MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The place and role of restorative justice in the modern criminal law system of Ukraine

2025· article· uk· W4416226247 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nаtaliia Petrenko

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical and Comparative Jurisprudence · 2025
Typearticle
Languageuk
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRestorative justiceTheory of criminal justicePunitive damagesEconomic JusticeInstitutionalisationCriminal justiceInstitutionDignityCriminal law

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article is devoted to a comprehensive analysis of the essence and content of restorative justice as a legal and social phenomenon that is actively developing within the modern criminal law system of Ukraine. The etymology of the term “restorative justice,” derived from the English words “restore” and “justice,” is revealed, reflecting the idea of restoring the previous state of justice and security disrupted by crime. The historical origins of the concept are traced in the works of Albert Eglash, who first identified restorative justice as an alternative to punitive and therapeutic approaches, emphasizing its restitutive character. International standards and documents of the Council of Europe and the European Union, which enshrine the key principles of restorative justice—such as voluntariness of participation, the active role of the victim, reparation of harm, resocialization of the offender, and restoration of social harmony—are highlighted.The process of institutionalization of restorative justice in Ukraine is analyzed, particularly through the implementation of pilot programs for juvenile offenders, the activities of the free legal aid system, and the adoption of the National Strategy for the Protection of Children’s Rights in the Field of Justice until 2028. It is demonstrated that the domestic model of restorative justice is being harmonized with European standards, providing for the use of mediation, family group conferences, and other forms of alternative dispute resolution. The experiences of Canada and Belgium are presented as examples of the successful integration of restorative practices into national legal systems. It is concluded that restorative justice should be considered not only as an institution enshrined in normative acts but also as a multidimensional phenomenon that unites legal, social, and psychological elements. Its implementation contributes to the humanization of criminal liability, the resocialization of offenders, the enhancement of victims’ rights protection, and the formation of a new paradigm of Ukraine’s criminal policy. Particular attention is paid to the fact that restorative justice fosters a new culture of dialogue in society and restores public trust in legal institutions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.012
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalytical and Comparative JurisprudenceSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207