The overloaded court system, along with the increasing recognition of the harm inflicted upon offenders by the criminal court procedure, led, in 2013, to the enactment of a new criminal-administrative procedure, termed “conditional dismissals,” which diverts minor offenses from the courts to be settled by prosecution authorities. This preliminary study examines the profile of 1750 cases of conditional dismissals concluded by district attorneys and police prosecution division between 2016 and 2018 and whether some notions of the “restorative justice” model were implemented. The findings indicate that both district attorneys and police prosecution division had initial difficulties in implementing the notion of diverting cases from the criminal court process. Over half of the cases in both agencies were for bodily injury and property offenses. There is a significant difference regarding the majority of the dismissal terms between the district attorneys and the police prosecution division. The results further indicate that 4.5% of all dismissals contained only restorative stipulations (especially in sex offenses), and one-third contained restorative stipulations along with punitive stipulations. The findings also show that the district attorneys are more inclined to use restorative terms, while the police prosecution division is more inclined to use punitive terms. The article discusses the possible explanations for these findings and the significant differences in the application of restorative practice between the police prosecution division and the district attorneys.

法院系统超负荷，再加上人们日益认识到刑事法院程序对罪犯的伤害，导致在2013年颁布了一项新的刑事行政程序，称为“有条件解雇”，将轻罪从刑事诉讼中转移出来。法院由检察机关解决。这项初步研究调查了2016年至2018年间地区检察官和警察起诉部门审结的1750例有条件解雇案件的概况，以及是否实施了“恢复性司法”模式的某些概念。调查结果表明，地区检察官和警察起诉部门在实施将案件从刑事法院程序转移出去的概念时都遇到了最初的困难。在这两个机构中，超过一半的案件涉及人身伤害和财产犯罪。地区检察官与警察起诉部门之间的大多数解雇条款存在重大差异。结果还表明，所有解雇的4.5％仅包含恢复性规定（尤其是在性犯罪中），三分之一包含恢复性规定以及惩罚性规定。调查结果还表明，地区检察官更倾向于使用恢复性用语，而警察起诉部门更倾向于使用惩罚性用语。本文讨论了这些发现的可能解释，以及警方起诉部门和地区检察官在恢复性做法的适用上的重大差异。