THE ROLE OF CRIMINAL RECONCILIATION IN ACTIVATING RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN JORDANIAN, EMIRATI, AND FRENCH LEGISLATION (AN ANALYTICAL LEGAL STUDY)

Background: The study investigates how restorative justice in France, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan is triggered by reconciliation. With an emphasis on social cohesion and justice, criminal reconciliation aims to address crime through alternative means. To address the shortcomings of conventional criminal justice, this study looks at negotiated justice in these nations. It places a strong emphasis on defending people's rights and mending the victim-offender bond. Punitive measures are subordinated to compensatory justice. Conciliatory justice has replaced traditional punitive measures in the criminal justice systems of the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, and France. Due to the ineffectiveness of traditional punitive measures for minor offences, parties are now able to settle their differences outside of the legal system. An alternative to reconciliatory justice, criminal reconciliation attempts to settle disputes amicably by addressing the repercussions of the crime, making amends, reintegrating offenders, and fostering social harmony. Methods: The study utilised descriptive, analytical-inductive, and comparative methods to analyse legal aspects of criminal reconciliation in three countries. The analytical-inductive method collected and examined data, the comparative method contrasted legal texts, and the descriptive method described the phenomenon. Results and conclusions: Jordanian, Emirati, and French legislations should establish an arbitral system for criminal reconciliation, allowing accused individuals to plead for specific crimes. Repeat offences should be addressed with legal action, and criminal reconciliation should lead to the expiration of criminal claims, including social services and therapy.