Family conflicts are complex and are growing in scale related to several aspects, such as
psychological, behavioral, moral, cultural and economic, leading to the massification of
judicialization due to the actors involved not being able to reach a consensual resolution. This
fact also generates the possibility of other conducts arising from the absence of this consensus
with consequences, including criminal ones. This research aimed to verify the possibility of
applicability of Restorative Justice in conflicts of Family Law whether judicial or not, observing
its specificities so that the methodological approach could be applied satisfactorily. As a
methodology, qualitative empirical research with a hermeneutic focus was chosen. In the phase
of restorative justice interventions in concrete cases, the peacebuilding circle method was
applied, according to the methodology described by Pranis (2011). First, a bibliographic documentary survey was carried out on restorative justice, family conflicts, restorative
practices, projects and legislative policy. Then, the choice of cases for interventions to be
carried out, with cases of family conflict that were under the responsibility of the Nucleus of
Legal Practice (NPJ) of the Federal University of Pará (UFPA) being selected; the Court of
Justice of the State of Pará (TJPA) of Belém, through the 4th and 5th Family Courts; Permanent
Nucleus of Consensus Methods for Conflict Resolution (NUPEMEC), and the Judiciary Center
for Conflict Resolution and Citizenship (CEJUSC) of the Capital and Ananindeua, totaling 14
interventions. Which followed the following steps: pre-circle, peace-building circle and post circle, when possible. After analyzing the interventions, the results were: five fully restorative
cases; four partially restorative cases; and five non-restorative cases. Given the above, it is
observed that the resolution of family conflicts through Restorative Justice is fully possible and
even recommendable, providing the actors involved with the opportunity to reach a consensual,
humanized and democratic solution, based on dialogue and active listening , enabling a safe
environment for the discussion of difficult and painful matters that meets the needs of the
parties, generating obligations in relation to the damage caused, making them assume their
responsibilities.
|
