MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3203919800

Restorativna pravda: novi oblik gledanja i reakcije na kriminalitet (Restorative Justice: New Way of Perceiving and Responding to Crime)

2011· article· sh· W3203919800 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nedžad Smailagić

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languagesh
FieldMedicine
TopicPatient Dignity and Privacy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTheologyHumanitiesCroatianPolitical sciencePhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicPatient Dignity and PrivacyFrench-language works237,207