Emotional Dynamics in Youth Justice Committees: Exploring Victim Experiences in Restorative Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study examines victim experiences in Youth Justice Committees (YJCs), a program model of restorative justice. Legislated under the Canadian Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) (2003), YJCs provide an opportunity for victims to have a voice in the criminal justice process and encourage young persons to acknowledge and repair the harm caused. While victims are included in youth justice legislation, there is comparatively limited empirical research to account for what victim participation looks like in practice or how victims assess their experiences in YJCs. Furthermore, there has been little research that accounts for how interactional dynamics during YJCs impact victim outcomes. To address these gaps in the literature, I draw from the sociology of emotions and foreground the role of apology-forgiveness to provide a conceptual framework to understand the role of emotion for victims in restorative justice. Data collection occurred across four program sites in Ontario and consisted of 23 interviews with victims and program coordinators, as well as two observations of YJCs. Findings suggest that YJCs are well positioned to address the needs presented by victims following harm; however, victim participation in YJCs is relatively uncommon. Furthermore, while victims are motivated to participate in YJCs to receive symbolic restitution, not all victims receive an apology, or view the apology provided as sincere. The remedial work involved in delivering an effective apology reflect victim considerations such as acceptance of responsibility, expressions of remorse, and efforts to repair the harm. I show how perceptions of apology sincerity impact emergent outcomes along dimensions of shared morality, emotional energy, and forgiveness. Lastly, I present three types of conference processes to demonstrate how preparation, communicative competence, and the presence of parents or guardians, shape conference outcomes. Overall, my findings contribute to a more robust understanding of how restorative justice works for victims, while considering important constraints that reflect the operationalization of restorative justice in the youth criminal justice system.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".