Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within the social movement for restorative justice, there is and always has been absolute consensus on one jurisprudential issue. This is that restorative justice processes should never exceed the upper limits on punishment enforced by the courts for the criminal offence under consideration. Retributive theorists often pretend in their writing that this is not the case, but when they do, they are unable to cite any scholarly writings, any restorative justice legislation or any training manuals of restorative justice practitioners to substantiate loose rhetoric about restorative justice being against upper limits or uncommitted to them. Moreover, the empirical experience of the courts intervening to overturn the decisions of restorative justice processes, which has now been considerable, particularly in New Zealand and Canada, has been overwhelmingly in the direction of the courts increasing the punitiveness of agreements reached between victims, offenders and other stakeholders. In New Zealand, for example, Maxwell and Morris (1993) report that whilecourts ratified conference decisions 81 per cent of the time, when they did change them, for every case where they reduced the punitiveness of the order there were eight where they increased it. Similar results have been obtained in the Restorative Resolutions project for adult offenders in Manitoba (83 per cent judicial ratification of plans, with five times as much modification by addition of requirements as modification by deletion) (Bonta et al. 1998: 16). While there were no cases where the restorative process recommended imprisonment and the court overruled this, there were many of the court overruling the process by adding prison time to the sentence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".