Restorativna pravda: novi oblik gledanja i reakcije na kriminalitet (Restorative Justice: New Way of Perceiving and Responding to Crime)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Croatian Abstract: U ovom radu autor je svoju pažnju usmjerio na koncept restorativne pravde kao moguci odgovor drustva (odnosno države) u borbi protiv kriminaliteta. Zasnivajuci se na kritici klasicnog krivicnopravnog sistema zasnovanog na retribuciji, ovaj koncept – prvenstveno utemeljen na nacelu ispravljanja negativnih implikacija koje nastaju izvrsenjem krivicnog djela – doživio je svoju potpunu afirmaciju posljednjih cetrdesetak godina. Autor polazi od osnovne postavke da restorativni koncept borbe protiv kriminaliteta ne iskljucuje retributivni koncept i obratno. Analiziran je pojam restorativne pravde i definirani su osnovni pojmovi. Restorativnu pravdu promatra u dvije dimenzije, i to kao (i) alternativa tradicionalnom krivicnopravnom sistemu zasnovanom na retribuciji i (ii) kao proces, ishod ili skup nacela. Dat je presjek historijskog razvoja ovog koncepta kroz ideje zacetnika ovog koncepta u modernom smislu rijeci - Alberta Eglasha i Nilsa Christia. Prezentirana su nacela, ciljevi i mjesto restorativne pravde u savremenom konceptu borbe protiv kriminaliteta. Zasebno su analizirana nacela personalizma, popravljanja stete nastale izvrsenjem krivicnog djela, ucesca i reintegracije, kao osnovna nacela restorativne pravde. Autor razmatra modele koegzistencije restorativne pravde sa tradicionalnim retributivniom modelom. Zatim se uspoređuju retributivni i restorativni pristup i izvode glavne znacajke koncepta restorativne pravde. U petom dijelu autor skicira kritike naspram restorativne pravde u pogledu procesnih prava optuženog te međunarodnopravne standarde. English Abstract: In this paper author is focused on the concept of restorative justice as possible response of the society (i.e. the state) against the crime. Based on the criticism of the classical response by means of retributive criminal law, this concept – primarily founded on the principle of repairing negative implications caused by the criminal offence – has been fully affirmed for the last forty years. Author starts from the basic assumption that restorative concept does not exclude the retributive one and vice versa. Firstly the notion of restorative justice and other terms are defined. Author observes restorative justice in two dimensions: (i) as an alternative to traditional criminal law approach based on retribution and (ii) as process, outcome and set of principles. The second part gives a historical overview of development of this concept by presenting ideas of founders of restorative justice in modern terms: Albert Eglash and Nils Christie. In focus of the third part are the principles, goals and place of restorative justice in overall criminal justice policy. Principles of personalism, repairing the harm caused by criminal offence, participation of all parties related to the criminal offence and reintegration, are separately analysed. Author also examines modes of coexistence of restorative justice with traditional criminal law approach. In the fourth part the author compares restorative justice approach with criminal law and derives basic characteristics of restorative justice. In the fifth part the author outlines basic objections to restorative justice regarding due process rights and confronts such objections to international legal standards on restorative 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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".