An international perspective of restorative justice practices and research outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Restorative justice is not a new concept as it was the dominant criminal justice model in ancient Greek, Roman and Arab civilisations as well as indigenous communities in South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Western countries re-discovered restorative justice in the mid 1970s and by the end of the 1990s most Western countries had legalised restorative justice programmes. South African legislation also makes provision for restorative justice processes. Restorative justice is a victim-centered response to crime that provides opportunities for those most directly affected by crime — the victim, the offender, their families, and representatives of the community — to be directly involved in responding to the harm caused by the crime. It can be applied at the formal and informal level. At the formal level the criminal justice system can apply it during the pre-trial process, the pre-sentencing process, or in pre-release programmes. At the informal level it can be applied to solve a variety of community conflicts, neighbourhood conflicts, family conflicts and interstate conflicts. Most restorative justice cases are referred by magistrates, prosecutors and probation officers. Common referrals are vandalism, theft of property, car theft, burglary, shop theft, attempted homicide, assault and domestic violence and it is appropriate for males, females and young offenders. A large number of research findings across countries indicate that restorative justice is very effective and that most victims and offenders were satisfied with the outcomes of the process. Most participants indicated that they had been fairly treated and that they would again participate in a restorative justice process. The criminal justice system is criticised for being a European worldview of a retributive justice philosophy that is largely offender focussed and guided by codified laws and rules of procedure while ignoring the needs of the victim. Restorative justice is, however, also criticised for adopting the legal framework and definitions of crime and that it can put victims’ rights at risk. It is also questioned whether restorative justice empowers victims as the process rather seems to entrench them as victims. It is furthermore argued that restorative justice can widen the net of social control if it is mostly used for minor offences.
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".