Obstacles to the Development of Restorative Justice: a Comparative Analysis of Russia, Canada and Germany
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Restorative justice (RJ), which is a concept of criminal justice focused on the needs of victims and the community affected by the criminal act rather than on the punishment of the offender, is becoming an integral part of criminal justice in many developed Western countries. Russia, however, is just taking the first steps in the development of restorative justice with the focus on mediation for juvenile delinquents. Using the theory of the (de)civilization process by N. Elias, the authors suggest that a weak state, characterized not so much by inefficient economy as by underdeveloped social institutes, could be an obstacle for a more active use of RJ in Russia. Specifically, the authors claim that corruption undermining the legitimacy of public administration, a lack of trust in law enforcement, suppression of small business and hatred towards some groups of people all strengthen punitive sentiments that contradict the principles of RJ. A comparative criminological analysis of RJ in Canada and Germany reveals the unique history of its emergence and use in these countries in comparison with Russia. As for Germany, the moments of de-civilization in this country in the first half of the 20th century and in the recent years (connected with the uncontrolled influx of migrants) are slowing down the development of RJ. The absence of any significant social upheavals in Canada could explain a strong support for RJ among the local population and a comparatively successful integration of its principles in traditional Canadian criminal justice. In conclusion, the authors debunk some myths regarding RJ, which could constrain its implementation in these countries. In particular, the authors argue, that the traditional paradigm of punishment should not be abolished, but could be supplemented by the paradigm of reconciliation and restoration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; 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".