RESTORATIVE JUSTICE AND CASES OF SERIOUS OFFENDING: A SOUTH AFRICAN AND CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The exact meaning, place and role of “restorative justice” (hereinafter “RJ”) in criminal matters remain largely unclear. Often, RJ is reduced to a sentencing option, an alternative to retributive justice and an approach, which cannot co-exist alongside custodial sentences. This oversimplification of the concept of RJ seems to have trickled down to the decisions of courts. Notably, although over the years the use of RJ in criminal matters has grown in its stature and impact, with countries like Canada and South Africa constituting prime examples of the few embracing this system in criminal matters, a critical analysis of the jurisprudence of both countries reveals that its application to criminal matters is shrouded with ambiguity. Most of these courts have reduced RJ to a mere sentencing option, an option that cannot rest comfortably alongside custodial sentences and an alternative to retributive justice. Nowhere is this ambiguity more eminent than in cases of serious offending. Given that custodial sentences are often deemed relevant in cases of serious offending, when RJ is oversimplified, it is often excluded from the overall criminal justice framework, making it impossible for it to co-exist alongside a retributive system of justice. Put differently, the manner in which RJ is being conceptualised is having major implication for its role in the prosecution of cases of serious offending. This article analyses case law that grapples with these issues in Canada and South Africa and on the basis of this analysis, it is argued that for RJ to have a meaningful role, especially in cases of serious offending, it should be perceived as a guiding principle that provides a foundation in the overall criminal justice process rather than a mere sentencing option, an alternative and an approach totally against custodial sentences.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".