Getting Past the Gatekeepers: The Reception of Restorative Justice in the Nova Scotian Criminal Justice System
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This paper draws upon twelve years of multi-dimensional research and focuses on the reception of restorative justice in the criminal justice system in Nova Scotia. The paper traces the evolution of the restorative justice social movement, examining the launching and take-off phases, the impact on the police gate-keeping role, the receptivity and use of restorative justice by other criminal justice system professionals, its current level of institutionalization in the criminal justice system, and its future prospects.Cet article s'inspire de douze annees de recherche multidimensionnelle et traite plus particulierement de la reception accordee a la justice reparatrice dans le systeme de justice penale en Nouvelle-Ecosse. Il suit l'evolution du mouvement social en faveur de la justice reparatrice, examine les phases de son lancement et de son demarrage ainsi que son impact sur le role de repression de la police, la receptivite et l'utilisation de la justice reparatrice par d'autres professionnels du systeme de justice penale, son niveau d'institutionnalisation actuel dans le systeme de justice penale et ses perspectives pour l'avenir.IntroductionI. The gatekeeper roleII. Restorative justice: the launching yearsIII. Initial criminal justice system receptivity: the wallIV. Criminal justice system receptivity at the restorative justice take-off stageV. Restorative justice evolution in the Nova Scotia criminal justice system: referrals and offences referredVI. Restorative justice's evolution in the criminal justice system: institutionalizationVII. Current criminal justice system perspectivesConclusionIntroductionThe Nova Scotia Restorative Justice Program (NSRJ) came into being in 1999-2000 as a result of effective moral entrepreneurship,1 stimulated by restorative justice-related initiatives elsewhere, and after almost two years of discussion and planning among provincial leaders in policing, prosecution, judiciary, and corrections.2 It is regarded as one of the best criminal justice system-initiated restorative justice programs in Canada. The NSRJ program was set up to be applicable at all levels of the criminal justice system, with restorative justice referrals possible at four entry points, namely: pre-charge, post-charge, post-conviction, and postsentencing.3 On paper at least, restorative justice could apply to all offences and offenders, beginning with youths and subsequently being expanded to include adults. Its strengths organizationally are many: provincewide programming; secure, substantial, long-term governmental funding generous for a small so-called have-not province; collaboration with local non-profit agencies who deliver the service while the provincial NSRJ management provides coordination, protocols and training; and complete funding for the agencies' full-time staff. It has also partnered with and contributed significantly to the success of the province-wide Aboriginal restorative justice program.4 Its impact, measured in terms of conventional criminal justice system evaluation concerns, has been impressive: less recidivism than in similar, court processed cases; high levels of satisfaction among all categories of participants in the restorative justice sessions (offenders, victims, supporters, police attendees and others); and diversion of roughly thirty-three per cent of all cases of youth arrest from the court processing stream.5 The NSRJ program has evolved over the past decade-partly as a result of its effective institutionalization in the Nova Scotian criminal justice system and partly as a result of federal legislation and policies (e.g., the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJAJ and subsequent court interpretations). Now restorative justice referrals are as likely to come from crown prosecutors as from the police, where the anticipated extension of restorative justice to adults is underway throughout Nova Scotia, and where its success has stimulated restorative justice/restorative practices initiatives in provincial prisons and beyond the criminal justice system in schools' human rights cases and other areas of social life. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».