Restitution & A Restorative Justice: A Call for the Expansion and Increased Use of Criminal Restitution Orders at Sentencing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter explores the restorative potential of criminal restitution. It is argued that victims of violent crime suffer disproportionate hardship, as compared to victims of property crime, because section 738 of the Criminal Code limits the quantum of criminal restitution orders to pecuniary damages that are readily ascertainable. While victims of property crime can potentially be made whole by an order of criminal restitution, victims of violent crime must pursue compensation for their pain and suffering in the civil courts. These proceedings can be costly, time consuming, and anti-therapeutic. Otherwise, claims are relegated to a patchwork system of criminal injury compensation programs. Canadian law fails victims of violent crime in the result. It also fails offenders to the extent that criminal restitution does not serve as a meaningful sentencing option, one that might even mitigate the need for a custodial sentence.
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 | 0.018 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".