclusive form of restoration, where there
will also be the involvement of the victims and the community. In Part III, the author has
elaborated upon the suggested method of restorative justice and how it stems from the informal
traditional justice system of India. The elaboration will incorporate the impact of the suggested
approach and how it can prove to be a really effective form of justice. Accordingly, the author
has concluded by giving a rough structure of how things should operate and what steps shall be
initiated to achieve it.
PART I

Hate Crime: An Exception to Crime of Aggression

In simple words hate crime is a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in
whole or in part by an offender's bias- against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation,
ethnicity, gender, or gender identity” (Federal Bureau of Investigation 2017).

Understanding hate crime is not as simple as the above mentioned definition. It is an exception to
the general crime of aggression like robbery, assault, criminal negligence because of its alien
traits. Isolation of hate crime is based on numerous factors such as victim selection, presence of
multiple perpetrators, Change in social functioning, and Impact on victims’ mental health.

Victim selection - Hate crime serves a symbolic function of delivering the message of hate to a
community, neighborhood or group. The message is delivered through the act of violence
against individuals who are presumed to be the representatives of the targeted community. In
such crimes the social identity of the victims motivates the perpetrators irrespective of the fact
whether the victims themselves accepts that social identity or not (Craig, 2002)

Multiple Perpetrators – Hate crime is typically a group activity, it generally involves multiple
perpetrators attacking or harming perceived members of social group. A group does not have a
face which leads to diffusion of responsibility and insensitivity to social restrains. The onus of
the crime does not fall on any individual giving the perpetrators a sense of security, moreover
the presence of similar kinds further asserts each perpetrator’s hatred for the victims (Levin and
Mcdevitt, 1993)

Change in Social Functioning – Post hate crime a stark functional change is observed in the
community that witnessed the crime. The members of both victims’ and perpetrators’ group
tailor their actions, restricting their behaviors and choices. Hate crime victimizes an entire social
group and makes it feel unsafe, people of victims’ social group become petrified of carrying out
activities in an alien environment (Noelle, 2002). According to the testimonies of antigay
survivors and their acquaintances hate crime causes moving out of neighborhood, change of
route etc. (Berill, 1992). At times the recipients of violence also tend to respond with violence
that is equivalent in both quantity and quality (Youngs, 1986). The members of perpetrators’
social group may also feel pressured to act in an unconventional manner when interacting with
people of victims’ social group (Craig 2002).

Impact on the Victims –Generally, Victims of hate crimes experience all the typical symptoms
of Post-traumatic stress disorder: Anger, vulnerability, depression, physical ailments and tough
interpersonal relations. Also they suffer these enfeebling symptoms longer the victims of
ordinary crime, at times victims of hate crimes takes as much as 5 years to overcome their
experience which is twice the time necessary victims of non-bias crimes (Herek, Gillis, Cogan,
and Glunt, 1997).

Under the current criminal justice system of India, hate crime offenders are charged under
various individual sections of IPC depending upon their role and degree of involvement. The
instigators of violence are primarily charged under sec. 153A, 295A, whereas the on ground
offenders are dealt under sec. 295, 146, 147 and 148. Furthermore, in the case of the death of
the victim either of sec. 299, 300, or 304A is attached. From the retributive angle the
aforementioned sections deal with the offenders quite efficiently, however, the real question is
the effectiveness of the retributive criminal justice itself. The retributive system views crime as
law breaking and justice as allocating blame and punishment. The punishment which is majorly
imposed in the form incarceration is proportioned to the severity of the wrong-doing (Wenzel,
Okimoto, Feather, and Platow, 2008). Sole application of retributive imprisonment in the
absence of any reformative measures can increase the risk of recidivism because prisons ‘teach
crime, instill crime, inure men to it, trap man in it as a way of life’(Wills, 1975). Also, the
imprisonment of the offender rarely gives closure to a victim (Bajpai 2013).

In the majority of the hate crimes, offenders are themselves the victims of long drawn class
divide politics, fake news, uncorroborated biasness, survival instinct etc. They need convincing
and guidance to follow the correct path instead of strict imprisonment. Moreover, the
differentiating factors as discussed in the preceding section also show that hate crimes have an
ever-lasting negative impact on the victims and the community, but the retributive system
merely treats them as witnesses at the trial. Although measures like Compounding of Offences
with the consent of the victim, plea bargaining, Probation, and Victim Compensation are
selectively available at the Judiciary’s disposal as alternatives or supplements to imprisonment.
 But the application of these measures in isolation or in combination would not effectively tackle
the aforementioned factors which makes hate crimes an exception in the first place. A more
personalized and effective alternative based has been discussed in Part III. However before that,
it is imperative to discuss the role of judiciary in promoting the reformation of offenders as an
alternative to the retributive approach. And how it is a step in the right direction but it still
doesn’t holistically deals with the impacts of hate crimes.

PART II

Judicial Cue for Structured Restorative Justice

There is no denying that judicial activism is a double edged sword and its positive aspect has
led to the transformation of the Indian criminal justice system as well. In past one decade lower
and higher courts have proactively chosen community service as an alternative to imprisonment.
In absence of any legislation on community service, trial courts rely on sec.4 of Probation of
Offender Act, 1958 (Arvind, 2013) & sec. 360 of CrPc for imposing conditions, additionally
High Courts can perform this action under Sec. 482 of CrPc and the Supreme Court under Art.
142 of the Constitution. Recently the use of community service sentencing has made its way in
cases of riots and communal violence as well. In Prahlad bhai Jagabhai Patel & Anr. v. State of
Gujarat1the Apex Court granted interim bail to seventeen people who have been sentenced life
imprisonment by lower judiciary in the 2002 post – Godhra Massacre. However, the granting of
interim bail was imposed with few conditions; one of them was that the accused shall engage
themselves in spiritual programmes and community service for period of six hours a week. The
inclusion of community service was done in pursuance of Babu Singh and others v State of UP 2
where the Apex court has emphasized that “Fleeing justice must be forbidden but punitive
harshness should be minimised. Restorative devices to redeem the man, even through
community service, meditative drill, study classes or other resources should be
innovated…”. Furthermore, in Feb. 2020 Madras High court quashed an FIR against college

1
2020 SCC OnLine SC 109
2
(1978) 1 SCC 579
students who were charged for rioting but directed them to sweep and mop hospital ward
(Chandra 2020), they were literally given a chance to clean up their mess.

The above-mentioned cases show a glimpse of Indian judiciary’s willingness to deviate from
the traditional methods of criminal justice in order to achieve a new form of Justice. Such
judgments are a part of a completely different criminal justice system that not only has
historical roots (Panchayats in Rural India (Jaamdar, 2017)) but is also developing fast in the
present times as an alternative to the archaic ways of shaping a society. Judiciary’s reformative
approach is laudable, especially in the case of first time offenders of hate crimes however
reliance on Judiciary to remodel the approach towards hate crimes is not well cemented,
because it still assumes that the role of victims and the community as mere witnesses. There is
clear apathy towards them fall prey to re-victimization in the form of lengthy trials, repeated
court appearances, inhumane cross examination etc. Furthermore, the Courts hardly analyse
whether imprisonment or order of community service or both has delivered any sense of justice
to them or not. Studies and surveys have revealed that to achieve the healing or the sense of
justice what the victims and the community require is the feeling of remorse from the offender
(Umbreit, Vos, Coatesm, and Lightfoot, 2005), reformation of the offender to prevent
reoccurrence (Sapir, 2007) and a platform to show their side of the story to express their ordeal (
Gobodo-Madikizela, 2002). Unfortunately, from the point of commission of offence till the
conviction, Indian criminal law doesn’t provide a single opportunity to effectively achieve the
afore-mentioned objectives, the justice delivered is more of an “assumed justice”.

The complexities involved in achieving a well balanced approach in the matters of hate crimes
makes it difficult to rely on judicial precedents to attain justice for victims, rebuilding of
community and reformation of offenders. What is required is well a structured approach where
the reformed offenders can seek reintegration into the society, victims can seek closure and the
community can seek healing from the damaged caused. Such approach can be formally termed as
restorative justice i.e. restoring the society to the form it was before the commission of crime.
Restorative justice is not a new concept, it is already practiced in many developed countries
around the globe (Bajpai, 2019), and however, restorative justice is a flexible concept, which can
be redefined as per ones ethical and cultural values and norms (Gobodo-Madikizela, 2002).
Nonetheless, the aims, objectives and fundamental principles of restorative justice are not
disputable and the same can be reiterated as

:- Restorative justice is a process to involve, to the extent possible, those who have a stake in a
specific offense and to collectively identify and address harms, needs, and obligations, in order
to heal and put things as right as possible (Zehr, 1990). The victims, the offenders, and affected
communities (the families of victims and offenders) are the primary stakeholders (Braithwaite,
1999). The core values of restorative justice can be framed into a four step process: (1)
Acknowledging the wrong (2)Sharing and understanding the harmful effects; (3) agreement on
the terms of reparation; and (4) reaching an understanding about the future (McCold, 2000) .

There could be multiple ways in which the above-discussed restorative justice system can be
implemented. After studying various forms of restorative justice, the author has attempted to
suggest a form of restorative justice that would be most suitable for hate crimes under Indian
Criminal Justice System.

PART III

Circle Sentencing: Restorative Justice with Traditional Roots

Society’s involvement to resolve a conflict and correct a wrong is well embedded in Hindu
culture for ages. Kautilya’s Arthasasthra was a strong campaigner of community service as a
substitute to institutional punishment. It advocated that community service not only redeems the
offender it also draws sympathy and appreciation for the offender from the society, paving way
for better resocialization and quicker reformation (Ravi, 2017). Furthermore, dispute resolution
in rural traditional India has been very diverse and multi-level. Family and kingship formed the
first level of dispute settlement, Caste Panchayat – second level and Infromal Panchayat – third
level (Jaamdar, 2017). Which level of dispute settlement would be invoked was dependent on the
kind of dispute and parties involved. However, one thing that was common among all the levels
was the deep involvement of the concerned parties i.e the victim, the offender and the
community (Ravi, 2017). All the concerned parties were patiently heard and an amicable
settlement was brought about (Ravi, 2017). The offenders were directed to compensate the
victim or render community service in proportion to the damage or injury caused (Ravi, 2017).
These correctional measures were more or less influenced by Arthasashtra (Jaamdar, 2017).
However, this judicial system also suffered from caste based discriminations which prescribed
unequal punishment for equal crimes as per the status of the offender in the society (Jaamdar,
2017). British rulers were unimpressed of these discriminatory practices (Macaulay, 1843) and
instead of eradicating these discriminatory practices they revamped the whole judicial system by
introducing court room trials and formalizing the whole process. However, time has proven that
western nations including United Kingdom have themselves shifted to restorative justice (Dhami,
2012). Under the Indian Criminal Justice system, steps have been taken to resurrect the
traditional practices by introducing Lok Adalats, Nyaya Panchayat and Gram Nyayalay, however
none of it completely grips the concept of restorative justice especially in respect to hate crimes.
Hence, what is required is implementation of a restorative approach which is designed to address
the special socio-psychological requirements of all the parties involved in hate crimes.

Circle sentencing a genesis of North American aboriginal peoples’ “talking circle” could prove
to an efficient model of restorative justice to deal with hate crimes. In United States, the
restorative community has particularly emphasized on circle sentencing which has evolved since
1990’s (McCold, 2000) as a potent method for returning strength and dignity to the victim,
providing offender an opportunity to look inward for the root cause of his action, and focusing
on repairing the harm caused to the society instead of punishing the offender (Sapir, 2007).
However, it is different from other globally used restorative justice mediation programs because
it actively involves the community in the healing process (Sapir, 2007).

The outlook, participation, procedure and outcome of a sentencing circle relies on plenty of
factors that vary from case to case, like the kind of crime in question, the gravity of offence,
extent of community involvement and expected outcome of the process. Under the next sub-head
the author has proposed a structure of sentencing circle that might be best suited for hate crimes,
where masses target people of a particular social identity and also carry out destruction of the
property of the targeted community’s neighborhood like religious places, shops, schools etc. For
the sake of clarity the author will take up the example of a riots and explain how the sentencing
circle can be used to restore the wounded society.
Proposed Structure
Police arrested three person A, B& C for brutally beating up a person M of a particular Religion
on the pretext of having different political, nationalistic and religious beliefs. In a video clipping
they can be seen using iron rods and bricks to beat up M. Later they also burned some vehicles,
vandalized a religious place, damaged school property. Police charged them under Sec. 153A
IPC – Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth,
residence, language etc., Sec. 148 IPC– Rioting, armed with deadly weapon (punishment
extending to three years or fine or both), Sec. 295 IPC – Damage a place of worship (punishment
extending to two years or fine or both) and Sec. 426 IPC– Mischief (punishment for three
months or fine or both). If A, B & C plead guilty instead of getting trapped in the hardship of
trial, revision and multiple appeals, they along with their family members shall be sent to
participate in a sentencing circle. Victim M, his family members, some people of both the
communities who witnessed the beating, defiling of place of worship and damage of property
and few religious heads of both the religion will also be invited. Sentencing circle is conducted
in partnership with the criminal justice system - to smoothen the process and develop consensus
on an appropriate sentencing plan that addresses the concerns of all the interested parties.
Accordingly, a judge or senior judicial officer will be appointed as a mediator, Counsel for the
Offenders and victim will also be present to facilitate their clients and some media personals can
also be allowed to report the proceeds and outcomes. First, the mediator will meet the offenders,
victim and other concerned parties separately to explain them the overall goal of the process and
get them thinking about their role in the process. Then the mediator will inform all the
participants of the time and location for holding the circle.

All the attendees will sit in two circles with no table, the inner circle will be reserved for the
offenders and the victim, their families and representatives from the court (McCold, 2000). The
outer circle will comprise of the remaining participants. The intent behind promoting a circle is
to convey that all the participants are equal and all have a positive contribution to make in the
process. (Smith 2003). The mediator will initiate the process by speaking to the group about the
goals of the process and how to achieve. It is the duty of the mediator to ensure that only one
speaker speaks at a time. The speakers are encouraged to express things in a form of story-
telling. Any degree of hate crime whether major or minor stir up a deep feeling of anger, hate
and fear. From the offenders angle such crimes are ignited by ignorance, bias and stereotype
harbored by them. Therefore, the only way to restore is to cure the ignorance and negative
emotions that the parties would have nurtured against each-other (Sapir, 2007). In this regard the
role of story-telling becomes very crucial, it will allow a person to speak informally, let out raw
emotions and draw from him/her life experiences, unlike the Q&A followed in a criminal trial.
Through this process the parties will delve deep into the underlying causes of the offence and
will seek to come back on amicable terms. Moreover, personal narratives reveal commonalities
between people, giving them an opportunity to connect more intimately.

The circle will witness multiple rounds of dialogue, each round having a different agenda. In the
first round the participants will introduce themselves, explain why they are attending the circle
and review the particular facts of the case. Then in the subsequent rounds the victim M, his
family and the community member will be given an opportunity to express how they have been
affected by the event. Under this the most important testimony is of the victim, who might
observe psychological healing when given an opportunity to share the traumatic experience in
presence of a supportive audience (Gobodo-Madikizela, 2002). For a victim to reclaim dignity,
respect and a sense of control, he/she needs to feel a sense of continuity with the community
(Gobodo-Madikizela, 2002). Here the testimonies of the family members’ and the communities’
will give the victim the sense of inclusiveness and will also provide a deeper insight into the
expanded socio-psychological impact of the hate crime on the society. Next, the offenders A, B
& C will be given a chance to discuss the circumstances that led to the crime, the beliefs,
motivations, how they felt immediately after committing the crime and how are they feeling
now. Their family and other community members will describe their virtues and importance in
their lives (Nicholl, 1999). The statements of the victim, community members, family members
and an opportunity to reflect upon self by recalling the event might eventually lead to extraction
of remorse from offenders. Extraction of remorse is crucial from two aspects a) to provide
closure to the victim b) to initiate the reformation of the offenders.

Closure to the Victim – Remorse stems from a potential for empathy (Gould, 1975). Unlike guilt
where there are measures to justify the acts, remorse is seen in offenders when they name the
deed, owns up the responsibility without rationalization, clarifies what was involved and shows
regret. This will allow the victim to process his emotions about the trauma (Gobodo-Madikizela,
2002). Remorse evokes forgiveness if the victim is able to see the offenders’ woundedness
through offenders’ regret for the crime, their impossible urge to restore the loss incurred by them
and their self-reflective thoughts and emotions (Gobodo-Madikizela, 2002).

Initiate the reformation of offenders – Feeling of remorse is a stepping stone for transformation.
If the offenders exhibit the above-mentioned feelings they will automatically looking at things
from a different lens. The change of vision will gradually push to embrace a different lifestyle
and have more inclusive beliefs (Gobodo-Madikizela, 2002).

Accordingly, multiple rounds will take place until the group agrees to a suitable outcome. The
primary objective of the outcome is to understand what happened, why it happened, its impact on
the victim and the community and what punishment will be suitable (Cunliffe and Cameron,
2007). Under the sentencing circle, there will always remain a possibility that the offender(s) are
participating to escape the tedious court proceedings and the imprisonment. Hence, the
participants will hold the discretionary power of sending the offender(s) back to the traditional
court system if they reasonably conclude that the offender(s) are not incorporating (skipping the
circles, coming late to the circles, showing disrespect towards the participants, unwillingness to
actively indulge in the process, etc.) or are not showing any feeling of remorse.

Before moving on the determination of punishment it is critical to point out that the offenders
sent to sentencing circle have to be classified in two general categories, (1) first time offenders
who are found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or life
imprisonment (2) Repeated offenders found guilty of offence not punishable with death or life
imprisonment. The demarcation is done on the grounds of prevailing criminal jurisprudence of
India, the first category offenders are already considered eligible for probation under Probation
of offenders Act i.e. they are deemed suitable for reformation and protection from recidivism.
Hence they shall be reintegrated into the society with directions to perform reformatory
community service. The second category has been included more from the point of view of
healing victims and community. Since it involves recidivists (a convicted criminal who
reoffends), it is more suitable to punish them with a combination of imprisonment and
community service. Imprisonment might have deterrence effect and community service would
compel them to restore the society that was distorted by their deeds.

While determining what kind of community service is to be given to offenders, two things are to
be kept in mind, 1) that such kind of service should be allotted which might help them to
transform and restrict them from carrying such kind of damage again for e.g. in the cases of
communal violence the offenders can be directed to participate in spiritual service of opposite
religion to understand their belief, they can also be directed to work in the relief camps made for
the displaced victims. A congenial interaction with victims might abolish offenders’ bias and
help them to adopt fraternity. 2) A skill acquiring service should be recommended; a means of
livelihood would bring bigger purpose in their lives and would dissuade them from again
indulging in such acts which might hinder their source of income.

The community would have to come up with innovative services on cases to case basis, which
could effectively integrate both the aforementioned objectives for e.g. Job of a chef in a relief
camp.

Accordingly, the whole process will conclude with the mediator (judge/senior judicial authority)
passing the order of punishment and the amount of compensation that shall be given to the
victim. After attending the whole the process the mediator would become well equipped to grant
appropriate compensation. Furthermore, the participants will have to gather for a few subsequent
sentencing circles spread over weeks following the sentence. They will evaluate offenders’
personal progress and the compliance of their order. If they conclude that there are reports of
grave misconduct and/or willful omission, they may send the offender(s) back to the court for
more traditional sentence.

To have an honest shot at the above explained process, implementation of a legislation would be
required that will formalize and fine tune the functioning of the circle. Currently, the author has
suggested the circle only for the offenders that plead guilty, however, if positive results are seen
it can further be extended to the offenders that are convicted by the court. Such extension is also
necessary from the angle that when influential and powerful people are arrested for such crimes
they rarely plead guilty but after conviction if they are bought to the circle, the process would
have manifold effects.
 Conclusion
At present, the Indian criminal justice system is highly retributive; although the concept of
reform, reparation and restitution has slipped into it in the form of Probation, open prisons,
victim compensation, however, the use of these alternatives has been very inconsistent.
Furthermore, these are very general measures that do not work in harmony to restore a society.
Sentencing circle has the potential to perform the function of reformation, reparation, deterrence
and rehabilitation simultaneously.

The 2020 Delhi riot has again the torn the delicate social fabric of India. For 70 years the
Republic of India has been a victim of reoccurring incidents of hate crimes be it on the basis of
caste, religion, sexuality etc. Yet, there hardly have been any changes in the manner in which we
deal with them. Implementation of sentencing circle might seem as an extreme drift from the
traditional measures but desperate times need desperate measures. In a wider sense, this shift
from institutional to social justice might fail or prove to be ineffective due to plenty to unknown
reasons but its implementation in developing countries and claimed socio- psychological benefits
makes it worth a shot. Furthermore, sentencing circles would provide an opportunity to
meticulously study the roots causes hate crimes and clinically exterminate them.
 REFERENCES

1) Arvind. A (2013). ‘Delhi’s petty criminals work off their debt to society as courts catch
on to community service’, ‘Mail Online India’, 7 October [Online]. Available at:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2447171/Delhis-petty-
criminals-work-debt-society-courts-catch-community-service.html/ (Accessed: 22 March
2020)

2) Bajpai, G.S. (2019). ‘Justice that heals’,TheIndianExpress, 15 June[online]. Available at:

https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/justice-that-heals-pocso-act-5781491/ (
Accessed: 1 June 2020)

3) Berill, K.T. (1992). ‘Anti-Gay Violence and Victimization in the United States: An
Overview’ in Herek, G. M., & Berrill, K. T. (Eds.).Hate crimes. Confronting violence
against lesbians and gay men. CA: Sage Publications, pp. 19-41.

4) Braithwaite, J. (1999) ‘Restorative Justice: Assessing Optimistic and Pessimistic

Account, Crime and Justice’, The University of Chicago Press, 25, p1-127.

5) Chandra, B.T. (2020). ‘Rioting Students asked to Clean up, literally!’, The Hindu, 10
February [Online]. Available at: https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Madurai/rioting-
students-asked-to-clean-up-literally/article30785697.ece (Accessed: 2 June 2020)

6) Craig, K.M. (2002) ‘Examining hate-motivated aggression A review of the social

psychological literature on hate crimes as a distinct form of aggression’, Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 7(1), p85 – 101.

7) Cunliffe, E. & Cameron, A. (2007) ‘Writing the Circle: Judicially Convened Sentencing
Circles and the Textual Organization of Criminal Justice’, CJWL 19, p1-35.

8) Dhami, M. K. (2012) ‘Offer and acceptance of apology in victim-offender mediation’,

Critical Criminology, 20(1), p45–60.

9) Gobodo-Madikizela, P. (2002) ‘Remorse, Forgiveness, and Rehumanization: Stories

from South Africa’, Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 42(1), p7–32.
10) Gould, R. (1972). Child studies through fantasy: Cognitive affective patterns in
development. New York: Quadrangle.
11) Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., Cogan, J. C., & Glunt, E. K. (1997) ‘Hate crime victimization
among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults: prevalence, psychological correlates, and
methodological issues’, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12(2), p195 – 215.

12) Jaamdar, S.M. (2017) ‘Restorative justice in India: Old and New’ in Thilagarah, R., &
Liu, R. (Ed.) Restorative justice in India: Traditional Practice and Contemporary
Applications. Springer pp.41-76.
13) Levin, J. & Mcdevitt, J. (1993) Hate Crimes: The Rising Tide of Bigotry and Bloodshed.
New York, Plenum.

14) Macaulay, T.B. 1900 (1843). Miscellaneous writings and speeches. London: Longmans.

15) McCold, P. (2000).Overview of Mediation, Conferencing and Circles [paper

presentation]. Tenth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and the Treatment
of Offenders, 10-17 April [Online] Available at:
http://www.restorativejustice.org/resources/docs/mccold/view. [Accessed: 10 June 2020]

16) Nicholl, C.G. (1999). Community Policing, Community Justice, and Restorative Justice:
Exploring the Links for the Delivery of a Balanced Approach to Public Safety [Online].
U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Available
at: http:// www.cops.usdoj.gov/mime/open.pdf?Item=290 (Accessed: 27 March 2020).

17) Noelle, M. (2002). ‘The ripple effect of the Matthew Shepard murder: Impact on the
assumptive worlds of members of the targeted group’. American Behavioral
Scientist, 46, p27-50.

18) Ravi, N. (2017) ‘Restorative Justice in the Indian Context: Some views and Thoughts on
the Frame work and Process’ in Thilagarah, R., & Liu, J., (Ed.), Restorative justice in
India: Traditional Practice and Contemporary Applications. Springer, pp. 89-97.

19) Sapir, B. (2007) ‘Healing fractured community: The use of community sentencing circles
in response to hate crimes’, Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, 9(1), 207-236 .

20) Smith, J. (2003) ‘Peacemaking circles: The original dispute resolution of aboriginal
people emerges as the new alternative dispute resolution process’, Hamline Journal of
Public Law & Policy, 24(2), p329-368.
21) Umbreit. .M, Vos. B, Coatesm. R, & Lightfoot. E.(2005) ‘Restorative Justice in Action:
Restorative Justice in the Twenty-First Century: A Social Movement Full of
Opportunities and Pitfalls’, MARQ. L. REV., 89(2) 251-258.
22) United States of America. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2017). Hate crimes.
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/hate-crimes/ Accessed (28 March 2020)

23) Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T., Feather, N., Platow, M. (2008) ‘Retributive and Restorative
Justice. Law and Human Behaviour’, 32(5), p375-389.

24) Wills G. (1975) ‘The Human sewer’, New York Review Of Books, 22 p3-8.

25) Youngs, G. A. Jr. (1986) ‘Patterns of threats and punishments in a conflict setting’,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, p541 – 546.

26) Zehr, H. (1990). Changing lenses: A new focus for crime and justice. PA: Herald Press