THE MEDIATION PROCEDURE IN THE FRAMEWORK OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN CANADA AND THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mediation is a method of resolving cases involving third parties, usually used in civil law. The use of mediation in criminal law aims to make criminals realize that their criminal act is wrong and to convince victims of the need to restore their rights. Current trends in jurisprudence show a commitment not to punitive and adversarial practices, but to restorative justice in civil cases and nonserious criminal offenses. In general, this approach is driven by several underlying goals. First, the need to reduce the burden on the courts, particularly in cases that do not require lengthy investigations and the trial itself, but which take time to comply with all procedural rules. Secondly, the widespread humanization of spheres of life of citizens requires the expansion of appropriate mechanisms for resolving conflicts between parties. The purpose of this study: to analyze the experience of introduction and use of mediation in the framework of restorative approach to justice in Canada. To conduct a comparative analysis of the history of the emergence of restorative justice in Canada and the Republic of Kazakhstan, as well as to consider the history of prototypes of mediation procedures based on Kazakh common law. As a result, to identify the current problems of the operation of mediation procedures in Kazakhstan and to propose our own ways to solve them. According to the results of the study we can conclude that the mediation procedure is a relevant method of restorative justice. Current trends in the development of criminal policy are similar to processes that have already taken place in Western legal history. In general, foreign, and domestic legislators adhere to the same goal in achieving restorative objectives and moving away from punitive and repressive methods. At the same time in Kazakhstan, despite the overall positive effects of the introduction of mediation procedures, as well as restorative justice in general, there are several problems that significantly slow down the development of conciliation procedures in criminal proceedings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".