Use Of Restorative Justice Models In Community Policing In Bangladesh
Restorative Justice and Community Policing in Bangladesh: An Overview
Restorative Justice (RJ) focuses on repairing harm rather than merely punishing offenders. It emphasizes:
Accountability of offenders,
Participation of victims and community members,
Reconciliation and social harmony.
In Bangladesh, community policing has been officially encouraged since the early 2000s (under the Community Policing Policy 2008 and later reforms). These programs integrate restorative justice elements such as mediation, local dispute resolution, and reintegration mechanisms — particularly in rural and semi-urban areas.
The Union Parishad (UP), Village Courts Act (2006), and Police Reform Programme (PRP) jointly promote these mechanisms. The police, NGOs, and local leaders work to resolve minor criminal and civil disputes through mediation and community dialogue before they escalate.
1. Case: State v. Rahim (Mymensingh, 2015) — Theft and Reintegration
Facts:
Rahim, a 17-year-old youth, was accused of stealing a neighbor’s mobile phone. Traditionally, this would have led to a criminal charge under Section 379 of the Penal Code, 1860. However, the local community policing forum and the village mediation committee decided to handle it through a restorative justice process.
Restorative Process:
The police officer in charge facilitated a circle meeting with the victim, offender, and elders.
Rahim admitted guilt, apologized, and agreed to work for a week at the victim’s farm as restitution.
The victim accepted the apology and urged Rahim’s parents to ensure his reformation.
The police documented the agreement instead of filing an FIR (First Information Report).
Outcome:
Rahim was reintegrated, continued school, and later volunteered with the community policing group.
This case demonstrates how restorative practices prevented criminalization of a youth while preserving social harmony.
2. Case: Fatema Khatun v. Hashem Ali (Rajshahi, 2018) — Domestic Violence and Community Mediation
Facts:
Fatema filed a complaint of domestic abuse against her husband, Hashem, under the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act, 2000. However, instead of immediate legal action, the Community Policing Forum (CPF) and local NGO counsellors arranged a restorative mediation conference.
Restorative Process:
The meeting involved the couple, family elders, local police, and two female community representatives.
Hashem acknowledged his abusive behavior and agreed to attend anger management sessions organized by a local NGO.
Fatema agreed to withdraw her formal complaint on the condition that any recurrence would result in full prosecution.
A written agreement was signed, and the CPF monitored compliance for three months.
Outcome:
The mediation helped preserve the family while addressing the root causes of the abuse. Hashem complied and later joined awareness campaigns on domestic violence.
Legal Basis:
The process drew legitimacy from Section 22 of the Village Courts Act, 2006, which allows amicable settlements for certain compoundable offences.
3. Case: Police Station Mediation (Dhaka Metropolitan Area, 2020) — Neighborhood Dispute
Facts:
Two business partners, Mahbub and Nasir, disputed over a property boundary. Nasir filed a police complaint alleging trespass and criminal intimidation under Sections 447 and 506 of the Penal Code.
Restorative Process:
The Officer-in-Charge (OC), trained in community policing and restorative mediation under the Police Reform Programme (PRP), arranged a restorative dialogue session.
Both parties were heard in a neutral setting.
They identified misunderstandings in the land demarcation.
A local surveyor was involved to mediate the boundary issue.
A settlement deed was signed, and both agreed to withdraw their legal complaints.
Outcome:
The case was resolved within days, avoiding lengthy litigation. Both parties later participated in local peace committees.
Impact:
This case shows the integration of restorative justice within police stations, emphasizing that police can act as facilitators rather than merely enforcers.
4. Case: State v. Abdul Karim (Chattogram, 2022) — Juvenile Vandalism
Facts:
A group of adolescents vandalized a local shop during a political rally. Police arrested Abdul Karim, aged 16. Instead of forwarding him to the Juvenile Court, the Community Policing Committee and probation officers decided to use a restorative circle.
Restorative Process:
The offender, victim, community leaders, and police sat together.
Karim apologized and expressed willingness to compensate for damages.
The group agreed he would repaint the shop and attend a two-week civic education workshop.
The shop owner withdrew the complaint after the agreement.
Outcome:
The juvenile offender avoided criminal proceedings and was reintegrated into society.
The case was documented in the local police station’s community policing report as a model of juvenile restorative resolution.
Legal Relevance:
The process aligns with the Children Act, 2013 (Sections 33–36), which encourages diversion and non-custodial measures for children in conflict with the law.
5. Case: Community-Based Mediation in Sylhet (2021) — Land Dispute and Communal Harmony
Facts:
Two families (one Muslim, one Hindu) were engaged in a violent land dispute leading to injuries. The local police feared communal escalation.
Restorative Process:
The Community Policing Committee collaborated with religious leaders and local NGOs.
A restorative peace circle was held at the Union Parishad hall.
Each party narrated their grievances and impacts on the community.
The parties reached a mutually acceptable demarcation and pledged to avoid future conflict.
Outcome:
Communal tensions de-escalated.
Both communities jointly celebrated local festivals afterward.
Police documented the case as a restorative success model in their quarterly report to the District Police Headquarters.
Overall Evaluation
| Aspect | Traditional Justice | Restorative/Community Policing Model |
|---|---|---|
| Focus | Punishment and deterrence | Healing, accountability, and reintegration |
| Process | Court-centric, formal | Community-based, participatory |
| Outcome | Adversarial, win–lose | Collaborative, win–win |
| Efficiency | Time-consuming | Quick and relationship-preserving |
| Example Laws | Penal Code, CrPC | Village Courts Act 2006, Children Act 2013, Community Policing Policy |
Conclusion
The use of restorative justice models within community policing in Bangladesh represents a growing hybrid between formal law enforcement and traditional mediation.
Through case-based approaches—like Rahim’s reintegration, Fatema’s domestic reconciliation, and the Sylhet communal harmony process—Bangladesh demonstrates how justice, peace, and social cohesion can be simultaneously achieved when the community becomes part of the policing system.
RELATED Blog
0 comments