Restorative Justice and Gendered Violence? From Vaguely Hostile Skeptic to Cautious Convert: Why Feminists Should Critically Engage with Restorative Approaches to Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More effective, expansive, creative, victim-centred, and victim-sensitive legal remedies for crimes of gendered violence are urgently needed. This does not mean that we should abandon efforts at reform within the traditional criminal justice system, but it does mean that surely we can seek more radical innovations both within and without. Restorative justice is one such promising approach which warrants critical engagement and more importantly, requires input from feminists working to end violence against women, whose expertise is essential to the project of developing effective alternative responses. Obviously the many important criticisms raised in the scholarly literature on restorative justice for cases of gendered violence must be satisfactorily addressed in any development or adaptation of a restorative justice approach for cases of gendered violence. Appropriate restorative justice models for violence against women must begin from a position of being victim-centred, which is also essential to counteract the embedded offender focused orientation of the traditional criminal justice system. In light of the severe and entrenched deficiencies in the traditional criminal justice system processing of crimes of gendered violence, and because so many of these crimes are filtered out of the criminal justice system, my cautious argument is that in some cases it may be appropriate and even preferable for victims to pursue an appropriately designed restorative justice remedy, or at least, for women harmed by gendered violence to have this option available. The paper concludes with some key principles and recommended directions for further engagement, aiming at developing more sophisticated and gender sensitive remedies for the harms of gendered violence.
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 | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.081 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".