Restorative justice : a global overview of its functioning and effectiveness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout most of human history restorative justice was the dominant criminal justice model, as is evident from the ancient Arab, Greek and Roman civilisations, all of which required compensation for the victim. Restorative justice was also the main focus of various aboriginal communities in Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Historically, African societies also mostly focused on the victims of crime, and restitution and reconciliation was considered as crucial to redress the harm caused by crime. There has been a refocusing on restorative justice in Western countries since the early 1970s. Criminologists played a leading role in the modern revival of restorative justice by refocusing on the rights and needs of crime victims. It is also evident that South Africa is moving from a retributive to a restorative criminal justice system. It is, therefore, important to ensure that the judiciary becomes actively involved in the development of restorative justice in South Africa, in order to give effect to the government's shift from an offender-centred criminal justice system to a victim-centred restorative justice system as set out in the SA National Crime Prevention Strategy and other government reports as well as recent legal decisions and new draft legislation. This article reviews the objectives of restorative justice as well as the South African New Sentencing Framework Bill, the Child Justice Bill and the draft Sexual Offences Bill, all of which make provision for restorative justice.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".