Quiet Contributions: Re-Examining the Benefits of a Restorative Approach to Sentencing in the Aboriginal Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Restorative justice challenges the traditional outcomes and processes of the criminal justice system. While as a unified theory of punishment restorative justice is notably problematic, elements of it have been incorporated within sentencing regimes around the world. Responding to increasing incarceration rates and disproportionate Aboriginal incarceration rates and in articulating the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing, Parliament included principles of restorative justice, thanks in part to a belief in its particular application to Aboriginal offenders. The Canadian approach to restorative justice is focused entirely on securing non-custodial outcomes. However, other principles of sentencing, Canadian appellate jurisprudence, further legislative amendment, and the growth of penal populism demonstrate that the Canadian sentencing regime, taken as a whole, precludes this very goal. The author demonstrates that the statutory adoption of restorative justice through the Criminal Code has not had its intended effect: Aboriginal offenders are just as likely to face a term in custody as they were prior to the 1996 amendments. That said, there remains a role for restorative justice. The author argues for a shift to restorative processes. This shift would allow for a continued commitment to restorative justice while alleviating the obstacles associated with an outcome-centered approach. Importantly, it reflects the recognition that the Aboriginal offender can benefit from actively participating in the determination of how best to address his offending. Finally, this approach recognizes that there is a disconnect between the criminal justice system and traditional Aboriginal justice, and reflects factors shown to increase voluntary compliance with the law.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".