RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN UKRAINE: A GRASSROOTS APPROACH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modernity and thus modern society have often been portrayed as a clash between two conflicting – to some scholars even mutually exclusive – principles, those of liberty and discipline, or subject and reason (see for more details Кутуєв, 2016 Кутуєв П. В. Трансформації модерну: інституції, ідеї, ідеології : монографія / П. В. Кутуєв. – Херсон: Видавничий дім «Гельветика», 2016. – 516 с.). Modernity has always been a space of a conflict and struggle for recognition among many other things. Although the notion of social progress and the rising levels of humanity are among the most contested issues in the social sciences, we have legitimate grounds to claim that there is at least a tendency towards greater leniency in human societies. Replacing justice based on “tit-for-tat” principle with more humane approaches is a significant step forward for human society. Our treatment of modernity stresses its multiple forms – we are inspired here by the idea of multiple modernities Samuel Eisenstadt and his associates – as well uneven and combined development within broader framework of societal modernization. Given contested and conflicting nature of modernity, the progress of modernization is neither linear, nor guaranteed. It’s rather a step forward and often two steps backward, or zigzag path at best. Modernity unleashed unprecedented creative forces in terms of state capacity, technologies, generation and dissemination of ideas. At the same time these breakthroughs of modernity have often been employed for purposes of destruction, invasion / colonialism, exploitation, ethnic cleansing / genocide and world wars. The 20th century had seen mass repressions and incarceration of enormous scale. After “the Leninist extinction” (Ken Jowitt) Ukraine has struggled to transform itself into a market democracy with a rule of law. Reforming / modernization of the criminal justice system is an essential element of the overall process of modernization. Restorative justice is a burgeoning field of ideas, policies and practices. Thus, it’s of critical importance to incorporate the best practices of restorative justice into Ukraine’s criminal justice system to make it more humane and efficient. To do so, the interaction between the state institutions and civil society organizations is crucial. Therefore in this paper we are discussing information provided by experts and civil society activists involved onto inculcation of the restorative justice in Ukraine. The article examines restorative justice – a modern alternative approach to conflict resolution, aimed at restoring justice and reconciling the needs of the victim, the offender and society as a whole. The main causes (factors) of the emergence and development of restorative justice are identified, the system of values underlying restorative justice is determined. This form of justice requires community participation to be successful, an element of justice sadly lacking in the Ukrainian criminal justice system. For advocates of restorative justice, this alternative approach is far more demanding of offenders since they must acknowledge all the ways their crime affected others and become fully accountable for their actions by confronting the victim in a more intensely intimate setting where they can’t hide from their shame and guilt and must face their victims in front of others who they know, respect and love in the community. By giving offenders a chance to be ashamed of their actions, and to offer an honest, remorseful apology, they are also given a chance at rebirth, by allowing them to be truly accountable and responsible, by making amends to those around them – a lesson in humility that is far more likely to sink in, in the form of meaningful actions to repair the relationships they’ve broken, and then to be healed by the experience. Restorative justice is a global movement that represents an entirely different way of thinking about justice, first emerging from indigenous traditions such as in the Maori tribes of New Zealand and later Native American traditions, to the Truth & Reconciliation Commissions of South Africa, Ghana and Rwanda following genocides, and still later in such far-flung places as Canada, the U.S. and Great Britain. In all its forms, the central feature is, first, the identification of a criminal incident, followed by consultation with a mediator or other official who meets with both the victim and offender to determine if a restorative justice session is appropriate and voluntarily desired by both parties The authors emphasize the need for further implementation of restorative justice programs in Ukraine.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".