Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently Korean juvenile justice systems are managed and processed by the prosecutors and juvenile courts. Therefore, most juvenile offenders have to go through formal prosecution and judicial processes in the courts even though they had committed misdemeanors. This complex and long juvenile justice procedures may cause the negative ‘labeling effects’ and could reduce the opportunities of juvenile offenders to be reintegrated into the members of sound society. Thus, the current juvenile justice systems may contribute on the increases of recidivism. With relation to the juvenile justice system, several other countries already have taken the philosophy of restorative justice to reduce the negative labeling effects. Especially, they have considered the usages of police discretion as the measures to implement restorative justice because the police stage is the initiation of the formal juvenile justice system. This study focuses on the introduction of the Canadian Extrajudicial Measures as an example of the restorative juvenile justice policy in the stage of police. Based on the examination of Canadian system, this study proposes the several recommendations. First, the development of Korean style of restorative juvenile justice system by the implementation of restorative justice in the actual processes. Second, allowing of police discretion in the juvenile justice procedures. For the implementation of police extrajudicial measures, the police should have the authority of investigation on crimes and the authority to close the investigation. Third, from the legislative point of view, the current policy of “deferred indictment conditioned on judicious guidance” should be abolished because there is no proper legal basis for that policy. Instead, the extrajudicial measures should be allowed to both prosecutors and the police. Forth, the establishment of the standard to decide which offenses should be dealt with extrajudicial measures. Additionally, the legal basis and the internal control procedure should be prepared for the implementation of this measure.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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".