Victims' Perspectives on Restorative Justice: How Much Involvement Are Victims Looking For?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is considerable debate among both academics and professionals about whether restorative justice offers victims a better deal than the traditional criminal justice system. Advocates of restorative justice argue that restorative justice, which focuses on reparation of the harm suffered by the victim, is undoubtedly better equipped to respond to victims' needs than contemporary criminal justice systems. Failure by victims' advocates to embrace restorative justice has been criticised as a disservice to victims. However, victims' rights advocates are wary of the possibility that restorative justice programs are insensitive to the needs of crime victims and that they will place an additional burden on victims. Who is right? Do victims want to participate in the criminal justice process and if so, how? As Fattah (2001) suggests, the only way to resolve this debate is to ask crime victims. In this paper we present data from a study of victims of crime who were invited to participate in victim—offender mediation. In addition, procedural justice theory, which offers a theoretical framework for understanding the role that victims prefer to play in criminal justice procedures, will be presented. The paper closes with recommendations for a victim-oriented approach to criminal 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 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 | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| 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".